No bits rule.

[F.W 5,734]

Id like a rule that says you cant use pictures of a sexual nature for your avatar.Meaning you cant basically have naked penis/vagina featured.Wetting pictures are fine,but please no dangly bits etc.Theres enough of that on the site.Use your imaginations..

[AshAce 57]

14 hours ago, fannywatcher said:

Id like a rule that says you cant use pictures of a sexual nature for your avatar.Meaning you cant basically have naked penis/vagina featured.Wetting pictures are fine,but please no dangly bits etc.Theres enough of that on the site.Use your imaginations..

I agree with this. I get the impression that straight guys aren't too keen on seeing other guys’ dicks, and straight females aren’t too keen on “unsolicited dick pics”.

[Sexismygod 1,782]

A fail to see the problem here (obviously).  Your avatar is your chosen representation to the community.  What do we outlaw next ... religious icons?  Political symbols?  National symbols? 

In the end, restriction is restriction.  A group that wants to restrict the way I present myself is not a group I'll remain in touch with.  Your choice.  I've never had an woman here complain about my avatar, though I admit a few squeamish guys have.

[glad1 2,832]

Maybe we should impose a "truth in advertising" rule as well? I've often been drawn into a profile only to find things aren't as they seem.

[spywareonya 37,961]

Ok, without wanting to disrespect anybody, and taking humbly this time, I have to say that in my personal experience, is better to endure something we don't like reather than to summon the power of outlawing.

I don't trust that power, it Always create a bad atmosphere.

 

And I'm not saying that because I love cocks!!!

 

 

[steve25805 126,021]

4 hours ago, spywareonya said:

Ok, without wanting to disrespect anybody, and taking humbly this time, I have to say that in my personal experience, is better to endure something we don't like reather than to summon the power of outlawing.

I don't trust that power, it Always create a bad atmosphere.

 

 

Totally with you on that. It is all about toleration. We should not be wanting this or that banned just because it is not to our taste. Live and let live. Besides, if anything is to be banned, that is Founder Admin's call. And his alone, really.

[Sophie 24,410]

I have to agree with some of the other above, there shouldn't be a rule against them. If we block people showing their genitals, what will be next? Theres a big difference between using it as an avatar and randomly sending it to people. And at the end of the day, it's an adult site after all. These things should be expected. 

Of course I don't make the rules, I just keep the website tidy but that's my two cents. If a gorgeous woman took a photo of her pussy, maybe even peeing, would there be as much of an outrage?

[F.W 5,734]

I did also say that men or women actually should post such pictures on a different page of the site..

[Sophie 24,410]

1 hour ago, fannywatcher said:

I did also say that men or women actually should post such pictures on a different page of the site..

 

On 18/03/2018 at 6:20 AM, fannywatcher said:

Id like a rule that says you cant use pictures of a sexual nature for your avatar.Meaning you cant basically have naked penis/vagina featured.Wetting pictures are fine,but please no dangly bits etc.Theres enough of that on the site.Use your imaginations..

Umm, where?

[Admin 14,788]

As a straight guy, I agree I'd prefer not to see dicks in avatars. That said, I'm all in favour of boobs and vaginas in avatars, and it seems extremely hypocritical to specifically say male nudity should go. As for banning all nudity in avatars... well, it's an adult forum, it's hard to get away from nakedness really, so it just seems a little unnecessary. I like people setting their avatars and showing some individualism within their profile, and I don't want to discourage that so we all end up with the generic letters as pictures. 

Steve mentioned that it's my choice, but honestly on things like this I'd rather go with the consensus. My general feeling (and from the above, I think most agree) is that those of us who aren't huge fans can very easily tolerate them, and so we ideally don't want to go banning anything and placing unnecessary restrictions. I do completely hear what you're saying FW, but personally I can't say I really notice people's avatars all that much when browsing threads anyway. In the same way that in porn you focus on the bits you do want to see, hopefully the same can be done on the site. 

Worst case scenario I could potentially add a setting so individual members can choose to disable all avatars on their account, but I don't think many people would want that?

Happy for people to continue giving opinions on this though. However, unsolicited dick pics was mentioned, and I'm sure it goes without saying that directly sending anyone unrequested pictures is very different to having a small public picture of your choosing. 

[spywareonya 37,961]

58 minutes ago, Admin said:

As a straight guy, I agree I'd prefer not to see dicks in avatars. That said, I'm all in favour of boobs and vaginas in avatars, and it seems extremely hypocritical to specifically say male nudity should go. As for banning all nudity in avatars... well, it's an adult forum, it's hard to get away from nakedness really, so it just seems a little unnecessary. I like people setting their avatars and showing some individualism within their profile, and I don't want to discourage that so we all end up with the generic letters as pictures. 

