76 comments

  • Tait BrownTait Brown, 3 years ago

    It must be so exhausting to be offended all the time.

    74 points
    • Brian NBrian N, 3 years ago

      After skimming through the comments, I think it's worth pointing out that most people are objecting on the grounds that, by the letter of Dribbble's own terms of service, it should be removed.

      This seems less about puritanical objections to the sight of breasts, and more wanting a fair and consistent set of standards for their community? And that if the linked post in question is indeed acceptable when the individual in question posts it, then it should be for everyone else — or at least, that the rules that dictate what is or is not acceptable be made clearer.

      10 points
      • Tait BrownTait Brown, 3 years ago

        I disagree, but can we at least acknowledge the super weird Christian vibes Dribbble gives off?

        55 points
        • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

          Can we at least acknowledge how intolerant your statement is?

          4 points
          • Elliott ReganElliott Regan, 3 years ago

            I'm OK with intolerance to intolerance.

            6 points
            • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

              "Uh yeah, hey Dribbble, so this shot looks like it goes against the policies stated here & here"

              "Wtf man! What are you, some religious dude?"

              "Well, I didn't say that but—"

              "I think this is fine. Don't push your religion down my throat!"

              "I just thought it went against these poli—"

              "You're weirding me out. Wait 'til everyone hears about this."

              5 points
              • Elliott ReganElliott Regan, 3 years ago

                I mean, just in general, I'm intolerant towards intolerance.

                As far as Dribbble is concerned, they should just follow the advertising industry. If you wouldn't see it on a billboard, you shouldn't see it on Dribbble. That goes for sex, and well as violence.

                0 points
                • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

                  I can agree with that!

                  0 points
                  • Elliott ReganElliott Regan, 3 years ago

                    Of course, you could take that and say that you see zero ads with guns in populated areas, so why are there so many on Dribbble?

                    If you can show non-violent pictures of guns, you should be able to show non-sexual images with nudity.

                    4 points
                    • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

                      Sure. It's a grey area over what is considered sexual and what isn't, so that's difficult to enforce. The shot in question is of a couple, both nude, hand upon another, etc. Sexual IMO. A gun by itself (or in the act of hunt, protection, or sport) is not viewed negatively violent, IMO (though, I don't care to view any either) but put to use in the incorrect way, sure. The subjectivity of it all is tough.

                      0 points
            • Floyd WilliamsonFloyd Williamson, 3 years ago

              Except Tait Brown's statement is intolerant without reason. He uses "Christian" in the negative sense even though he can't state anything that has been done to him. Instead, we get the vague word, "vibes."

              So it is just intolerant without a source. And that is not ok.

              1 point
        • Sabih MirSabih Mir, 3 years ago

          Ha, is this a thing? Or is it just cause of the people you follow? I never got this vibe, but admittedly I'm not on dribbble in any regular capacity.

          1 point
          • Tait BrownTait Brown, 3 years ago

            Yeah, I've been on Forrst (ugh) and Dribbble since the early days. I definitely feel there is an over representation of religious people in the design field rather than say, front end developers or PMs.

            Not sure if you remember a particular respected designer using Dribbble as a platform to solicit donations for his sister, who didn't believe in insurance and her house burned down. It had nothing to do with design, it leveraged his position in the community, but it was the good Christian thing to go and donate.

            Aside from a few private jokes between other designers, no one else tends to really acknowledge it.

            Or at least that's my opinion. I don't post on Dribbble and deleted my Forrst account a loooong time ago.

            5 points
        • Elliott ReganElliott Regan, 3 years ago

          I think it is because Dribbble is aimed mostly at the advertising industry. If you wouldn't find it on a billboard, you shouldn't find it on Dribbble.

          1 point
        • Brooks HassigBrooks Hassig, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

          You've given a name to something I've always felt, but never understood.

          3 points
      • John LeschinskiJohn Leschinski, 3 years ago

        I'm seeing people objecting based on not being willing to raise their children.

