What happened to Alocasiaaddict's tree post?!?!?!

I wanted to show my husband but when I clicked on the link from the newsletter, I only got a "this page was not found" message. Then I searched in the ID forum and it wasn't there anymore either. What happened?

-Julie

It was vulgar, and I removed it.

dave

I'm confused about why it was made the forum photo of the day then. And, although I certainly respect your right to remove posts when you feel they aren't appropriate, I didn't see anything vulgar about it. I think when nature accidentally mimics something else, it's got to be seen as amazing, definitely not vulgar.

Just MHO,
Julie

The forum photo of the day is automatically chosen by the system, and no human intervenes.

What was the problem with it? In the past several members have shown they are unable to contain themselves (I'm thinking of the cucumber and carrot incidents). Silliness and middle-school humour ensues. This is a family site. Besides, plant-life in pornographic positions is indeed naturally occurring on occasion, but laughing and portraying them as erotic or humorous is immature, unprofessional, disgusting and wretched.

If more understood the horrors of pornography, and it's link to child molestation, rape, and even murder, then we wouldn't ever have to worry about this.

dave

I see no connection between a plant shape resembling the human female form and child pornography. Should Gustav Klimt famous painting of a woman masturbating be censored too? Or what about Pablo Picasso's purposeful and masogynisticly warped forms of women? If the tree were in the shape of a man molesting a child, then yes it would be pornographic. But it just resembled a naked woman. I honestly don't see the leap from that to child pornography. And YES I do understand the horrors of child pornography, familial molestation of innocent children, rape, and murder. But these have nothing to do with the nude female form...which was all that tree photo resembled.

I wasn't around when the "cucumber and carrot incidences" occurred, so I honeslty have no clue what that is referring to. But again, I must emphasize that I do not in any way understand how that photo of the tree could be construed as pornographic. If it is, then every painting of a nude woman must also be seen as pornographic and I for one see that as a frightening thought.

If this "nude woman tree" is pornographic, then what about the innocence of childhood and the right to frolic in the water without clothes on? Or to splash through the water sprinklers on the grass on a hot summer's day? If I take a photo of my child doing this and share it with a friend, is this trafficing in child pronography? Of course not. If we are so terrified of something bad happening that we can't see the innocence and beauty in the world for fear of someone else's dirty thoughts or all of the bad "what ifs"....well, I think that's a sad world to live in.

-Julie

edited only to correct typos

This message was edited Sep 23, 2004 4:57 PM

Julie, I don't know what the media in Israel is like, but I do know that here, we're bombarded by sexually-explicit language and imagery to the point that it's easy to forget the act of reproduction is - for many people - a private matter, and not something to be viewed by onlookers.

I think what Dave was trying to say is that there is a strong link, scientifically documented, that viewing pornography is often one of the precursors to violent and inappropriate sexual conduct. My children might frolic without clothes on in a bathtub, but I sure wouldn't want strangers watching them do it in a public setting. They may be totally unaware and innocent of their bodies but unfortunately, many adults aren't.

Yes, there's a link between pornography and violent behavior. Yes. Granted. But what does that have to do with a tree in the shape of a nude woman? How can the shape of a tree be seen as pornographic? And how on earth could anyone look at that tree and see it as "EROTIC"?!?! And even if, for the sake of argument, someone out there saw the tree as erotic, it doesn't mean anything. I'm sure there are people out there who see morning glories as erotic. Are we going to stop allowing photos of those on the site too? If this TREE is to be seen as vulgar, then all nudes in museums must be taken down and removed from the public eye. It was just a tree!

-Julie

From what I saw of the photo and the thread's title, the image wasn't merely an outline resembling a nude woman, but two trees appearing to be copulating.

The title was "what kind of tree is this???" (harmless) and I thought it looked like a nude woman with her legs straight up in the air. Maybe that is beside the point or just as "vulgar", but that is what I saw. Maybe someone who knows more about the tree could shed some light on how often it is in this shape in nature. I don't think the complete removal of the picture and thread is merited if it is a common natural occurrence. I don't see the plants in the Clitoria species being removed from the PDB because of the possible implications that might have. I don't know maybe I missed a reply overnight and missed some childish behaviour...

Hmmm. Are we talking about two different threads? The one I saw was titled "Do trees propagate like this?" and the picture definitely went along with the title. Red circle overlaid, just in case the image wasn't explicit enough...

Taking a peek at the admin side of things, I see there were two threads submitted by Alocasiaddict and both got "da boot" - one because it was blatantly risque (which was what I was referring to) and the other because the thread quickly headed for the gutter.

