ooooh define... i'm sure Tom will be able to send you a full photo of it personally... and he'll get another one... nice and sexy.
Probably without "questionable" flesh coloured bulges this time...
I'm wondering... if someone were to use that single cover of Before, the one with the limp penis... would that be ok for an avatar? Seeing as it was a cover...
hmm....
Looking for love and getting nothing that's worth regretting.
Tennant/Lowe
ooooh define... i'm sure Tom will be able to send you a full photo of it personally... and he'll get another one... nice and sexy.
Probably without "questionable" flesh coloured bulges this time...
I'm wondering... if someone were to use that single cover of Before, the one with the limp penis... would that be ok for an avatar? Seeing as it was a cover...
hmm....
Limp or not, it is Of an explicit sexual nature.
It's OK for big butch men to ogle pornographic pix of skimpy clad girls, like in Glenny's posts, but it's not the done thing to look at a bit of male flesh!
I thought this was 2004 not 1904 ...
No one challenged that rude two deck chair avatar, unless thats coz the q's were asked ina non-english language!
We don't make the rules, we have to abide by them. I still see a slight double standard though. Sorry Moderator(s)!
StevePSB wrote:I have no problem with that one. See? Wasn't that difficult was it?
Just plain stupid and void of any sense
What mag is that pic from, I am sure I know that b*t*om !
Still think the Jock one was better! at least he had something on!!!
Oh well! I suppose this old woman should shut up and go get some beauty( ) sleep. I shall dream of our dearly departed Tom avatar! May he zip up painlessly!
StevePSB wrote:I have no problem with that one. See? Wasn't that difficult was it?
Just plain stupid and void of any sense
What mag is that pic from, I am sure I know that b*t*om !
Still think the Jock one was better! at least he had something on!!!
Oh well! I suppose this old woman should shut up and go get some beauty( ) sleep. I shall dream of our dearly departed Tom avatar! May he zip up painlessly!
define psb wrote:But there are pics on this forum, not necessarily in avatars but in the 'signature' that seem to infringe your rule regarding : Of a Sexually explicit nature. But then I suppose looking at semi naked females is totally acceptable.
I believe in equality!
Mmm, some people on this board obviously do not. Perhaps if we had some gay guys who were moderators (instead of 100% hetero, for a band who are 100% homo) things might be a little bit more liberal and less prudish around these parts
Last edited by bigboy on Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Tom said
Just so I get this right...
Unbuttoned flies are pornographic but a naked ass is absolutely fine?
I think it was the naked flesh below the hair line and i dont mean on his chest.
They make a little go along way.. very Minimal but Fundamental.
Hmmm wrote:Tom said
Just so I get this right...
Unbuttoned flies are pornographic but a naked ass is absolutely fine?
I think it was the naked flesh below the hair line and i dont mean on his chest.
But that's the point!
You only saw some flesh!
That doesn't qualify as genitalia!
It's not as if it was a full sized pic of a penis! It was just teasing.
If it had been a different colour it might as well have been a banana!
I wonder if some guys on here dare touch themselves when they go to the toilett. After all 'that thing down there' is something really bad!
) sleep. I shall dream of our dearly departed Tom avatar! May he zip up painlessly!
.