        6 points
      • Will ThomasWill Thomas, 3 years ago

        It's actually about ethics in gaming journalism.

        3 points
    • Martin LeBlancMartin LeBlanc, 3 years ago

      What kind of places do people work where they would get in trouble for something like that. At the Iconfinder office that is nowhere near NSFW.

      5 points
  • Dirk HCM van BoxtelDirk HCM van Boxtel, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

    I DO BRAIN SCIENCE GOOD

    pps.: happily employed, leave me alone.

    24 points
  • Tyson KingsburyTyson Kingsbury, 3 years ago

    As a canuck, i can honestly say I'm always surprised and disappointed when i see this sort of things cause such a disturbance. it's a simple illustration of a naked body. We all have one. Travel through Europe, and you'll see magazines with naked women advertising the most banal of products, and no one seems to bat an eye...but for some reason in the U.S. people go bananas if they see a nipple. makes zero sense to me. how on earth do you manufacture a culture where guns and violence are 'a-ok' but nudity and sexuality are the devils work.

    how many years is it gonna take before the Puritan values finally go away?

    sorry for the rant...just really don't get it...

    17 points
    • Brooks HassigBrooks Hassig, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

      Give us 1 to 2 more generations. So be patient... "People have to die" is the most blunt way I've heard it.

      3 points
      • Tyson KingsburyTyson Kingsbury, 3 years ago

        made me laugh out loud.... blunt, yes.... but probably true...

        think it's that way for a lot of things....In my grandparents day, mixed marriages were practically a stoning offence. In my parents day, it was super uncommon, but somewhat accepted...in my day, half my friends (including me) are in mixed marriages -my wife is Indian-........my kids?.....i'm pretty sure they think the whole notion is ridiculous.......

        and so it goes :)

        1 point
  • Thomas Michael SemmlerThomas Michael Semmler, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

    "But I am {social status} and I have {results of reproduction}, and I am unable to explain them the difference between nudity and sexuality, because I myself have a distorted relationship to those subjects. And of course I totally forget the fact that little children are no sexual beings, so I just freely reflect my own view onto my children."

    I wish I was surprised. And sorry for saying that, but I don't expect anything else from people decorating themselves with bible quotes. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to, but they shouldn't enforce their personal world views on other individuals.

    That said, the policy does have a saying in that. But if there is truly a sexual act implied, is to interpretation. For me, there is nothing sexual to be seen there.

    17 points
    • John LeschinskiJohn Leschinski, 3 years ago

      They believe it's their duty to enforce their personal beliefs on others. Or more colorfully expressed as "shed light where we can".

      9 points
  • David KlawitterDavid Klawitter, 3 years ago

    We better shut down our art museums.

    15 points
  • John JacksonJohn Jackson, 3 years ago

    Are people seriously upset over this shot? I don't see the big deal.

    14 points
  • Josh LeeJosh Lee, 3 years ago

    Good, way less offensive than other crap I have seen on there. Drib needs to up their artistic game and stop being a circle jerk for the popular "UI" designers. "Share what you're working on" is still the mission and vision of the site.

    Love wins

    12 points
  • Fabricio Rosa MarquesFabricio Rosa Marques, 3 years ago

    Finding a harmless illustration like this one NSFW rather reveals way too dirty phantasies or a weird relationship to the human body and sexuality

    10 points
  • Steven CavinsSteven Cavins, 3 years ago

    I guess, for once, this shot is "not so clean!!!"

    8 points
  • Kyle MitchellKyle Mitchell, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

    I get why they are complaining, but seriously, for how long has the human form been considered a piece of art? Time to grow up folks. The Dribbble community has been pretty lame for a while now, something like this could help shake them up and not just promote UI design.

    8 points
  • Kevin LetchfordKevin Letchford, 3 years ago

    I really like the shot. Dribbble should define their terms of service better. But Eric Hoffman < this guy, just defines being an hyper offended Christian American. I find imagery on his twitter page a lot more offensive than this illustration.

    I generally hate conversations like this because every one can get offended in some pathetic way.

