why do we need to be posting ass on the org in the first place? is this ass.org?




anyway, when i want to see ass, i view it the old-fashioned way.

folks, this rule has been in place for a while...what i don't understand is why the same folks feel the need to challenge site policy by posting content that they know is not appropriate.

if you want to question the policy it's probably best to do it when you aren't engulfed in the heat of the moment.

CarrieMpls said:

So what is the difference between what is NSFW and what ought to be linked?

CarrieMpls said:

Whenever I see NSFW I don't even click on the thread for fear that what is inside is NSFW like nudity. Most do not post links...most post the actual content.

superspaceboy said:

NSFW is not exclusive to nudity. the org does not allow nudity, period but it will allow content that might be considered inappropriate for work, thus us asking orgers to post NSFW.

its funny, this discussion comes up like once every six months and with some of the same folks acting innocent.

(not you super. )

a suggestion to move forward on this thread:

can't we create a tag that say x-rated pictures inside or something? if we learn how to use it like we did with NSFW, than it would be no problem.

hardcore pictures should be hidden under a link, i agree. but a naked man is innocent.

sosgemini said:

Just go check the female booty thread in GD.

http://prince.org/msg/100/265289

All that ass is suited for work and does not need linkage, while the two very decent male butts in my initial post here needs linkage.

Even though all of this is of course meant tongue in cheek, I just want to point out the double standards.

And hey! I like the heat of the moment. It's gotten me in fun places before.

http://www.humanesocietyn...os/031.jpg

In every civilised country this is an art pic. Taken by Herb Ritts, btw.

It shows naked men, sure, but it is shown in a non-offensive way, without using full frontal. It's more erotic than anything else.

Again, compared to http://prince.org/msg/100/265289 this is all so harmless.

hamster,

if you want to have a serious discussion about the rules of this site i would strongly suggest you not antagonize the mods by creating threads out of spite.

sosgemini said:

If you mean the Suited For Work Booty thread; I am trying to make a point. And a good one too, actually. And I make it in a poignant and cheeky way. And it totally emphasises the double standard on this site when it comes to nudity.

And at the 'strongly suggest'. Or what?
[Edited 3/25/08 9:35am]

Seems like alot of crying over spilled ass.

Is it really that traumatic to have to click a link to see some ass?

Perhaps at the heart of the complaint is the insinuation the org is discriminating against gays. That would be the most laughable argument I have heard in awhile, and I hang out in P&R. I know laughable arguments.

Man butt....bad
Girl butt....good

HamsterHuey said:

I thought your efforts to make a point were within this thread? Why have a fit all over the rest of the website?

and i use the word "strongly" because I am concerned that you are going to continue to bait the mods instead of engaging us in a healthy constructive discussion within the appropriate forum.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

not at all...please re-read carrie's comment:



we have removed pics of bare woman's arses all the time...it's just nobody has taken offense when we do.

I thought we were all being light hearted about this subject. Yeah, there was an issue but it's not all that serious.

Just cuz I take some humor to the discussion does not mean I do not raise valid points.

And the Booty thread is meant to raise a point.

I like a good discussion, SOS, but you immediately blow from a high tower with 'Strongly suggest'. Does not really encourage discussion either.

And I do not take offence about the male butts being linked. I am just raising my eyebrows at the double standard, which I have told you about several times now. I was just surprised the butt pics were all bad all of a sudden on a thread MARKED NSFW and GAY, while there was a pic of briefs in there with a hard-on.

And I still haven't heard a Mod tell me why them bare asses are NSWF and my Booty thread isn't. I mean, the butt pic I posted (I ain't speaking of Horatio's) is gentle and non-sexual, while a string through OILED up female booty is normal and suited for work?

Then I realised both pics of Horatio and mine were linked through Photobucket, sure, another site, but one MUCH tougher on nudity than Org. I realised there was a double standard on Org and that is what I, playfully, damnit, tried to point out to you.

HamsterHuey said:

And I pointed out to you, that while I may not agree with it, it's simply the general american standard. Is it a double standard? Yes. But it IS the general standard here. Which is what it was based on.

CarrieMpls said:

Yes. Your post was not aggressive, informative and not trying to be intimidating. That's why I love you.

And I understand the rules. Like you, I do not agree with it and wanted to raise a discussion.

Fight the good fight Huey! I'm with ya on this one.

MIGUELGOMEZ said:

when someone starts posting threads and posts in a defiant stance...i don't generally consider that being light hearted.