C'mon guys - this is a family-oriented site....

Oh.... I did not see the one "Do trees propagate like this?" so I can't comment on that.

In the end, if the thread is controversial and makes some members uncomfortable, it needs to go. I didn't always believe this but I do now after being a member and seeing all that goes on.

The 2 didn't make me uncomfortable but hey I live right next to San Francisco! We unfortunately see worse right in our streets even in daylight. But I certainly can see why others may prefer not to have these on this site. This is a family garden site, not an art gallery or art museum! And though Dave shares a lot with us, it is his site and if his sensibilities were offended and he foresaw crude commentary, he has the right to censor!

Also, why have a thread that will divide this community and cause hard feelings? They were not even up a full day and look at the feelings they have already provoked.

I'm talking about the "what kind of tree is this" thread inititated by Alocasiaaddict that was posted as the "forum photo of the day" in today's newsletter. Like sweezel said, it looked like a nude woman with her legs in the air.

A photo of trees "copulating" does seem juvenile, but I still can't see how that can be labeled as vulgar and certainly not pornographic! I have to repeat...it's just a TREE for crying out loud. I agree with sweezel also about the possible and many varied infantile things that could get posted regarding Clitorias. Afterall, it's not an accident that it has that name:

Main Entry: cli·to·ria Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: kltr, -tr-, kl-
Function: noun
Usage: capitalized
Etymology: New Latin, from clitoris + -ia -- from the appearance of the flower
: a genus of herbs or woody vines (family Leguminosae) having pinnate leaves and large axillary flowers often in short racemes (Meriam-Webster unabridged)

But obviously, no one is going to ban posts or pics of that just because someone might say something childish about it. I just think that deleting photos of naturally occuring works of art is a bit of a drastic move.

Don't get me wrong, I think Dave does a fantastic job here. And I for one really appreciate all he does - especially in responding to requests (sometimes even pretty trivial or silly ones) so quickly and generously. But I can't agree with the action taken about this thread. I can't say anything about the other threads since I didn't even see them.


-Julie

Kell,

I agree that Dave has the right to remove any post he wants. But I don't agree with labeling it pornographic. If there had been an explanation that "some people were a bit uncomfortable with the apparent shape of the tree in the photo and therefore we opted to remove it for the sake of harmony", I wouldn't have blinked any eye. But to call it vulgar and pornographic and leading to child molestation...I think that's making a very big mountain out of an innocent little molehill.

-Julie

Okay, let's rewind this issue. Re-read this thread from the top down, and keep in mind that Dave's initial comments were most likely referring to the same thread that mine were (one that showed two trees, titled "Is this how trees propagate?") It wasn't until the 7th post down, when it dawned on me that y'all were talking about a different picture. If you put his comments in that context, they make a lot more sense.

That thread's title, the drawn-in circle to ensure viewers would see why it was thusly titled, and the innuendo are what made it vulgar and pornographic. If you didn't see it, then keep in mind that ignorance is bliss where knowledge is folly ;o) The other thread got yanked because it took a turn for the worse.

We have Clitoria ternatea in the PDB because that's a valid plant name. If someone posts a picture of this plant and that starts a raunchy thread about the plant's name, the thread will soon disappear. We won't remove the plant from the PDB, but we do have the following AUP provision that would apply to a discussion thread:

Julie-

I Only Saw the One Photo(Photo of the Day) that You are Talking of, But...
After Hearing of Terry's Explanation of the 2nd Photo...
And It's Removal. It Was Just...And Needed to Be!

The Second(Photo of the Day) and Thread...
Was Removed for Good Reason as Well!
I Clicked on the Photo of the Day Around Midnight(PST)...
The Follow-Up Posting(Further Down the Thread...
Giving the Tree the Name that Alocasiaaddict Did...
Was Totally Unnecessary and Unpleasant to View!
He Knew Full Well What He Was Doing.

Dave Did What Was Necessary with Both Threads...
Not Only Removing the Photos/Threads...as Dave Did.
But I Would Have Removed the Poster Alocasiaaddict...
Permanently!

In the thread I was referring to all along, I responded in a way that perhaps Dave thought was juvenile too. But I took the poster at face value and assumed s/he was serious in the post which "identified" the plants name. So I apologize if my comment offended anyone. It certainly wasn't intentional.

But, it seems I'm not getting anywhere here. Let's just agree to disagree on this particular point. I'm never going to see how a tree can be pornographic (or even 2 trees) so long as there isn't some human in the photo doing something untoward with the tree. Juvenile photo. Infantile comments perhaps. But not pornographic. I just don't get it.

-Julie