    7 points
  • Martin LeBlancMartin LeBlanc, 3 years ago

    But designs showing weapons and violence is ok. But people without clothes NSFW!!!

    7 points
  • Jim SilvermanJim Silverman, 3 years ago

    more people are upset that people are upset about the shot than are upset about the shot.

    7 points
    • Martin LeBlancMartin LeBlanc, 3 years ago

      Oh great, now I'm upset that you are calling us out about being upset about the people who are upset about the dribbble shot.

      5 points
  • Ryan RushingRyan Rushing, 3 years ago

    We shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies.

    7 points
  • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

    It's so awesome how us Designers are cool with mocking & ridiculing others for their religious beliefs.

    5 points
    • Andrew Michael ToddAndrew Michael Todd, 3 years ago

      Ridiculous beliefs, religious or not, are open for ridicule.

      11 points
      • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

        And I take it, you're the judge for what is ridiculous or not... Then ridicule the belief, if that makes you feel better about yourself, and you think it's productive— but don't mock or ridicule people.

        2 points
        • Mattan IngramMattan Ingram, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

          All mocking or ridiculing of people is banned? What?

          Can't the modification of our behavior go both ways? Can't we be reasonable both in the degree to which we attack others and the degree to which we feel attacked or offended without banning everything? Is snark against the rules too?

          If shit is ridiculous, it may be mocked. Some people are ridiculous. They gon' get mocked.

          4 points
    • Drew AlbinsonDrew Albinson, 3 years ago

      I won't argue that, but I also think any time religious beliefs are brought up or injected into a conversation, this is the road we end up on. I'm not saying that people should hide their religious identities, but if they really throw them out there they're going to need to be prepared to deal with all of those people who fundamentally disagree with their entire belief system. Name calling is always going to be ineffective and inappropriate, and so is applying your belief system to anyone else (and that goes for both sides).

      For the record, I find this shot entirely tasteful and strongly believe it should not be removed regardless of policy. Illustration and art has been an integral part of Dribbble since the beginning. Nudity as a subject in art and illustration has been long accepted by larger global culture. Dribbble shouldn't accommodate the few who's values deem this inappropriate when as a larger society this stuff has been on our walls, in our homes, and in our institutions for thousands of years. If Dribbble is going to start making these sorts of calls to accommodate individuals with conservative values, I wouldn't find it a safe place to post my work.

      8 points
      • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

        I totally agree with your first paragraph. SO, look at the Dribbble comment thread, or anywhere in this DN thread, and you'll see that those that thought the shot went against Dribbble's policy stated nothing about their personal religious beliefs.

        They didn't hide their religious beliefs on their Twitter, etc. (like you said you were okay with), but of course, this whole DN & Dribbble community saw that the couple of guys who reported something that actually went against Dribbble policy (as even the shot's designer admitted) were religious and therefore they had to start mocking & flaming them. I mean, DN just had a huge sensitivity test/issue with this whole Feminist T-Shirt deal, yet all the users are so blind to when they are trampling on others due to their beliefs.

        If anything, blame Dribbble. Have them change their policy, or put in place some NSFW or "possibly-could-be-deemed-inappropriate" filter, whatever. But don't mock anyone who is actually supporting an established policy, then immediately fault their religion for it, and alienate a whole (98% peaceful) demographic.

        As for your second paragraph... Totally cool that you personally don't find it distasteful, but implementing an optional "show NSFW" toggle or something alike allows everyone to enjoy and browse Dribbble, without being surprised with something that could conflict with their religious beliefs or censoring artwork. I understand you probably don't think it's a big deal if someone is surprised with something morally wrong to them, but they do, and alienating them personally isn't the way to solve it.

        1 point
        • Drew AlbinsonDrew Albinson, 3 years ago

          Notice I said "any time religious beliefs are brought up or injected into a conversation" -- in this instance it wasn't brought up by those who were being ridiculed. In some instances it is. I was making a broader statement about how unproductive that is instead of pointing fingers.

