Why I decided to remove Oestrus project

  • Advertise with us

« back to Site Feedback forum

Forum topic by Martin Sojka posted 11-15-2008 11:23 PM 3489 views 2 times favorited 85 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View Martin Sojka's profile

Martin Sojka

1893 posts in 5011 days

11-15-2008 11:23 PM

Topic tags/keywords: oestrus removing nudity appropriate

I feel that it’s important to inform you why I decided to remove Oestrus project from LJ today. I will keep this short… I think that this was one of the hardest decisions I had to make on our site and I waited for some comments and opinions to be posted. But oh my! I was bombarded with PMs and the project was bombarded with so many comments that it definitely broke a records in a number of comments per day… talk about controversy!

First it’s important to say that I – personally – found nothing offensive in this marquetry project by Dusan. The post wasn’t insulting and IMO, it was pure art and featured excellent craftsmanship. I emailed with Dusan – he’s a great guy, very talented, and I hope that we will see more of his work posted here.

However the question is in which direction we want to steer the site. naturally formed into “family friendly” website and I’d like to nurture this spirit. As far as I know this site is frequently visited not only by teenagers but also by very young children together with their parents or grandparents.

As I see it, most of us would be okay with a marquetry featuring a human body in an artistic way (what they call act), example on Dusan's site. But Oestrus project was not ONLY about human body – that’s why I think it didn’t comply with the following posting rule:

“Keep your posts appropriate for our members of all ages to read/see.”

Well that’s how I feel about it now. Maybe we will add a separate section for “adult-only” projects in the future.

Hope you understand.
And I hope that Dusan will keep posting his excellent work here.

P.S. To all those who started arguing, exaggerating and moralizing in the comments, please calm down in the future and follow this rule “Debates with other member(s) that are not beneficial to the site as a whole are to be done through the private message system.” I’m constantly monitoring the site but some decisions cannot be made immediately. Thanks!

85 replies so far

View pashley's profile


1044 posts in 4256 days

#1 posted 11-15-2008 11:26 PM

You walked the fine line well, Martin.

No doubt, it was excellent craftsmanship. If it was JUST adults on here, I don’t think I’d care….but in today’s climate kids get bombed with so much sexual content, I don’t think we need it here.

-- Have a blessed day!

View rikkor's profile


11295 posts in 4413 days

#2 posted 11-15-2008 11:31 PM

Well, I didn’t see it, and that’s OK by me.

View Zuki's profile


1404 posts in 4616 days

#3 posted 11-15-2008 11:32 PM

A most difficult decision indeed.

-- BLOG -

View Tony's profile


993 posts in 4569 days

#4 posted 11-15-2008 11:47 PM

Firstly I respect your decision to remove a controversial article – for whatever reason.

I did not see the posting in question, however following the links you have provided, assuming the controversial piece of art was titled “Woman with rose” or similar then I must disagree with all those who complained, I find nothing offensive in this piece – there are far more graphical depictions of nakedness and lewdness freely available in everyday life, galleries and advertising (press, publications & billboards), not to mention the INTERNET. It is a shame a lot of people cannot distinguish between true art and smut.

-- Tony - All things are possible, just some things are more difficult than others! - SKYPE: Heron2005 (

View ericandcandi's profile


152 posts in 4056 days

#5 posted 11-15-2008 11:51 PM

It is sad to know that this was such ” A most difficult decision “

-- ericandcandi in Louisiana- Home of the "LSU Tigers"

View TheCaver's profile


288 posts in 4378 days

#6 posted 11-15-2008 11:59 PM

You’ll never please everyone Martin…..I ran a 15,000+ member site a year or 2 ago (sold it)....and it was tough to keep the 1st amendment touters and the punters happy.

The bottom line is that a private forum is not bound by any free speech laws, you’ve made a decsion and we can stay or go :)

I think I’ll stick around :)

Good job M,


-- Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan

View Thos. Angle's profile

Thos. Angle

4444 posts in 4501 days

#7 posted 11-16-2008 12:33 AM

Your call, Martin, and you made it.

-- Thos. Angle, Jordan Valley, Oregon

View oldskoolmodder's profile


801 posts in 4218 days

#8 posted 11-16-2008 12:35 AM

I’m actually kind of relieved that it’s been taken down, because of the morality issues that were brought up, as well as the idea that it wasn’t appropriate to be posted here where all ages could see it. What was sad for me, was that SOME, not many but some, were telling other people that it was ok, that kids would see a sexual act being depicted (on LumberJocks).

Tony, it wasn’t “Woman with rose” as that is FAR more tame than the project shown here. The author (Dusan) used poor judgement, in MY opinion, as this was an actual sex act, not just a woman’s backside.

To those who brought morality issues other than age appropriateness, shame on you for taking this to a place that doesn’t belong, too. I’m not here to have someone else’s morals put/pushed on me. I’m here for the woodworking projects, to see ANY work that falls into the guidelines of this site. You know the one’s we ALL agree to, when we sign up for this place.

As stated above, this is a private site so Freedom of Speech falls to the wayside on a private website. I’m very VERY adamant about free speech, but I also know that you can’t overstep the bounds on someone else’s website. Sadly, not everyone here is so up on the “law’s” of the web.

-- Respect your shop tools and they will respect you - Ric

View EEngineer's profile


1120 posts in 4152 days

#9 posted 11-16-2008 12:41 AM

It is not sad to know that this was such “A most difficult decision”

It is your site and your decision, Martin. I respect it and will continue to be here. But I am glad that it was a reasoned decision and not just a knee-jerk response to those who feel they have a right to restrict what everyone else should see.

-- "Find out what you cannot do and then go do it!"

