Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
not even the conservative united states supreme court considers that porn.....
do you consider mel gibson's ass in one of his movies...porn?
Alaska nominee says sex outside of marriage should be illegal
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
not even the conservative united states supreme court considers that porn.....
do you consider mel gibson's ass in one of his movies...porn?
I consider posting the picture of a nude woman in a sexually provacative pose and saying about the picture "I'd do her doggy style" to be porn yes...as well as demeaning and sexist.
So much for the ignore function, eh Tomasina? I told ID it would only last so long because you're just too damn nosey and live for drama.
We guessed you still frequent porn sites because although it shows you're here practically 24/7 we kind of figured you're filling in the down time perusing putang, or God forbid actually working.
Well then have at it! If you're offended, or don't like someone stating their opinion (something I know you NEVER do), follow Tom's example and put her on ignore.
3DDDDDDD's obsession with getting laid isn't unusual, it is just typical and boring. If he were getting any, he wouldn't be obsessing here about it.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Hugh Hefner has obsessed over getting laid for over 50 years. Is he still a virgin?
Taking from the list of rules that apply to the APP forum doesn't make them apply here. This area is not part of the APP forum. Therefore the "this forum was created for a higher level of argument, etc." isn't applying here. Rule 12 does, and if 3D started in detail to describe stuff the content would be considered "porn" but the image itself? One general statement isn't "graphic", at least not how I meant it when I posted the rule.
The reality is "porn" is subjective in nature. The SCOTUS even rules that way. One of the more famous quotes that you get from the SCOTUS on this subject is, "I'll know it when I see it. And in this case that wasn't it." (paraphrased).
Had he posted the book's picture with that statement in the APP area, he'd likely lose access to the APP area, and the picture would have been deleted because that area is subject to stricter content rules. Now, I've been trying to find a consensus among the Admin team to see if they see it differently than myself. Now, the book was drawn from the previous post of another who has since deleted his own post. While I find the book itself would probably be porn (don't post excerpts unless you want to be banned) the picture seem very rated PG-13 rather than rated XXX. The silly comment with it doesn't change that and is not a "graphic description" of sex.
If the admin team comes to a different conclusion, once I hear from them. I'll delete the picture, warn 3D, and it will all be handled. Either way, at this point the discussion itself has some merit. Does the picture constitute porn? What would the SCOTUS say? I've seen more skin and side-cleavage on soap commercials, but then they don't actually show the derriere.. just side-cleavage.
This discussion is both political, as such things have actually been brought before and decided on by the SCOTUS, as well as how would one write a non-subjective law or rule denoting the subjective nature of "what constitutes pornography?"
The girl on the cover is "nude", however isn't showing any more than a girl that was wearing a string bikini. Is it "porn"? Not from any definition that I know. Suggestive? Certainly. But so are many ads we see on billboards, are they "porn"?
I'm interested, actually quite interested, in the opinions of the members on the subject. Obviously 3D doesn't think the picture is "porn", I think it rides right on the line and could be seen either way, and so far there has been little input from the rest of the admin team other than one who doesn't think it is porn.
Anyway, I'd like to turn the conversation into something more interesting than, "I don't like 3D" into something more constructive. What level of censorship do you think I should apply in this case? It certainly isn't about children, so my one strict rule isn't applying here, it is subjective and I'd like to hear arguments as to why this particular picture would be porn, or wouldn't if that is your opinion. I'll take a consensus from the members as well.
The reality is "porn" is subjective in nature. The SCOTUS even rules that way. One of the more famous quotes that you get from the SCOTUS on this subject is, "I'll know it when I see it. And in this case that wasn't it." (paraphrased).
Had he posted the book's picture with that statement in the APP area, he'd likely lose access to the APP area, and the picture would have been deleted because that area is subject to stricter content rules. Now, I've been trying to find a consensus among the Admin team to see if they see it differently than myself. Now, the book was drawn from the previous post of another who has since deleted his own post. While I find the book itself would probably be porn (don't post excerpts unless you want to be banned) the picture seem very rated PG-13 rather than rated XXX. The silly comment with it doesn't change that and is not a "graphic description" of sex.
If the admin team comes to a different conclusion, once I hear from them. I'll delete the picture, warn 3D, and it will all be handled. Either way, at this point the discussion itself has some merit. Does the picture constitute porn? What would the SCOTUS say? I've seen more skin and side-cleavage on soap commercials, but then they don't actually show the derriere.. just side-cleavage.
This discussion is both political, as such things have actually been brought before and decided on by the SCOTUS, as well as how would one write a non-subjective law or rule denoting the subjective nature of "what constitutes pornography?"
