Nudity, Is It Sexist In This Forum?

[GrandizerII]

When I see the FFrF make a challenge to our US government being used to advertise religion, atheist yell "preferential treatment" "breach of the separation of church and state" and when the religious state, "pick your battles, it's just a little sign, just a little break of the constitution, just a little statue, a nativity" everyone gets their hackles up. It just one small slight, it's not important, there are other things more important in this world.

Yes, there are but many little things make bigger issues and also set a precedence for future behaviors. We have seen this in history and now in many ways. Is it wrong to say recognize this one slight and make it right? Is it not beneficial to change the small wrongs before they add up to be big ones? Does equality really happen if we ignore all the small ways in which we are not equal?

It seems to me if you say it doesn't matter then it won't matter to you if it's corrected either.

There's two ways it could be corrected.

1) Either allow pictures of topless women of all ages to be posted anywhere in the forum potentially allowing people to break actual laws beyond forum rules and potentially allowing what would be classed as child pornography onto the forums.

2) Ban all pictures of any breasts.  Practically speaking there would be no point to this whatsoever.

Or suggestion 3) Don't allow nude/topless/shirtless child pictures to be posted on forums for both underage boys and girls (if this is going to be potentially a legal concern). But allow adult nudity unconditionally if not considered pornographic, and restricted to Area69 if pornographic.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If it'll help things, I promise I'll never post topless pics.

^Knee-jerk reaction. 

Let's not be hasty, fella.

It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the good of the community.

[Losty]

Is it sexist...probably. Is an Internet forum a good place to begin your protest? Not really.

I consider myself to be fairly feminist. I will never be ok with naked girls under 18 in any public place. I don't allow my son to go shirtless either....maybe I'm weird. I dunno.

Anyways, if you want to see a change, make a change, but it's not going to happen here first. That would just be silly because there are legal definitions to the word "pornography" and we don't get to change the definition based on whatever rules we'd like to have.

[Losty]

There's two ways it could be corrected.

1) Either allow pictures of topless women of all ages to be posted anywhere in the forum potentially allowing people to break actual laws beyond forum rules and potentially allowing what would be classed as child pornography onto the forums.

2) Ban all pictures of any breasts.  Practically speaking there would be no point to this whatsoever.

Or suggestion 3) Don't allow nude/topless/shirtless child pictures to be posted on forums for both underage boys and girls (if this is going to be potentially a legal concern). But allow adult nudity unconditionally if not considered pornographic, and restricted to Area69 if pornographic.

Nah...that's a terrible idea!

[Angrboda]

The rule of no nudity already exists. That is not in dispute. The rule does not discriminate.

BUT has it, is it and will it be upheld equally by the mods, is the question to be answered.

No, the rule is no pornography, where pornography is defined as, "an explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity." The question at issue would seem to be, are male breasts not sexual organs but a woman's breasts are? Traditional society says yes. Is that sexist? I don't know.

[Whateverist]

I kind of like that it breaks the rules. Naughty is good, right?

[Losty]

The rule of no nudity already exists. That is not in dispute. The rule does not discriminate.

BUT has it, is it and will it be upheld equally by the mods, is the question to be answered.

No, the rule is no pornography, where pornography is defined as, "an explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity."  The question at issue would seem to be, are male breasts not sexual organs but a woman's breasts are?  Traditional society says yes.  Is that sexist?  I don't know.

I will add, legally women's breasts are typically considered pornography especially nipples. Legally anything above the waist on a man is not considered pornography.

Is it sexist? It doesn't really matter because we don't make the laws.

InB4 whatevs, but what if mine can touch my belly button? That's above the waist!

[GrandizerII]

The rule of no nudity already exists. That is not in dispute. The rule does not discriminate.

BUT has it, is it and will it be upheld equally by the mods, is the question to be answered.

No, the rule is no pornography, where pornography is defined as, "an explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity."  The question at issue would seem to be, are male breasts not sexual organs but a woman's breasts are?  Traditional society says yes.  Is that sexist?  I don't know.

Women's breasts shouldn't be considered sexual organs if it was up to me.

[Athene]

^Knee-jerk reaction. 

Let's not be hasty, fella.

It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for the good of the community.

[Angrboda]