I was wondering if it was possible to relax the rules on real life photo manips. Yes I am aware that several of the manips on deviantart are pretty awful but there are also several that are well done. Maybe you could let real photo manips on the sight but have stricter quality guidelines in order to keep disposable schlock from getting in. What do you guys think of this.

I think part of the reason behind that rule is that people may end up having pictures of themselves posted without consent, so I'm not sure that the rules can be relaxed as a result.

It's against the rules becaues we can't know if the pepole in the photos are 18+ and have given permission.

A lot of them are well known who are 18+ so those are ok. But yeah there should be a rule that if the person in the manip cannot be recognized it cannot be uploaded to the hub unless the creator of the pic confirms that the subject is 18 or older.



The manips were already made without the people's consent. And if someone in the photos complains we can just take down all the manips with them in it and forbid users from posting further manips of them.

But what if they never know about it? How can they request to have it taken down?
And even if a post of the person is eventually taken down upon request, we don't know how many people may have downloaded or saved the image. What if they wanted to have nothing to do with the hypnosis fetish or a nsfw platform like this? Damage would have already been done at that point.

It's just best to leave it to harmless illustrations of fictional characters. Less serious drama/controversy to arise.

Do you think Miyamoto would approve of the images of his creations being uploaded here. What about Toriyama, or Stan Lee, Or Blizzard. Chances are that if several of those creators found out about this site they would also give try to get those images taken down. Besides none of the Manips on deviantart have the people in them engaging in sexual intercourse mainly either people fully dressed, in lingerie, or occasionally full nude without sex and a lot of the times the original non manipped versions of those images were either taken by themselves or with their consent.

I'm not trying to start anything I'm just trying to defend my points in a respectful manner.

Just back down on this. Real photos are a whole can of worms all their own. There is a world of difference between making porn of a fictional character and a real person.

This is an argument that you cannot and will not win.

A. Those are some big names out there that have porn of their work EVERYWHERE. I can't say as for whether or not they'd approve of it if they looked into it on here, but really, it's a bit of an exaggerated example as to name those people if anything. Like we've already had artists come here and request their work be taken down. Nothing new.
B. You brought up their creations, despite that being a point I already addressed: Fictional works lead to LESS SERIOUS drama/controversy. Manipping a real person to be hypnotized and posting them on a NSFW site (even if the pic is SFW on its own) is really iffy, especially when we're not aware of their consent. Even if it's some big name out there that has porn parodies and illustrations out there (like a famous actress), I still don't see it as the right move to feature on the site here...

But what if we had a rule that photo manips cannot have sexual intercourse... and maybe no nudity just to be safe.

I don't think art and photos are comparable.While one is intellectual property, of which making parody art of is protected, the other is literally someone's identity being leaked without their consent, which may actually be illegal.

One last time:
Even if they're SFW pics on their own, if we don't have the persons consent to feature their (manipped) photo on a NSFW site, it's not ok. Simple as that.

No real life manips. If you want them, the hypnopics collective has them in bulk.

Real people are not fictional characters
The location of photos of real people on sites such as this can have some very real life consequences.



When it comes to real people I'd enforce the same rules I would in the BDSM community (but should be applied in any relationship)
Continual enthusiastic consent

I know hypno-porn is tailored round the removal of that very concept, but that's art, and that's fiction.

For real people with real lives:

CONTINUAL ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT



With real person manips we do not know:
If they ever consented to be involved in hypno fetish
If they are still happy to be associated with hypno fetish

This is not like one of Lex's Entrancement photo-sets, where the models know exactly what they're getting involved with. This is material taken from somewhere else (irrespective of whether this source is porn or not) and draggiend into our fetish without a real person's knowledge or consent.

And that's not even getting in to the legalities of age etc

Do you think photo manipulations of images from existing irl hypno fetish material such as Lex's images stay in a safe zone provided of course you get permission from Lex to use it? Though the consent from the models themselves could still be a problem. I still think the site should stay away from irl stuff as it is a legally dangerous place to tread but I thought it would be an interesting thing to think about.

I believe we should stay away from photo manips. I'm of two minds about the featuring of screencaps from paywall site videos, even if the caps are not behind the wall themselves

I don't mind seeing Lex's stuff here, because he is the producer of the content, and the material will be as part of his contract with his subjects for its dissemination, but manips of content like that would be, IMO, a very grey area to be avoided