Still doesn't really make any sense, but ok. Accepted.Your Funny Uncle wrote: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: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.
So I put a blob of colour on his penis and the avatar is acceptable?
But here some girls do mind and they have complained!Your Funny Uncle wrote: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.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?
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.
I think their opinion should be respected and the images removed. Sorry, but when people complain you do something about it.
Unless of course what (male) society in the UK finds acceptable is more important than what some girls from various countries may think.
Seems a little odd that I have to accept English standards really. As if they were superior to everyone else
I didn't say anything....
).