HamsterHuey said:

and your creating a thread instigating mods does encourage discussion? my "strongly suggest" statement was in response to *your* actions...

ok, i'm going to bypass a lot of what's going on in this thread to weigh in with my two cents in terms of the guidelines i use when i consider what is "harmful matter" or just plain harmless anatomy.

i think all of the mods have common standards in terms of what is considered decent or indecent content - there are certain images that i'm certain we all agree on that are just plain rank and clearly unacceptable - but on other levels, we are all individuals, and as such i think it's unavoidable that we'd each have our own methods of handling "grey area" content, which could arguably be considered art or filth.

i include such a caveat because the process i'm about to detail is a process that only describes how *I* make the decisions that *I* make on here, and in terms of other mods' ways of doing things, well, on a case-by-case situation, i guess you'd have to have discussions with us individually.

clear as mud? cool! i'll continue.

first off, i want to say that in a perfect world, i like to err on the side of non-censorship. i like people to know things and i like people to learn things and i like people to communicate things, and i don't want to be part of the machine that prevents people from expanding. that's just how i am. however. i also am a big believer in CONTEXT. if something posted on here is questionable but it raises a healthy discussion, then in MY opinion, it has worth and i will want to do what i can to keep the content around in some manner. meanwhile, if someone's posting something provocative just for shock value or for the sake of being lascivious for its own sake, well...do we really NEED that? especially if other people are being offended by it? i say no.

beyond that....

if we're talking about a work of art like david or the venus de milo or some other classic work of art which portrays the naked human form, i think such images are acceptable.

i'd even go so far as to say that some images of vintage french postcards or old physique pictorials could be acceptable, because even if they were considered pornography back in the day, in the here and now much of that imagery is indeed acceptable, quaint, and even kind of beautiful and artistic.

as far as modern images of nude bodies goes, once again, i have to look at the intent and the context of the post. is it T&A for the sake of T&A, or is the intent an earnest desire to discuss an artist or a composition on a level beyond "damn, look at that juicy ass"? sure, sometimes ogling can be good harmless fun, but there's a point where it goes over the top, and that's when we have to start cleaning things up.

a good rule of thumb for me is, can i have the picture up on my monitor at work and not have to worry about co-workers raising their eyebrows when they pass my desk? if that's a concern, then at the very least we need to slap a "NSFW" on the thread title, or at the very most, replace the image with a URL link to the image.

then there are those images (think in the realm of, oh, say, "2 girls 1 cup", lol) where you open the thread and you're just like WHOAAA - yeah, you should look for us to lock and hide those.

i'm not going to get into all the nitpickings of thongs and bare asses and man ass vs. woman ass, because i think - *I* think, personally - it's terribly beside the point. whatever got deleted or hidden recently was done by a mod based on the context of the pic in that situation, and however they justified it was the result of someone making the best decision for that situation that they knew to make. might i or someone else have made a different decision? maybe. and maybe this is a discussion we mods need to hash out so there is more consistency in our actions - but i do think that this is a situation where there can be enough grey area - what is art vs. what is porn? - that we as individual mods have to be able to make individual decisions for individual circumstances.

and again, i'm not trying to lay down any protocol or "official guideline" business here. this is just how *I* operate, based on the understandings i've gathered from modding this site over the years, and based on what i consider to be fair and logical (and lord knows, my perceptions are always a work in progress).

and that's my bit.

Anxiety said:

Big bit. But muchos gracias for explaining. The entire 'crusade' is of course a joke, as people should know.

It's also not a stance of 'me against the mods', it's a simple thing of being puzzled about something. I would do this also if it was about female booty.

I also do not want to be able to post pictures of male butts, common. Everyone who read the initial post of the NSFW Gay Thread also should get that idea. I emphasise the Org rules about nudity, even.

I was just genuinely puzzled by the 'string trhough asscheek'-distinction. I never realised that was an American thing, like Carrie explained and was curious about why the male butt pics sparked such actions as warnings and eventual strikes om peoples profiles in comparison with the pics of female booty I see flying past every week of the year.

See all my reasons above.

So I am all for mods. I would never have posted the pic if it had been another thread becuz I realise they are not for everyone AND they are NSFW. But hey, again, look at the orignal thread title.

Anyways. I want to thank ALL mods for participating on this thread and explaining the way you mod. I just hope that you all realise I am not really crusading for gay butts, but it is my way to point out the blatant disrespect for the female body in the pics that are deemed suited for work.

Again, thanks. I am going to put this to rest, cuz I certainly made my point and I cannot change the double standard that does excist in society.

Just too bleeding bad Org has to mirror that.

Stop trying to promote the gay agenda!

HamsterHuey said:

In my opinion, it is a very unhealthy double standard and I agree with you

this thread is a joke, and Imago didn't even start it!!!

can't believe it.....

.
[Edited 4/4/08 14:21pm]

HamsterHuey said:

no matter what your sexual preference is, a nice woman's ass is softer for the eyes than a guy's ass.....

.
[Edited 4/4/08 12:40pm]

abierman said:

dude.