Nudity, Is It Sexist In This Forum?

[Losty]

The woman I posted from national geographics is not a minor. Thank you.

[Losty]

Ps. I did know the rules, I did not break any of them, and I did not provide any false information about them. I didn't want to report you because my internet was slow and upon first inspection I did not know there were naked little girls in your post and I figured you could edit out the naked dude and the ladies boobs and be done.

Second, it's not your place to decide if I am fit to be a mod so you can pretty much kiss my butt. Thank you.

[SteelCurtain]

Also, we do get to define pornography however we like. You are not required to agree with our definition of pornography or our inclusion of other body parts within the purview of the word. You will, however, abide by the rules that the site owner has laid out and that the staff he chose agreed to---if you want to continue posting.

Those pictures were not illegal---none of them. The picture of the children was not lewd or indecent in any way, and would not be against the law in the US. But they were someone else's fucking kids, and we will not allow nude pictures of someone else's children on this website. There are hundreds of lurkers every day who never register who could see those pictures. If there ever was a day when the staff here decided that members posting pictures of nude children was okay, I would leave and never come back. I have faith that that would never happen.

Don't play the Huggy card and act dense about colloquial and alternate definitions of words. It's beneath you, benny.

As for our response to the OP, our position is and continues to be that we do not think that being unfair to two sexes is better or preferable to being unfair to one sex. Your chest hair red herring aside, (no one was talking about secondary sexual characteristics) we're not going to pretend that equality is served when we're simply being discriminatory towards everyone instead of a portion.

[account_inactive]

Welcome back, benny.

[bennyboy]

Ps. I did know the rules, I did not break any of them, and I did not provide any false information about them. I didn't want to report you because my internet was slow and upon first inspection I did not know there were naked little girls in your post and I figured you could edit out the naked dude and the ladies boobs and be done.

Second, it's not your place to decide if I am fit to be a mod so you can pretty much kiss my butt. Thank you.

"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."

(from the forum rules)

You showed female breasts.  You have violated the sexual content rules of this forum.  There's no way to argue against this clear fact. So why doncha just go ahead and ban yourself right now. . . or just admit that you've behaved hypocritically and we can move on, right now, and drop it forever.

And National Geographic CAN and does show images of nude children-- because they define nudity in LEGAL terms, not in AF.org, hoping-to-keep-ad-revenue Victorian terms.  So unless you have a link to the article which establishes that "woman's" age, you do not know for sure that she is of the age of majority in the US.  So please-- provide the information which establishes her age, or do not post images of potential child pornography, as defined by this site.

As for "kissing your butt"-- I don't think this kind of obvious sexual talk should be allowed in open forums.  Please move it to A69. . . cuz, you know, we get to just define porn as whatever the fuck we want it to mean, right? I choose to interpret "kiss my butt" as a sexual overture, and I would like to be protected from any further sexual advances. . . I mean. . a KID could be reading that dirty language, right now, and get the wrong idea. Protect the kids, amirite?

Also. . . I wish you'd address the last part of my post, which is really an important issue, and MANY kudos to Thump for standing up to you guys for that.  How do you have a rule which specifically and explicitly targets women, and then claim it's not sexist?

[bennyboy]

Welcome back, benny.

Thanks.  It's been a long week.

[bennyboy]

Also, we do get to define pornography however we like. You are not required to agree with our definition of pornography or our inclusion of other body parts within the purview of the word. You will, however, abide by the rules that the site owner has laid out and that the staff he chose agreed to---if you want to continue posting.

I've abided by the rules, and agreed that I broke them. I think it is okay for me to assert that the rules are poorly thought-out, and that the stated motivations for the rule (specifically, legal issues) aren't founded in reality, right?

Those pictures were not illegal---none of them. The picture of the children was not lewd or indecent in any way, and would not be against the law in the US. But they were someone else's fucking kids, and we will not allow nude pictures of someone else's children on this website. There are hundreds of lurkers every day who never register who could see those pictures. If there ever was a day when the staff here decided that members posting pictures of nude children was okay, I would leave and never come back. I have faith that that would never happen.

I got my image by going to google.com and typing "nudism." I didn't dig them up in some 4-chan perverts' dungeon. Let's get real. . . if someone is looking for kiddy porn, they aren't going to go to page 27 about a thread on sexism on an atheist site, open up a "hide" tag, and jump for joy that they've found what they could have found in literally 2 seconds on google.com

It's time to get real about this. . . nobody is being protected by these archaic rules. It's clearly about 1) the personal predilections of some (maybe most) AF members; 2) ad revenue (and this has been explicitly stated). I really want to know if it's really about the money. Because if it is, I'll happily pay the $400 for a year for the site all on my own, just to bring you guys into the 21st century of the digital age.

As for our response to the OP, our position is and continues to be that we do not think that being unfair to two sexes is better or preferable to being unfair to one sex. Your chest hair red herring aside, (no one was talking about secondary sexual characteristics) we're not going to pretend that equality is served when we're simply being discriminatory towards everyone instead of a portion.

Breasts ARE a secondary sexual characteristic, by definition. The viewing or showing of breasts is not illegal in the US or any other civilized state. Hiding breasts in hide tags with a warning will more than allow anyone who is personally (because it's not a law) offended by them to avoid viewing them.

But I'm not arguing it's unforgivable to be sexist in some cases. The world isn't fair, and some of that unfairness is sexism. And I personally agree that if the members of this forum don't want to have breasts on the site, there's little need for anyone to post them. But it's clearly a sexist rule. If I were a mod, I'd say, "Yep, totally sexist. It sucks, but that's the society we live in, and it's not the fight we want to fight. I respect your opinions, but it's decided."

While we're at it, maybe you should remove Losty's breast images, as well as the one I quoted (from her), just to keep things completely up-and-up. They do, in fact, violate the rules, and in my opinion really do make my banning look very hypocritical.

[bennyboy]

--edit--

By the way, thanks to Losty and to SteelCurtain for not just face-slapping and banning me. I couldn't disagree with you guys more about the issue of this thread, but I respect the restraint and respect for free speech that your responses imply.

[Losty]

You're quoting a rule which was changed after I made the post, and if you don't like "kiss my butt" perhaps kiss my ass will suit you better?

I don't have to defend myself to you and I won't bother to. You posted images of naked little girls showing their entire bodies from the front. That is completely inappropriate and made worse by the fact that they are not your children to show. You have no business blaming that on me it was a clear rule violation and it had nothing to do with me or my post.


As for the last paragraph, if you really think it's that important feel free to read through the entire thread. It has already been addressed multiple times.

[Losty]

--edit--

By the way, thanks to Losty and to SteelCurtain for not just face-slapping and banning me.  I couldn't disagree with you guys more about the issue of this thread, but I respect the restraint and respect for free speech that your responses imply.

I take issue with you blaming me for what you posted when I know you are smart enough to know that would not be ok. I have no issue with you disagreeing or doing so in a way that I might find offensive. Feel free to share your opinion and feel free to do so (within the rules) however rudely you please. I don't mind at all. And ps. I'm glad you're back