Definition of 'pornographic'?

Message

bigboy · #46 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 5:08 pm

Undertaker wrote: There shouldn't be women on here with tits hanging out

Dave

Oi, don't talk about Define like that! We can't actually see her droopy duo, can we?

bigboy · #47 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 5:11 pm

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?

Two pairs of rolled up socks, to be precise, eh Dave?

Oh, and not forgetting the saveloy.

bigboy · #48 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 5:14 pm

rags wrote:Including Dizzys avatar!

You know what? Whenever I see Dizzy, My Head Is Spinning.

Like a whirlpool, it never ends. Or something.

define psb · #49 Post by **define psb** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 5:22 pm

bigboy wrote:
Undertaker wrote: There shouldn't be women on here with tits hanging out

Dave
Oi, don't talk about Define like that! We can't actually see her droopy duo, can we?

OY! BB I will have you know I may be just old DefnoJam to you! But I do NOT droop. I often wilt at the end of a 'nightowl' weekend. But DROOP! MOI? never

Undertaker · #50 Post by **Undertaker** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 5:45 pm

bigboy wrote:
Undertaker wrote: There shouldn't be women on here with tits hanging out

Dave
Oi, don't talk about Define like that! We can't actually see her droopy duo, can we?

Well techno's avatar of late contained a couple of droopy tits.

Dave

Lethe · #51 Post by **Lethe** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 5:49 pm

What's the problem with pornography anyway?

As long as it is consensual, I don't see the problem with whatever adults want to do in front of a camera.

Even going on Des and Mel.

Everybody prostitutes themselves anyway- "I love you, you pay my rent"

bigboy · #52 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 5:54 pm

Undertaker wrote: Well techno's avatar of late contained a couple of droopy tits.

Dave

Thanks for that, hippopotamus legs!

Undertaker · #53 Post by **Undertaker** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 6:23 pm

bigboy wrote:
Undertaker wrote: Well techno's avatar of late contained a couple of droopy tits.

Dave
Thanks for that, hippopotamus legs!

No problem manky teeth.

Dave

bigboy · #54 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 6:33 pm

For that devastating comment, I'm going to sink my manky teeth in your outsized hippo legs, you git!

I am rather hungy, and there'll be enough meat there to last me a week, at least. Though I better stick some of it in the freezer for emergencies as I believe the crotch area is rather bare once the socks and saveloy have been returnded to their rightful owners (the Co-op and the chippy)

Niall · #55 Post by **Niall** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 6:34 pm

Undertaker wrote:
bigboy wrote:
Undertaker wrote: Well techno's avatar of late contained a couple of droopy tits.

Dave
Thanks for that, hippopotamus legs!
No problem manky teeth.

Dave

LOL

Tom · #56 Post by **Tom** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 6:36 pm

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.

What's your definition of 'no female breasts'?
I might be nitpicking here but I for one can very clearly see breasts in Glennys and VeryRelentless' avatars.
No nipples, granted. But I still see part of their breasts. And more of that than I or anyone but Steve could see of the offending penis.

Your Funny Uncle wrote: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.

You say there's no sexism in those. But the girls said several times now they find them disturbing and sexist.
Maybe their opinion should be taken into consideration?

bigboy · #57 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 6:44 pm

Hear hear!

Your Funny Uncle · Tue 23 Mar 2004, 7:55 pm

Tom wrote:What's your definition of 'no female breasts'?
I might be nitpicking here but I for one can very clearly see breasts in Glennys and VeryRelentless' avatars.
No nipples, granted. But I still see part of their breasts. And more of that than I or anyone but Steve could see of the offending penis.

OK no nipples. Basically what's acceptable is what you can see on the front cover of any number of magazines in your average WH Smiths. So yes, No nipples, no vaginas, no penises.

Tom wrote: You say there's no sexism in those. But the girls said several times now they find them disturbing and sexist.
Maybe their opinion should be taken into consideration?

Sorry I didn't make myself clear there. What I meant was it makes no difference if it's a picture of a man or a woman.

On the subject of what is demeaning or offensive, different people are offended by different things. My girlfriend for example doesn't find such images offensive. As I said, the line has been pretty arbitrarily drawn, but I think in a reasonable place between over-protective and free-for-all. Following my previous example, it's basically what society currently finds acceptable on a magazine cover in the UK.

rags · #59 Post by **rags** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 8:01 pm

Your Funny Uncle wrote:Following my previous example, it's basically what society currently finds acceptable on a magazine cover in the UK.

Oh dear. Sluts it is.

bigboy · #60 Post by **bigboy** » Tue 23 Mar 2004, 8:29 pm

Your Funny Uncle wrote: it's basically what society currently finds acceptable on a magazine cover in the UK.

Well if you look at most of the top shelves in kilburn high road you can see all sorts!