Steve mentioned that it's my choice, but honestly on things like this I'd rather go with the consensus. My general feeling (and from the above, I think most agree) is that those of us who aren't huge fans can very easily tolerate them, and so we ideally don't want to go banning anything and placing unnecessary restrictions. I do completely hear what you're saying FW, but personally I can't say I really notice people's avatars all that much when browsing threads anyway. In the same way that in porn you focus on the bits you do want to see, hopefully the same can be done on the site. 

Worst case scenario I could potentially add a setting so individual members can choose to disable all avatars on their account, but I don't think many people would want that?

Happy for people to continue giving opinions on this though. However, unsolicited dick pics was mentioned, and I'm sure it goes without saying that directly sending anyone unrequested pictures is very different to having a small public picture of your choosing. 

Balance of power and democracy in the Admins' attitude. For me, is the Speak of the Lord. Couldn't agree more, both on the fact that I understand Fanny and endorse his sensation of bother, and meanwhile in the invitation to simply tolerate/ignore friendly

[F.W 5,734]

Its no big deal,just id rather not be involuntarily forced to view other peoples uglies.

[spywareonya 37,961]

On ‎21‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 11:16 AM, owlman76 said:

It's one of those strange ones is this, it's okay for a bloke to walk down a street with no top on, yet if a woman did it there'd be an outcry, why they both have nipples, would it be any different if it was a flat chested woman? Same with cocks, I've seen lots of documentaries where they'll quite happily show a naked bloke walking about, but if a naked female appears they either move the camera or blur it out if it shows her vagina. The strangest one is the Japanese porn films, they'll show a bloke banging a bird, you can see his cock going in and out, yet where you'd expect to see a vagina,  it's all pixellated! To be honest, in this day and age when everyone is screaming equality in all things, I'm surprised the equal rights mob haven't leapt on it.

It's because everybody loves pussy so much that if you actually show it in tv all the world would jerk out in front of tv regardless of what he was doing previously!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Sexismygod 1,782]

The hypocrisy of public media is endless, but particularly strange in the US and U.K.  In Europe and Scandinavia, the naked body is just a naked body.  Men and women share the sauna naked without a second thought.  Television shows nudity of both sexes equally, though they do try to wait til the kiddies have gone to bed.  

In US/UK, it’s an inherently sexual image.  Why?  This perspective just makes the body something to be hidden rather than celebrated.  It creates unnecessary tension and angst when so much as a bare breast is exposed (oh, the horror!).  I think it’s time to just get over it.  What’s the big deal? 

The really strange thing to me is how gratuitous violence (dismemberment, disembowelling, etc) is treated in films.  Ultra-gory films like Saw get lighter ratings than a film with a topless woman.  WTF?  Seriously?  They think a naked breast is more damaging and perverse than cutting off someone’s hand with a circular saw?

That, my friends, is just plain crazy.

[spywareonya 37,961]

2 hours ago, Sexismygod said:

The hypocrisy of public media is endless, but particularly strange in the US and U.K.  In Europe and Scandinavia, the naked body is just a naked body.  Men and women share the sauna naked without a second thought.  Television shows nudity of both sexes equally, though they do try to wait til the kiddies have gone to bed.  

In US/UK, it’s an inherently sexual image.  Why?  This perspective just makes the body something to be hidden rather than celebrated.  It creates unnecessary tension and angst when so much as a bare breast is exposed (oh, the horror!).  I think it’s time to just get over it.  What’s the big deal? 

The really strange thing to me is how gratuitous violence (dismemberment, disembowelling, etc) is treated in films.  Ultra-gory films like Saw get lighter ratings than a film with a topless woman.  WTF?  Seriously?  They think a naked breast is more damaging and perverse than cutting off someone’s hand with a circular saw?

That, my friends, is just plain crazy.

Do you want my real opinion, without jokes this time?

I think that people are afraid of viscerality, because the Root of All Evil, both according to psychology and the Occult, lies in the cosmical cataclysm that happens in the mind of the child when parents starts to tell him that some things (like playing with his little willy) are not to be done in public and teach him the concept of "shame"

YOu and I and every one else know this to be outdated but for the unconscious brain, it is not simply wrong, is worse than dying. You cannot even imagine the viscerality of the child under 2 years of age, I can, because as a Witch, I undertook some deep-hypnosis states (no questions please, as there would be no answers, ever) that kept me close to those fringes of human psyche, and I can tell you that according to what I heard about LSD trip, a child perceives the world THAT WAY

When we become "normal", compared to that, is worse than death

So we censor the subject "viscerality" because is the matter around which our trauma took place

Paradoxically, when we lost ourselves by that trauma, violence was less involved as subject, than sex

And that is why we feel an instinctive fear of showing publicly that matter: because it could make the argument to surface

By the way, that is also why we Witches are so slutty as a religious commitment (beside the fact that we love to be that way): we fight back that trauma, we make it Surface and we hope to exorcise it, bringing the world (I mean the mindset of humans) to that deeply visceral condition