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.
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.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
