Weird American double standards. Not even uptight Photobucket considers these pictures of male butts bad. But Org, site dedicated to the man that sang "Head" is uptight about male buttage. And you know Photobucket comes down hard enough on stuff in Horatio's folder...

Can I say the male butts we posted on the GAY NSFW thread, which has NSFW in the freaking title, only are NSFW becuz they remind some people of anal sex or something? And I know nudity is a on Org and I know there is a fine line between NSFW and just a hot picture, but common...

After having been subjected to cleavage often enough on Org and women's butts in thongs (showing the same amount of buttage, but somehow a 'string' through the ass cheeks is NOT nsfw) I have to make a stand for a perfect healthy, not showing anything male butts.

The Butts, just linked, which I (and Photobucket) consider g-rated.
http://i205.photobucket.c...SEPT07.jpg
http://img.photobucket.co.../aa117.jpg

The hard on, not linked, as it seems suitable for work;



So, can we overthink what I consider extreme uptightness about male butt?

I agree!

It does seem weird considering you can see Vanity's boobs in her Playboy layout right in the gallery on this site. And a clearly labeled NSFW thread is easy not to click on.

Yep. I think that there are different rules for different butts. I've seen many unlinked female bootys on other threads.

I mean, I understand the rules and all, but there seems to be a slight double standard.

My thougts are, being that this is a US-based site, we're going on the standards of what would be "legal" on a US beach or US tv. While I agree it's arbitrary, the string apparently makes all the difference.
Although if we decided all bare booty (meaing strings included) were considered NSFW and therefore must be linked to, I'd be totally ok with that too.

CarrieMpls said:

But Photobucket is US based too, innit? Why do they allow the male butts to be in there.

As you can tell by Horatio's reputation (hehehe) and mine, as you know I got a tendency to be naughty, I had LOADS of pictures taken offline by Photobucket, but the second link survived their EVERY culling.

They are saying MALE BUTT IS OKAY!

What is Org saying?

HamsterHuey said:

I'm not photobucket. I don't know what their reasoning is. (And I haven't clicked on the links, as I'm currently at work . )

I'm just saying we go mainly on what could be seen on any beach or what would be considered OK on primetime network tv, i.e. what isn't likely to get anyone into trouble at work.

CarrieMpls said:

You can Org at work! Evil!

I assumed all NSFW means just that. You don't know if it's going to be words or nudity or photoshoped madness. I can't click on the Madonna thread here as someone photoshopped a big ol hairy puss puss on the cover of her new album. I don't see with that logic how a shot of a butt is a no no esp if it says NSFW.

What is photobuckets position on this? Did they issue a statement?

Although photobucket is a separate site from the org. Photobucket has its' own rules.

luv4u said:

They do not have a position, they just do not censor the pics you do. It made me extra curious about why Org allows oiled up, thonged female ass, but not the pics we posted.

I am doubting the reasons why Org censored these two specific pics. Cuz of we are allowing thongs, I demand jockstraps (pic 1) are allowed too.

[Edited 3/24/08 13:17pm]

HamsterHuey said:

June7 did post a warning

at least a naked butt is better than the stupid youtube movies where people are insulted or beat up.

FREE THE NAKED MALE ASS!

luv4u said:

I know, I posted mine cuz I did not see his warning and I sent him an orgnote about it.

Still, the attitude towards them two pics is a bit weird in my eyes, cuz of all the reasons I posted above.

dawntreader said:

Yeah.

Here is an example of what was allowed. Now compare them to the two links in the initial post of this thread and I dare you not to go

HamsterHuey said:

I don't see the big deal. If it has NSFW, those should be allowed. SHoo, I've even seen a pic on here of Madge peeing on a mirror! Is that pussy shot still up on her thread?

I'm sorry, in this day and age, I don't see the butt as nudity. That's even more like a pg-13.

You are allowed to link to the content, just not post it directly.
I see what you're sayng about a double standard... but I can't imagine the org becoming more permissive in this instance as many folks DO access this from work, which is why we note as "Not Safe For Work" content. So if we were to go the other way and not allow string-bikini-ed lady booty, would that make you fel better?

superspaceboy said:

Is what I mean. The male butt is getting dealt a mean blow.

superspaceboy said:

Because folks may want to participate in a thread without seeing graphic pictures popping up on their screen.

This rule is not new, it's noted clearly, at least in the GD forum:
"Don't post adult images, or offensive images. You may link to such content if you wish, but make sure you include a warning in your post. Some people read the Org at work you know "

That way an entire thread doesn't have to be NSFW, just the images that may be posted within the thread.

CarrieMpls said:

I was trying to loosen the Org up here, Ms MPLSn ot tighten restrictions even further.

I mean, if I post NSFW in the thread title, as I did the word GAY, then what are people at work doing there?

I just want to hear from Org Rulers why a male butt is not allowed to be shown, only linked and that row of ladies butts I posted a few weeks back did not even raise an eyebrow.

Simple; it's double standards. Gay (male) butt is not allowed, but straight (female) butt is.
It just goes to show what even mods are subjected to the objectication of the female body that it does not even made any of them consider first warning about posting of the female butts in thongs or handing out strikes on someone's profile for posting it.

So no, I would not be happy with the linking of ANY butts. I would like Org to grow up.

CarrieMpls said:

Talking about that; that deserves an entire seperate thread; I think Org makes alot of allowances for peeps who should be working.

Fun it gets you through the day, but in the end all those people have their own responsibility and you should not open a site that is about an artist that sings about sexual stuff at work.

So that is a kinda lame excuse for this subject. Again, thong vs male butt showing the same amount of ass.

HamsterHuey said:

CarrieMpls said:

You made me do this; you turned me into Dan.

HamsterHuey said:

That's actually very nice!!!!

Thank you Juicy Brother.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

I. Was. Kidding.

HamsterHuey said:

http://www.fantasticsmag....hlete.html

that image was a magazine layout for clothes, which happened to be underwear.
















































http://www.fantasticsmag.com/
[Edited 3/24/08 14:47pm]

A string THROUGH the ass-cheeks is, well, considered clothing, while a jockstrap is not. It sounds... illogical.

HamsterHuey said:

I still think that's a hot ass.