Page 2 of 6
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:33 pm
by PigletWildebeest
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....
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:41 pm
by Tom
So about this one then?
No genitalia in sight.
Even the message should be clear with this one
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:43 pm
by StevePSB
I have no problem with that one. See? Wasn't that difficult was it?
StevePSB
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:43 pm
by define psb
PigletWildebeest wrote:
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)!
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:44 pm
by Tom
StevePSB wrote:I have no problem with that one. See? Wasn't that difficult was it?
Just plain stupid and void of any sense
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:49 pm
by StevePSB
Well, that's life isn't it? An arse picture isn't pornographic, but a frontal picture is.
Why people must post clothes challenged avatars though, I don't know.
StevePSB
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:51 pm
by Tom
StevePSB wrote:Well, that's life isn't it? An arse picture isn't pornographic, but a frontal picture is.
Why people must post any kind of clothes challenged avatars though, I don't know.
StevePSB
Just so I get this right...
Unbuttoned flies are pornographic but a naked ass is absolutely fine?
I wonder who is the 'challenged' one here.
You should listen to yourself really. One illogical reason after the other
If it wasn't so sad I'd laugh about it.
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:54 pm
by define psb
[error]
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:57 pm
by define psb
Tom wrote: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!
Posted: Mon 22 Mar 2004, 11:57 pm
by Tom
define psb wrote:Tom wrote: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!
Who said this was the last avatar from me
The image is from a book called 'Gallery of men'
Posted: Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:02 am
by bigboy
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
Posted: Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:02 am
by Hmmm
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.
Posted: Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:04 am
by bigboy
StevePSB wrote:I have no problem with that one. See? Wasn't that difficult was it?
StevePSB
Oooh, patronising too!
Posted: Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:05 am
by Hmmm
BB this is not a Gay Chat room
.
Posted: Tue 23 Mar 2004, 12:06 am
by Tom
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!
Stupid