Photo Upload Rules

I see older profiles that have not changed their pics in the time I've been here with explicit profile photos. However as newer pics are posted management apoears to be tightening up.

I could go on about US Code 1156 & 57 all day. That is the real issue here. As with more things than I can count, our Government has turned to handling their problems by putting the burden on the "owner's" back. CL helped create the issue with their allowing anonymous posters put up pics and ads of/for virtually anything with no way of tracing the origin. We all know this led to prostitution, child porn, etc. Instead of attacking CL for it's business model, the Gov't took the easy road, which infringes on our freedom of speech, and instituted codes that affect any publisher and makes them liable for anything anyone posts on their site. The publisher is at risk of fines and having their sites shut down simply because a bad actor didn't follow the rules. These codes did not take into account that sites like SLS are member only sites that are not generally accessible by children, where as CL was wide open to kids.
Under today's laws, if SLS didn't censor submitted pics as they are now doing, we the members wouldn't have a site for very long. I recommend that instead of throwing stones at SLS on this matter, we vent our frustration to our legislators and demand this infringement be corrected. The ironic thing is, there are still CL scum listing ads for sexual encounters under other titles. Just browse "activities" if you care to see a few. This relatively new law will be like so many before it. The Gov't will realize it really didn't accomplish anything and they will quit enforcing it when the new wears off and everyone will get lax and things will go back to "normal". Unfortunately, the law will stay on the books and in 20-30 years when somebody decides they want to shut a site down they will dredge up this law and selectively enforce it. This is why I waste my time and preach that WE as a group need to stand up and demand the law be changed to affect only the problem and not every site. Of course, the bible thumping legislators know very few of us are brave enough to stand up and fight for our secretive bedroom rights. Sorry for the rant, but as a business owner, I'm tired of having my Gov't put the burden of enforcing rules we pay them to enforce squarely on my back.

We stopped reviewing pictures. Our rating was plummeting for whatever weird reasons they have, and we were rating them as close to the guidelines as we could.

We should all just stop, and let the staff do what they were paid to do.

Using the community to interpret and implement the standards obviously creates the opportunity for confusion. We had a picture of Mrs. C up for many months that clearly showed explicit content, but made it through the approval process purely through luck of the draw on who approved it. It even made it through a good half-dozen profile updates before someone at SLS caught it and made us change it. We've also had some that we had to submit more than once that clearly DID meet the standards, but kept getting disapproved, again purely through luck of the draw. Both examples illustrate the flaws inherent in the system.

On a side note, the same pic didn't make the first cut on Kas idie, and one other small regional site we're members of, but is our profile pic on another. I share that only to say there's zero consistency not only on this site, but between sites as well.

<p><a href="https://www.swinglifestyle.com/profile/lookup.cfm?usercode=52081528">NavyWings</a>,</p>

<p>We do not use the content of HBO to determine what content on here is explicit or not. This is based on government regulations (US Codes 2256 and 2257). Also, your public picture (and most public pictures) are rated by your fellow lifetime members. They are the ones that marked it as having an issue for a public picture, as per our guidelines. It was moved to personal. You can still share it with others from there.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Customer Service - Wayne</p>

NavyWings ' implied cunnilingus ' ;hahaha great thought. I met a man once who implied cunnilingus. Note the word 'once'!! giggle

Problem is, everyone has a different definition of hardcore. The easiest test is, IMO, would it be shown on HBO? If yes, approve for public, if not, disapprove.

So according to Wayne, a guy positioned missionary on a girl is hardcore. If you don't see a dick or pussy (wait.... Are those words too explicit for a supposed swinger site?), according to Wayne, that's hardcore though it would easily be seen on HBO. Dick or pussy showing, it wouldn't. Why? One is explicit hardcore the other is implicit hardcore. The SUGGESTION of hardcore. In Wayne's opinion, they are the same. So implied cunnilingus is the same as explicit cunnilingus in this site's opinion.

Grow the fuck up (oops. Potty mouth) . It's a swinger site for God's sake not an Amish farmer's market website.

And no. I'm not reporting those bad pictures people have posted in public. Grow up.

I have seen repeatedly that the longer-term members have profile pics that might not be what they call , acceptable now, but as new pictures get added they're tightening up. As an aside, I enjoy so much following certifications and longer-term members profiles from 8,9 or even 10 years to see if people are still in the lifestyle and still enjoying themselves!

"Lifetime members approve photos."

We were removed from the program maybe after we reported to many for staff to review after we got
"This member does not wish to be seen by couples"

System should NOT have given us those to review if we could not see them to review

I could be wrong but I think member volunteers approve pictures. If that is the case then it would be very subjective as to what one individual deems appropriate versus another. As far as the posting "rules" go that is just for the site's protection. In other words while pictures that violate those "rules" may (and do) get approved by the volunteers. In the event of legal action the site can fall back on the rules and how the poster and volunteer that approved them was in violation of the posted rules thus limiting the sites responsibility.

I routinely get photos move to my personal album upon review. When you go to the upload page, the below are the only guidelines given for uploads. My uploaded photos abided by these posted guidelines. If you're moderating photos by some additional guidelines, maybe you should add those guidelines to the upload page? I'm REALLY getting tired of seeing public photos far worse than what I'm uploading. And customer support'S response? Report the other people! Not a chance. If they got past your prudish Facebook censorship, good for them.

Seen by everyone.
No hardcore (penis/vagina), kids, or illegal activities.
Private Hidden to everyone. Seen by only members you give access to.
No hardcore (penis/vagina), kids, or illegal activities.
Personal Hidden to everyone. Seen by only members you give access to.
Hardcore Allowed. No kids, or illegal activities.