Nudity, Is It Sexist In This Forum?

[bennyboy]

Okay, guys, I'm back.  As you can guess, I have a lot to say, and little sense of fraternity with which to say it.  That being said, I hope I'll be granted a temporary lattitude while I get some things off my (thankfully breastless) chest.  Maybe I'll just get banned, I'm guessing.  However, I will attempt to make rational points, and hope that my tone will be understandable given the context of being banned completely without warning.  I don't want to drag it out-- in fact, I'd like to resurrect my thread in the philosophy section.  But I hope I will be granted the privilege of saying my peace before moving on.


1. Definition of pornography
First of all, let me say this: words have meaning.  Pornography means "depictions of sex," and only this, and not anything else.  Nude people are NOT sex objects, and this includes mothers with breasts, black guys with penises, and children with their relative bits and parts.  You can define nudity as indecent if you want to, or give reasons why you think nudity shouldn't be allowed in certain venues or forums, but you CANNOT define it as porn, because that's not what that words means.


2. Legal non-issue
I've seen some unfortunate misinformation in this thread.  First of all, the idea that nudity, and even child nudity, are illegal, even in the States, which is fucking anal about child nudity.  Don't believe me?  Go to google.com and type in "nudism."  You will see literally dozens of images of people of various ages, genders, and races enjoying a healthy, natural nudist lifestyle.  They don't need your protection, because they are there with parents, and they are not ashamed either of their bodies, or of images of their bodies, because they are mature enough to know that NUDITY isn't SEX.  Show me a law, outside some redneck bootlick backwater municipality, which says nudity = sex, and I'll eat my words.  "The forum has to protect itself, legally" is either a misinformed opinion, or a downright lie meant to cover up the Victorian prudishness of the powers that be on this site.  You guys think I'm a sick fuck for posting naked children playing on a beach.  However, in MY opinion, you are sick fucks for sexualizing child nudity.  No.  Just no. A naked kid is not sexy, and anyone who defines it as such should be in a correctional institution.


3. Unfair application of rules among mods and plebs
The rules of this site (which in my opinion are poorly founded) nevertheless clearly state that the following are forbidden: "Pornographic content, pedophilic content, and nudity is not allowed. We consider pornographic content to be an explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity. We consider nudity to be the display of uncovered sexual organs, buttocks, and female breasts."  For this reason, I did not and would not appeal my ban-- clearly, I posted content that these forums have expressly banned (though I did not know that and was given no warning at all before the ban).  However, there have been unpunished transgressions by mods as well, in the exact same thread, and before mine, and these have gone completely unnoticed-- AND, in fact, the forbidden content has been allowed to stand, and in an open forum, no less.

A mod on this site has deliberately misinformed on this issue, falsely claiming:

There's no rule banning nudity or nipples. There's a rule banning pornography.

and again. . .

Non-pornographic nudity is allowed.

. . . but then:

---

---

. . SHE SHOWS two images of breasts, which are clearly described as forbidden in the forums rules section.  Not only that, the African (Indian?) girl, upon close inspection of her face, might very well be a minor. I'd very much like to know what steps this mod took to establish that the material (as defined by these here forums) was not an image of a minor, and therefore defined by the rules by which I was banned as "child pornography." Protect the chilllldrrreeeeennnnnnnn! (amirite?)

But wait, things get curiouser.  After claiming that non-sexual nudity is allowed on these forums, there came this:

"por·nog·ra·phy
pôrˈnäɡrəfē/
noun
printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."

The first two contain images of sexual organs and therefore IMO are considered porn. The second one is a statue so it would be classified as art. I suggest editing out the first two super quick because you wouldn't want to upset the powers tha....oh yea that's me...because you wouldn't want to upset me.

Sooooo. . . if the display of sexual organs, buttocks or female breasts is defined as pornography by these forums, then what's this non-sexual nudity we're talking about?  Revealed ankles?  Unveiled faces? 

4. Responbilitiy of mods in enforcing rules
I would ask that if someone is going to be a mod, and is going to have and use the ban hammer, they should (1) actually know the rules, (2) be required to follow them (3) not be allowed to provide false information about them.  In my case, it was BECAUSE of what Losty said that I believed, knowing the legalities of nudity, that my post would be fine.  Given this context, I think a warning, and a clarification that Losty did NOT KNOW the rules and WASN'T following them, would have sufficed. . . don't you? At any rate, the final bolded section clearly lets the cat out of the bag-- rules aren't applied simply as they stand, but are rather there to justify the arbitrary actions of those in the position to apply them based on what posts they personally like or don't like. Losty should be banned for a week, as she also violated the rules against sexual content in the open forums. Either that, or stand as hypocrites-- or just delete this thread, ban me again, and pretend that free speech still exists, either in the States or on these forums, while knowing it to be a lie.

_____________________

Okay, and finally, here's my closer, and it is about the OP:  in what universe does a rule forbidding the display of ANYTHING based on gender not constitute sexism?  Breasts are classed as a secondary sexual characteristic of adult females.  So is chest hair in males, since it an effect of the sexual maturation of human males.  So while the showing of male nipples is probably non-sexual, the showing of male CHEST HAIR clearly is, by the standards (double standards!?) of these forums.  I demand that all chest-hair be blurred, or moved to A69.  The only response is, "Yes, it is sexist, since we demand of females standards that are not applied to males.  However, this particular form of sexism is the norm in our cultural, and we have no interest in supporting your fight against it, if it means any risk to ourselves."  (which, as I have shown, it actually doesn't, but nobody apparently bothered to check up on the laws before confidently declaring them)