Avalon wrote:Are you sure none of you men or women are getting turned on by Tom's "piece of art"?
Does it matter if people sitting alone in front of their screens get turned on by a picture?
I don't care, but you were using the word "art" to claim that Tom's picture isn't pornography. But if someone is frigging him/herself off in front of the pc, I would say that pic IS pornography (at least to that person)...
But well, I bet you (or someone else) is gonna say now that art can turn someone one too without being pornographic, so that's it then, isn't it?
The bottom line is that pornography (or art) isn't science and we can just go on and on about it. And you can do it, but I won't, so goodday to you!
Avalon wrote:Are you sure none of you men or women are getting turned on by Tom's "piece of art"?
Does it matter if people sitting alone in front of their screens get turned on by a picture?
I don't care, but you were using the word "art" to claim that Tom's picture isn't pornography. But if someone is frigging him/herself off in front of the pc, I would say that pic IS pornography (at least to that person)...
But well, I bet you (or someone else) is gonna say now that art can turn someone one too without being pornographic, so that's it then, isn't it?
The bottom line is that pornography (or art) isn't science and we can just go on and on about it. And you can do it, but I won't, so goodday to you!
So if were to get turned on by my avatar, it's pornographic??
Neil, posing for porn photos... who'd have thought.
Looking for love and getting nothing that's worth regretting.
Tennant/Lowe
Avalon wrote:Well yeah, but where do you draw the line then again (I hate these kinda discussions...)?
That is easy, in discussions like these, the line should be drawn at NO images at all... Including Dizzys avatar!
Good god, you might actually have found the answer... then again, I might find your smiling avatar pornographic, rags.
There just isn't a definition to this kind of thing, it's too personal.
Errmmm excuse me, but Dizzy's avatar isn't going anywhere, i said so and what i say goes
Personally, i thought Tom's avatar was slightly o.t.t for this forum. Like i said before, you wouldn't mind your child walking amongst people on a beach with bikini's on, but would take offence if they were walking around revealing what the avatar revealed. This forum can be surfed by anybody, so a line must be drawn.
I have never found bodies 'artistic' but that doesn't mean to say Dizzy isn't right. We all see things in different ways. I can also see the double standard's issue. There shouldn't be women on here with tits hanging out if Toms avatar isn't allowed, thats my opinion anyway.
...........I can also see the double standard's issue. There shouldn't be women on here with tits hanging out if Toms avatar isn't allowed, thats my opinion anyway.
Undertaker I agree about the double standard. You realise also, your own avatar COULD be classed as 'suggestive' too! Or is that a rolled up sock? in the shorts?
In the avatar that the Mods found to break the rules..... the 'offending' body part (according to the rules!) was NOT as obvious as the one in your avatar... except your pic has material covering the body part.
Glenny4 has some pics that really have more flesh on show! But those have no hint of pubes! Perhaps that, removed by now, avatar should have grown a beard from the lower belly!
define psb wrote:
Undertaker I agree about the double standard. You realise also, your own avatar COULD be classed as 'suggestive' too! Or is that a rolled up sock? in the shorts?
:
...........I can also see the double standard's issue. There shouldn't be women on here with tits hanging out if Toms avatar isn't allowed, thats my opinion anyway.
Undertaker I agree about the double standard. You realise also, your own avatar COULD be classed as 'suggestive' too! Or is that a rolled up sock? in the shorts?
In the avatar that the Mods found to break the rules..... the 'offending' body part (according to the rules!) was NOT as obvious as the one in your avatar... except your pic has material covering the body part.
Glenny4 has some pics that really have more flesh on show! But those have no hint of pubes! Perhaps that, removed by now, avatar should have grown a beard from the lower belly!
Scarey. Not you of course But i just mentioned my avatar in the other thread. And no, it's not a sock, it's a willy warmer, slighty different
Hmm, I'm not dealing with this personally as I'm taking time off from this place at the moment, but I will say this.
The rule of thumb is this: No genetalia. ie. no female breasts, no vaginas, no penises.
Call it arbitary if you like, and you'd probably be right, but that's where we decided to draw the line. Please accept it and move on, it's not such a big deal.
There are no double standards. As Glenny will tell you, his avatars have been "censored" on many occasions, as have those of others. There is NO sexism in this. The difference is they didn't have a hissy fit about it.
Your Funny Uncle wrote:Hmm, I'm not dealing with this personally as I'm taking time off from this place at the moment, but I will say this.
The rule of thumb is this: No genetalia. ie. no female breasts, no vaginas, no penises.
Call it arbitary if you like, and you'd probably be right, but that's where we decided to draw the line. Please accept it and move on, it's not such a big deal.
There are no double standards. As Glenny will tell you, his avatars have been "censored" on many occasions, as have those of others. There is NO sexism in this. The difference is they didn't have a hissy fit about it.
Blimey.