The girl on the cover is "nude", however isn't showing any more than a girl that was wearing a string bikini. Is it "porn"? Not from any definition that I know. Suggestive? Certainly. But so are many ads we see on billboards, are they "porn"?
I'm interested, actually quite interested, in the opinions of the members on the subject. Obviously 3D doesn't think the picture is "porn", I think it rides right on the line and could be seen either way, and so far there has been little input from the rest of the admin team other than one who doesn't think it is porn.
Anyway, I'd like to turn the conversation into something more interesting than, "I don't like 3D" into something more constructive. What level of censorship do you think I should apply in this case? It certainly isn't about children, so my one strict rule isn't applying here, it is subjective and I'd like to hear arguments as to why this particular picture would be porn, or wouldn't if that is your opinion. I'll take a consensus from the members as well.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Anyway, I'd like to turn the conversation into something more interesting than, "I don't like 3D" into something more constructive. What level of censorship do you think I should apply in this case? It certainly isn't about children, so my one strict rule isn't applying here, it is subjective and I'd like to hear arguments as to why this particular picture would be porn, or wouldn't if that is your opinion. I'll take a consensus from the members as well.
This is just another load of bullshit, I'm sure that you've got much better things you could be doing. Have you rearranged your sock drawer recently?
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
i used to do photography and that is a well done picture - well above porn
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
Taking from the list of rules that apply to the APP forum doesn't make them apply here. This area is not part of the APP forum. Therefore the "this forum was created for a higher level of argument, etc." isn't applying here. Rule 12 does, and if 3D started in detail to describe stuff the content would be considered "porn" but the image itself? One general statement isn't "graphic", at least not how I meant it when I posted the rule.
The reality is "porn" is subjective in nature. The SCOTUS even rules that way. One of the more famous quotes that you get from the SCOTUS on this subject is, "I'll know it when I see it. And in this case that wasn't it." (paraphrased).
Had he posted the book's picture with that statement in the APP area, he'd likely lose access to the APP area, and the picture would have been deleted because that area is subject to stricter content rules. Now, I've been trying to find a consensus among the Admin team to see if they see it differently than myself. Now, the book was drawn from the previous post of another who has since deleted his own post. While I find the book itself would probably be porn (don't post excerpts unless you want to be banned) the picture seem very rated PG-13 rather than rated XXX. The silly comment with it doesn't change that and is not a "graphic description" of sex.
If the admin team comes to a different conclusion, once I hear from them. I'll delete the picture, warn 3D, and it will all be handled. Either way, at this point the discussion itself has some merit. Does the picture constitute porn? What would the SCOTUS say? I've seen more skin and side-cleavage on soap commercials, but then they don't actually show the derriere.. just side-cleavage.
This discussion is both political, as such things have actually been brought before and decided on by the SCOTUS, as well as how would one write a non-subjective law or rule denoting the subjective nature of "what constitutes pornography?"
The girl on the cover is "nude", however isn't showing any more than a girl that was wearing a string bikini. Is it "porn"? Not from any definition that I know. Suggestive? Certainly. But so are many ads we see on billboards, are they "porn"?
I'm interested, actually quite interested, in the opinions of the members on the subject. Obviously 3D doesn't think the picture is "porn", I think it rides right on the line and could be seen either way, and so far there has been little input from the rest of the admin team other than one who doesn't think it is porn.
Anyway, I'd like to turn the conversation into something more interesting than, "I don't like 3D" into something more constructive. What level of censorship do you think I should apply in this case? It certainly isn't about children, so my one strict rule isn't applying here, it is subjective and I'd like to hear arguments as to why this particular picture would be porn, or wouldn't if that is your opinion. I'll take a consensus from the members as well.
i used to do photography and i find the picture well done and well above the usual porn
the picture is quite stimulating without descending into porn, assuming that you find women attractive
while the woman in the picture is nude, nothing in the way of currently frowned upon shows, i.e., breasts and genitals, not even the full anal divide
i think that the woman has a beautiful body and wish that they had included her face, however that would change the lines of her pose to be strained
perhaps it should have been posted in the 'anything goes' forum, but given the op of the thread, i find it acceptable
apple0154
MEOW
Precisely!
apple0154
MEOW
ID, I think 3D (King) is in his early 20s. It is natural (natural, as in biologically normal) for a man his age to be preoccupied with the opposite sex. His comments such as "I'd do her doggy style" is not meant to be demeaning any more than if he said, "I could eat that gal." Or, "I could do her all night." He is voicing his desire for her, not any animosity towards her.