View Bob #2's profile

Bob #2

3810 posts in 4560 days

#10 posted 11-16-2008 01:22 AM

Martin, there is an old saying that states that it is futile to toss pearls to pigs.

It possible we have just experienced first hand what this means.


-- A mind, like a home, is furnished by its owner

View Sawdust2's profile


1466 posts in 4626 days

#11 posted 11-16-2008 01:54 AM

Bob#2 you’re comment is acceptable by whichever side reads it.

I just think we have been slammed by the moral minority


-- No piece is cut too short. It was meant for a smaller project.

View frank's profile


1492 posts in 4745 days

#12 posted 11-16-2008 02:47 AM

—yes Martin;
I respect your decision….

....however; I must also add that this piece of art did not offend me in any-way!

What I’m saddened by; is that once again art must take a step back, so as to not offend those who work within the rules and laws of naming and defining for other’s, ‘what is ageless and priceless’....hmmm, where the ‘dark ages’ really so long ago.

Now I’ve got to laugh at what Bob #2 said above, about ‘pearls’, ‘pigs’ and ‘first hand’. Having worked with pigs I can tell you that pigs will eat any-thing, but they will not digest pearls. So what happens with ‘first hand’ experience….is that by digging through the remains of their manure, I get to find those pearls they toss out.

My opinion and worth my .02 cents of sense….;

Thank you.

-- --frank, NH,

View savannah505's profile


1834 posts in 4125 days

#13 posted 11-16-2008 02:52 AM

Hello to all – I posted at least 4 times on that piece, and was putting together another because of some of the comments, (some directed at me personally) and felt the need to clarify some things. I agree that some viewers found it to be offensive, yet I felt it should stay for a number of reasons. I stated a challenge early on, to distinguish the difference in the “masters works of art” and this mans work. Michael Angelo did many scenes of nudity and some with sexual content, India abounds with such art, the statue of “David” and the list goes on and on. I also felt and in the piece I tried to post but was unable to, that maybe we should have a seperate site for these types of pieces. I feel a need to protect our children too, but those who complained, I was going to ask this – When the ad on tv for “Girls gone wild” comes on, do you call in outrage to your tv station? When “Sex and the city” or like show is on that shows just as much with added motion and sound is playing on your set at prime time for all the kiddies to see, are you jumping up to block their eyes? I hope so, as I refuse to watch these types of programs myself, and change the channel when Girls gone wild ads come on until they are over. I can’t even stand to watch a woman being raped scene, as it is so wrong to me. We live today in a world I dislike very much, cheap sex rammed down our throats, killings with no thought to the of the value of life (on tv and in real life) which tv has played a role in this thinking. Every generation appearing to have less and less values and morals. Yet where did this come from? TV?, yes. Upbringing? yes and some of us fortunate enough to have parents who instilled these values are better people for sure, but it seems less and less do so in each coming generation. Europe has a much more tolerant attitude towards the human nakedness and sexual relations than this country, and yet we have a bigger problem here than they do. Why? We made it filthy, and we made it to be wrong. We left teaching our children up to our schools instead of ourselves as parents, is part of the problem, as well as the education of them by “hollywood”, the internet, and so many other sources. To one person who called it “porn” leave that label for Larry Flyntt and Hustler magazine and such material that our children seem to have no trouble obtaining, and I am against totally. If this was a website to artists and lovers of paintings, we would have much more of this type of “art” and it would be accepted because everyone knows that much art of this type is done. Because it is in wood, makes it unique, and so we will seldom see such work, but it is still art, and it is very skilled work he did, and if he was a known master of woodworking and the arts, we would be much more accepting of it. I doubt few if any of those who complained and said it should be removed, call their tv stations demanding the same of the shows and ads that are on, and to those I then call them hypocrits. One actually referred to “Disney” in a refference to keeping it “clean” on LJ. Living here in Florida, I scoffed at this statement that he made, as I do not and will not go to or ever endorse “Disney world” since they now have “Gay day” at their theme park. I stand against it on the principal that God says in the Bible many times how wrong it is in His eyes. (Romans ch. 1 verse 24-27 is just one place) So yes, I believe in God, I also know that God did not make man and woman with clothes on their bodies, and sex is not a filthy thing, and pity those whose upbringing brought on a twisted moral. I respect those who do not want their children to see this piece, just as you have the right to change or block the tv channel that shows things you do not want them to see, but you do not have the right to make your demands upon the rest of us who find it to be art and love the beauty in such a piece. I am much more offended by satanic symbols burned into wood, or other things I have seen on LJs in the past, that no one seems to say anything about. From now on, I will say my mind, and speak against it. I wish all of you peace in your life, and enjoyment of working in wood and safety in your endevours.

-- Dan Wiggins

View oldskoolmodder's profile


801 posts in 4218 days

#14 posted 11-16-2008 03:06 AM

We’re not talking about things away from LJ, we’re talking about something posted on LUMBERJOCKS! If you don’t believe in Disney having a “Gay Day” then that’s an opinion that should NOT be posted here on LJ.

Please stop bringing up religion and YOUR morals, as there’s no place for it here anymore than the depiction of a sex act, which is what it was. It was not simply an artistic nude.

-- Respect your shop tools and they will respect you - Ric

View savannah505's profile


1834 posts in 4125 days

#15 posted 11-16-2008 03:08 AM

Martin- I forgot to add that I thought you wrote a fine piece on this and made a good call as you saw it. Thank you for thinking it through as you did. – Dan
Oldskoolmodder – You expressed your morals throughout all your postings on that piece. Some will never get it., and I didn’t start the comparison of ” Disney” to lumberjocks.

-- Dan Wiggins

showing 1 through 15 of 85 replies

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics