Quote - That's not the point.

The complaints were that the gallery arrival pages were looking like the backs of porn magazines with all of the close up shots of T & A. 

The thumbnail policy still allows for people to upload their nude and violent images, and it still allows those who want to browse the gallery without the nudity filter on, without being hit in the face with dozens of extremely tacky blown up body parts.  

 

And that makes the most sense to me! A simple 'nudity flag' as it it right now works quite well for me to let me know whether I should attempt to view the particular image (depending on the environment that I'm in at any given moment).
Lot of times a thumbnail will let me know whether the nudity is understated and 'soft' and artistic (like many pjz99's images), or if it's something I really don't want to see.

There's a difference in nudity that celebrates a nude human form vs. gratuitous nudity like crotch shots or boobs of the size they would cause major neck deformity.
It's really not so much about the nudity as it is about 'tasteful' nudity. (And for those whom like crotch shots, I don't mean 'tastes like...')
Now unfortunately due to a number of rather distasteful in your face type nudes, overall nudity is limited. Sort of like the case of few bad apples ruining it for everyone.

Ideally, one would classify the types of nudity, but I don't think that would be practical, and personally I have no Idea how I would define (in a form of a gallery or a thumbnail rule), what is tasteful and what isn't.

Hi, my namez: "NO, Bad Kitteh, NO!"  Whaz yurs?
BadKittehCo Store  BadKittehCo Freebies and product support