egafd.com

In response to the following query from Len I thought I'd better post this
as new topic.....
> Maybe it would be a good idea to spell out what is or what is
> not acceptable for a performer's film gallery for future consideration.

TBH I'm not entirely sure myself. The rationale is for egafd to 'future-proof'
itself against any possible legislation about images.
4WIW [and with the usual host of exceptions and qualifications] my personal
rules-of-thumb are:

No cocks, not even limp ones, unless they can be easily and unobtrusively
blacked-out
No 'flap-shots' [at least, no 'tunnels' or gapes]
Spunk on face- small amounts only, preferably easily-mistakeable for custard
or spilled milk : -)
Spunk IN mouth. Not unless her mouth is firmly closed and [ahem] free of
'spillage'.

In case of doubt, my advice is to submit the pics anyway. Rather than have
a tedious debate about the merit of each pic: if they're Ok, they'll go in;
if not, they won't.
A glance thru this year's picture-Updates should give a general flavour of
what we're aiming at.

I am slightly confused.
No dicks, no open vagina/gaping shots
Yet I see for the Marjorie gallery, you capped one in which she is stuffing her pussy
with a dildo.
Clarify, please....

Len801 wrote:
> Yet I see for the Marjorie gallery, you capped one in which she
> is stuffing her pussy with a dildo. Clarify, please....

Oh God... I KNEW this was gonna happen. I do hope I haven't opened the
Floodgates of Pedantry [twinned with the Slough of Despond and the Crack of
Doom].
They're a set of guidelines.

Can you really see all that much? At least, without a magnifying-glass?
And didn't I say ".... exceptions and qualifications"? The dildo is pretty
much covering the 'rude' bits. Imagine she's at a nude picnic, and the dildo's
really a pink cucumber which she's put between her thighs to make it easier
to slice, for making those scrummy fish-paste and cucumber sandwiches : -)

That's exactly why I raised this question.
I understand the guidelines, and I understood them in the past except I have been
seeing various curious variations: girls with dildos, girls with cum on their faces.
Frankly I'm a little lost in the wilderness of these "exceptions" you speak of.
That's why I wanted some very clear guidelines, to avoid time and energy for both the mods
and people who may volunteer caps for these posts.

The question/problem is really twofold.
There are caps we submit in a post which are simply
meant just to outline how a certain scene plays out with one or several participants (for ID
purpose more than anything) or when posting movie reviews replete with caps,
and there is the time when one submits photos/caps for the obvious reason
of possible inclusion of performer photo galleries.
If one understood the guidelines better it would make our mutual task much easier
and less fraught with frustrations on both sides.

I'd really love to give an unequivocal answer- but life ain't like that.
The reason I suggested a look at THIS year's additions was partly to show
that what might have been acceptable in the older galleries may not be now.

In your examples, "girls with dildos" and "girls with cum on their faces" would
now receive closer scrutiny and if deemed 'too' explicit would be rejected...
the reason many galleries still contain 'OTT' pics is of course that nobody's
as yet found time to remove them. So nudity is fine; explicitness generally
unnecessary and hence undesirable. But my definition of explicitness is
perhaps broader than some : -)

My own take on this:
Egafd is not, and never has been, a provider of smut to the masses : -) That
function is admirably served by many websites.
Egafd aims, in its galleries, to give a gestalt of each girl; a boiled-down
picture-summary of her appearance across her active years.

When I cap I am looking for [in no particular order]:
Moles/tattoos or other distinguishing marks, preferably capped with the
face included, otherwise in smallish close-up;
Views from different angles [full-face/three-quarter/profile];
A full-body/full-frontal shot;
A range of the girl's hair-styles/colourings;
Anything else affected by/changed during the course of her career.

Not all these are always achievable- certainly not from one film and usually
with great difficulty for anything pre-1995. So most galleries are essentially
'works in progress'.