          Regarding your suggestion, the trouble with tagging things as indecent or "NSFW" is that it is a form censorship. It tucks things that could be important outside of view from the community. And as with any form of censorship, it's incredibly dangerous, largely arbitrary, and doesn't seem to fully satisfy even those on the conservative end of the spectrum. Civil discussions and explorations regarding nudity in art and design are valuable and should be part of the community not tucked away as they would be if Ryan's shot had been filtered out. In the same way as nipples exist appropriately in the world, they exist appropriately in the greater world of illustration, and shielding a community from that reality would be an unproductive misrepresentation of our shared reality. As many people here stated, the issues with the artwork aren't with the work itself, they're with the observer. If the observer isn't comfortable the work, that isn't the artist, canvas, place, or work's responsibility. Discomfort in the observer is the responsibility of the observer, and in this instance a lot of people seem to be reacting to it and wrestling with how they are uncomfortable with sexuality and seeing women's nipples.

          Instead of blaming dribbble, maybe those offended can do something about it such as build a 3rd party browser extension that hides content they're uncomfortable with instead of imposing their markedly conservative views upon the entire community. I'd warn them though that doing so would contribute to the very insular viewpoints that have been expressed today and shut them off from important people, work, and conversations all for the sake of a false sense of security against the lady nipples which again, I promise really do exist peacefully in the natural world.

          4 points
        • Mattan IngramMattan Ingram, 3 years ago

          It's one thing to report something is against policy, it's another to wage a campaign in the comments against it. Especially when the hypocrisy is quite deep considering how much mild nudity is allowed on Dribbble (a lot of it, examples in the comments) not to mention much less mild violence.

          The guy straight up claimed that the Dribbble piece was going to negatively impact raising his child and you are taking issue with the fact that some people on the internet blame that attitude on religion?

          4 points
    • John LeschinskiJohn Leschinski, 3 years ago

      Being conservative isn't a religious belief. Shrouding that conservatism in a Religious veil as to shield yourself is not only disgusting, but well within the cross hairs for mocking and ridiculing. Religion isn't a pass for having opinions protected.

      5 points
      • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

        That's quite an assumption you're making about these guys you know absolutely nothing about. Shielding yourself from nudity, or anything potentially lustful, is definitely an action taken due to religious beliefs in just about everyone who chooses to do so. Religious beliefs which are the root of conservatism, not the other way around. And mocking & ridiculing others for ANY reason who aren't doing ANY physical harm to you or others is the equivalent of bullying. Just spewing hate. Everyone, on all sides of these & all arguments, should realize that.

        1 point
        • John LeschinskiJohn Leschinski, 3 years ago

          And yet, plenty of religious people do not act as if a gun was pointed at their kids head when exposed to the mildest form o f nudity. An line drawing of two nude people who's nipples are exposed is only potentially lustful if you have lust in your heart. That's an issue for you and your priest, not a crusade to stop others reasonable adults from seeing the same image.

          2 points
    • Cory DymondCory Dymond, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

      I just went through 5 pages of comments on that dribble shot and didn't see a single person attacking him for his religious beliefs. I saw plenty of people attacking him for attempting to impose his beliefs on the community. Not a single person in those pages went after David Kovalev until he decided later on in the thread to mention something about public decency. Even then, the responses were questioning his reasoning on public decency, not his beliefs.

      The mocking and ridicule is about him trying to impose his ultraconservative views on the rest of the community, not his religious beliefs. I've seen one or two comments in this DN thread about religion and they weren't even really directed at this guy in particular... every last one of which you responded to.

      He has every right to shield himself and his children from nudity, but he doesn't have a right to shield everyone else from that. I absolutely don't agree with ridiculing or mocking him for his religion, but that's not what was happening and I'm not going to sit by and let a tiny minority turn this totally innocuous image into the line that is unacceptable for public view based not on a rule, but on their own moral views.

      He may not be doing physical harm to anyone here, but I hope you aren't ignoring the very real harm that censoring such innocuous art can do to an art community. He's trying to strip others from the right to view an image that isn't offensive to a vast majority of the users of the site or likely the vast majority of most of the world.

      The hypocrisy of this person complaining about his son seeing what amounts to a highly stylized line drawing of a female nipple on the internet while glorifying a deadly weapon as a desirable object on the very same internet is nearly palpable. If he weren't so sincere with the rest of his posts, I'd honestly think he was joking. Even still, I didn't see anyone in those comments or here attacking him because of his religion. It was for trying to impose his beliefs on others.

      Dribbble's guidelines for posting do prohibit nudity and while I certainly think they should be changed, I agree with the people seeking a consistent administration of those guidelines. Either block everything that is even remotely on the line or don't block anything at all and provide a filter. That still has nothing to do with the backlash against this guy specifically though.

      His opinion had nothing to do with the terms of service, but with how he shouldn't have to deal with the ramifications of his son seeing this over his shoulder and that is 100% his problem. If you are going on a social network dedicated to art (especially one which you curate for yourself by actually following this artist), you should be prepared to see depictions of nudity. It has been a part of art for the entire duration of the human experience.

      Dribbble is a tiny community for artists. Christian religious art has displayed nudity from nearly the beginning of its history and certainly has within the last 400 years. A hardline, ultraconservative opinion on art should not be the defining line for a site dedicated to art. That and his glaring hypocrisy are where the mocking and ridicule comes from, not his religious beliefs. I don't necessarily agree with the mocking and ridicule, but this is the internet and calling someone a "prude with no life" is about as tame as it could possibly get. Go check some of the stuff Anita Sarkeesian gets for asking that we treat females the same as we treat men in video games and you'll see what the internet can really do to someone for professing their beliefs.

      4 points
      • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, 3 years ago

        "If you are going on a social network dedicated to art (especially one which you curate for yourself by actually following this artist), you should be prepared to see depictions of nudity."

        No, you shouldn't, if the network has terms against nudity or depictions of nudity. That is why the terms are there in the first place. To protect those of who are viewing the content. His argument is based on the expectation that Dribbble sets... Also, the shot was being displayed on the Popular page, for anyone to stumble upon- not just those who follow the designer.

        Mine (and his) whole argument would be void if Dribbble didn't have these terms in place, and instead, he was just trying to censor the content with no grounds to go on. THEN and only then would he be imposing his beliefs on others, which I would agree, isn't needed nor wanted.

        But if a website sets the expectation and says they're not going to show inappropriate content, such as nudity or sexualized content, (so it's cool for you to browse in front of kids, or in a strict office environment) then they should adhere to that for the viewers that care, and the community should strive to maintain that standard. Fortunately, you nor I get to dictate what's deemed acceptable for anyone we choose to view.

        0 points
        • Cory DymondCory Dymond, 3 years ago

          That was not his argument though. His argument was entirely predicated on the moral aspect of hiding this content from his child.

          I don't believe that a majority of the Dribbble community believes that line drawings which barely depict nudity constitute a violation of those rules because those rules are meant to prevent posts that are pornographic in nature. It's why both rules relating to this type of content specifically make it clear that it is about mature and pornographic material. That it says nudity seems to be something they don't particularly enforce and if that's the route they want to go, I'm certain that a lot of the community would be against that level of censorship.

          "Fortunately, you nor I get to dictate what's deemed acceptable for anyone we choose to view."

          Except that that is precisely what is being done with something like this. The rule is obviously meant to prevent posts that are pornographic in nature which is something I would certainly not want to see on Dribbble. I wouldn't call Michaelangelo's Statue of David or the Man and God section at the Sistine Chapel pornographic even though both feature more nudity and are far more graphic and realistic depictions of the human form than this. Would those important pieces of art not be acceptable to you?

          2 points
    • Duncan RussellDuncan Russell, 3 years ago

      I think if you use your religious beliefs to justify the censorship of someone else's artistic expression (regardless of dribbble's guidelines), both your actions and motivations should be open to criticism.

      4 points
    • Andy StoneAndy Stone, 3 years ago

      Just curious, how are people ridiculing for religious beliefs here?

      1 point
      • Cory DymondCory Dymond, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

        They aren't.

        For this person, anything even remotely questioning the validity of ultraconservative views on nudity in art or pointing out the fact that there seems to be a huge influx of subtle or overtly religious designs being submitted to Dribbble recently (even though there is also a rule against material that can be deemed as "preaching"... something this person conveniently chooses to ignore) are deemed as attacks on religious beliefs.

        This person, like a large number of Christian conservatives in America over the past few decades, has a massive persecution complex. Take this comment that they recently replied to someone with:

        "Uh yeah, hey Dribbble, so this shot looks like it goes against the policies stated here & here"

        "Wtf man! What are you, some religious dude?"

        "Well, I didn't say that but—"

        "I think this is fine. Don't push your religion down my throat!"

        "I just thought it went against these poli—"

        "You're weirding me out. Wait 'til everyone hears about this."

        Nothing even remotely like this ever happened. It didn't happen here and it didn't happen on Dribbble. It was totally imagined. This person has responded to every last comment he could find something to be offended by and derailed every conversation that didn't involve him with accusations of intolerance towards religion.

        Look just a little further down in this thread to see him call someone hateful for saying this:

        People are free to believe whatever they want. They are not free from criticism of those beliefs. When you make your beliefs public, be prepared to defend them. And when you try and censor and oppress others with those beliefs, then be prepared for mocking.

        That does not even remotely meet the definition of "hateful" in any way and the person he was actually replying to responded gracefully. The fact is that no one is even mocking this guy for his religion. People are rightfully pointing out how ludicrous his position on the tamest of nudity is when he is glorifying guns on the same computer his son might see a line drawing of a nipple on while claiming a moral high ground ("If you look at this honestly, you must admit I do have a valid point."). How that equates to "mocking his religious beliefs" is beyond me.

        4 points
  • Shea LewisShea Lewis, 3 years ago

    Hahaha. I added some pubes on the bottom of the Airbnb logo and it was booted in 10 seconds... I do find it interesting that this isn't off yet. Awesome design though.

    3 points
  • Braden HammBraden Hamm, 3 years ago

    Ryan's post did not offend me.

    I grew up in a conservative family, but since I was interested in art at an early age, they took me to art museums and never sheltered me from nudist art, so I wouldn't have flagged this on Dribbble or hidden it from my boys.

    However, I also quickly scrolled past it since I was at work, so I think NSFW is accurate.

    Mostly, I'm more disappointed in the people mocking someone for their beliefs. You're being just as intolerant.

    3 points
    • John LeschinskiJohn Leschinski, 3 years ago

      People are free to believe whatever they want. They are not free from criticism of those beliefs. When you make your beliefs public, be prepared to defend them. And when you try and censor and oppress others with those beliefs, then be prepared for mocking.

      9 points
  • Cecil Lancaster, 3 years ago (edited 3 years ago )

    You guys are being needlessly rude. I'm going to take a guess that no one finds this "offensive" as much as they find it inappropriate for work, which is what NSFW happens to mean.

    Sure, at your startup where you can drink a beer at your desk and wear flip flops every day I'm sure it's no big deal. But some people do work at places with a more conservative or "professional" environment, which is no fault of theirs but when perusing Dribbble, it would be nice not to have a naked man or woman onscreen and have your boss or coworkers wonder why that's happening. Even drawn.

    At the very least, there should be a label for NSFW, if there isn't one already.

    2 points
  • Vince Angeloni, 3 years ago

    So then what is the Statue of David? Not that this is a piece by Michelangelo, but one artist creating an illustration of 'semi-nude' males and females to another sculpting the body of a nude man to me is somewhat similar.

    1 point
  • Vasil EnchevVasil Enchev, 3 years ago

    Interesting... so apparently this image has special powers and make people (designers in general) debate stuff like a lot! We should post it somewhere else to test my hypothesis :D

    0 points