As for sexist/sexism the definition reads: discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women. (dic.com)
I think it's obvious he is NOT devaluating women. He is admiring them. Who would want to have sex with someone they didn't like? Someone they were not attracted to?
Oppression and subservience is not present in any of his posts and any male I've heard from always preferred an active participant as opposed to a passive one.
Whether those pictures are appropriate for here is another question altogether, however, his posts are neither sexist nor demeaning.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
She comes across as very prim and proper, considering she's had four husbands.
apple0154
MEOW
LOL Touché
apple0154
MEOW
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The number of husbands she has had is totally irrelevant. And that was a cheap shot.
Besides it has only been 3-
@Tom- It has nothing to do with being prim and proper...as if. That you wish to completely ignore what I have actually said says more about you then me.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
As Zsa Zsa Gabor said, “I'm an excellent housekeeper. Every time I get a divorce, I keep the house".
She also has been credited with saying "I know nothing about sex, because I was always married."
She also has been credited with saying "I know nothing about sex, because I was always married."
Taking from the list of rules that apply to the APP forum doesn't make them apply here. This area is not part of the APP forum. Therefore the "this forum was created for a higher level of argument, etc." isn't applying here. Rule 12 does, and if 3D started in detail to describe stuff the content would be considered "porn" but the image itself? One general statement isn't "graphic", at least not how I meant it when I posted the rule.
The reality is "porn" is subjective in nature. The SCOTUS even rules that way. One of the more famous quotes that you get from the SCOTUS on this subject is, "I'll know it when I see it. And in this case that wasn't it." (paraphrased).
Had he posted the book's picture with that statement in the APP area, he'd likely lose access to the APP area, and the picture would have been deleted because that area is subject to stricter content rules. Now, I've been trying to find a consensus among the Admin team to see if they see it differently than myself. Now, the book was drawn from the previous post of another who has since deleted his own post. While I find the book itself would probably be porn (don't post excerpts unless you want to be banned) the picture seem very rated PG-13 rather than rated XXX. The silly comment with it doesn't change that and is not a "graphic description" of sex.
If the admin team comes to a different conclusion, once I hear from them. I'll delete the picture, warn 3D, and it will all be handled. Either way, at this point the discussion itself has some merit. Does the picture constitute porn? What would the SCOTUS say? I've seen more skin and side-cleavage on soap commercials, but then they don't actually show the derriere.. just side-cleavage.
This discussion is both political, as such things have actually been brought before and decided on by the SCOTUS, as well as how would one write a non-subjective law or rule denoting the subjective nature of "what constitutes pornography?"
The girl on the cover is "nude", however isn't showing any more than a girl that was wearing a string bikini. Is it "porn"? Not from any definition that I know. Suggestive? Certainly. But so are many ads we see on billboards, are they "porn"?
I'm interested, actually quite interested, in the opinions of the members on the subject. Obviously 3D doesn't think the picture is "porn", I think it rides right on the line and could be seen either way, and so far there has been little input from the rest of the admin team other than one who doesn't think it is porn.
Anyway, I'd like to turn the conversation into something more interesting than, "I don't like 3D" into something more constructive. What level of censorship do you think I should apply in this case? It certainly isn't about children, so my one strict rule isn't applying here, it is subjective and I'd like to hear arguments as to why this particular picture would be porn, or wouldn't if that is your opinion. I'll take a consensus from the members as well.
Level of censorship? How about just applying the rules? You totally fucking suck. The point is the picture was nude and it was accompanied by the statement I'd do her doggy style"...totally in breaking with rule 12. SCOTUS ruling was on hard core porn... you're now, without a doubt, subjective rules...do not make clear anything other than: 12.-No Porn. This is not a porn site. It will be deleted. If it is constant you will likely lose access to the board. The board is for debate not sexual content. This includes nude photos and links to such as well as graphic stories of sexual encounters. This is a politics site, not a site for sexual gratification.
I think you should just say in the rules, that when you feel like pulling a rule out you will...and be done with your stupid rules... 3-d is a young sexist pig. The volume and content of his offerings are often, as in this instance, degrading and do nothing but sexualize women!
Since you, being a man, have little knowledge of what it is to be a woman-you have very little cred on the subject. To continually, as 3-d does, post half nude to completely nude women who are being used to discuss what he'd "do to them", is sexist and demeaning to women. That said, he does so with the complete support of the mods- so I must just be a good little woman and STFU... so be it. That does not however mean for a second that the picture(s) are not both pornographic and sexist..
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Holy shit, another meltdown in progress.
Last edited: