Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
The forum rules explicitly state:
I'll be the first to admit that definitions of many of these terms vary from person to person. But ever since I can remember, it's been the policy of this forum that sexually-oriented material, such as photographs of naked women, were not allowed. Such photographs were always removed, and the posters punished.
The rules seem to have changed, without the Forum Rules section being updated. I've mostly stayed out of the Babe threads (I stay out of all picture threads because they take too long to load), but just out of curiosity, I recently peeked inside pages 12 and 13 of Babe Thread XII.
Most of the pictures there were acceptable even by the old rules. But there were also pictures in there which are very much sexually oriented. I saw a naked woman in a bathtub (in a field, naturally), the bare buttocks of a woman whose thong was so invisible you could swear she didn't have one on, and a woman whose copious breasts were very poorly covered by her hands (though admittedly her nipples were entirely concealed).
Now, I'm certainly no prude. If I were, my response would simply be to never go into those threads and not think about it again. I like naked babes as much as any heterosexual guy does, I think. So I'm not making a complaint about nudity. Actually, I'm not making a complaint at all. It's more of an inquiry. And the inquiry is about consistency.
Of course nudity is not inherently sexual, but I'd say a naked woman in a bathtub (in a field!) and a woman bearing her breasts with a suggestive look on her face are sexually oriented. Theoretically, these pics are in direct violation of the explicitly stated rules of the forum, yet clearly those in charge have deemed these pictures acceptable and no action has been taken. If the old rules no longer apply, please explain to me what the new rules are.
No female nipples and no genitals, I assume. A full view of butt cheecks is obviously okay, judging from the pictures I saw. But suppose I posted a picture of a woman in a full top, with full-length jeans on, but the jeans are riding a little low, and a little bit of her butt crack is peeking out. Would that be okay? Or how about a frontal view of a nude woman whose nipples and genitals were covered? And if these are not okay, then why exactly are the pictures I described above okay?
Again I want to stress that I'm not complaining about the nudity. I'm asking for more explicit rules, posted clearly, so we all know how much nudity we are allowed to put here. Of course the rules are always subject to change as Thunderfall changes his mind about something, but I'd prefer to know precisely what I will and won't get in trouble for. I don't want to post a picture that I judge more mild than one that's already in there, only to get busted because I've violated some obscure sub-rule that can't even be found in the Forum Rules section. So I'm not asking that indecent pictures be removed. Screw decency.
I'm just asking for clarity, that's all.
I'll be the first to admit that definitions of many of these terms vary from person to person. But ever since I can remember, it's been the policy of this forum that sexually-oriented material, such as photographs of naked women, were not allowed. Such photographs were always removed, and the posters punished.
The rules seem to have changed, without the Forum Rules section being updated. I've mostly stayed out of the Babe threads (I stay out of all picture threads because they take too long to load), but just out of curiosity, I recently peeked inside pages 12 and 13 of Babe Thread XII.
Most of the pictures there were acceptable even by the old rules. But there were also pictures in there which are very much sexually oriented. I saw a naked woman in a bathtub (in a field, naturally), the bare buttocks of a woman whose thong was so invisible you could swear she didn't have one on, and a woman whose copious breasts were very poorly covered by her hands (though admittedly her nipples were entirely concealed).
Now, I'm certainly no prude. If I were, my response would simply be to never go into those threads and not think about it again. I like naked babes as much as any heterosexual guy does, I think. So I'm not making a complaint about nudity. Actually, I'm not making a complaint at all. It's more of an inquiry. And the inquiry is about consistency.
Of course nudity is not inherently sexual, but I'd say a naked woman in a bathtub (in a field!) and a woman bearing her breasts with a suggestive look on her face are sexually oriented. Theoretically, these pics are in direct violation of the explicitly stated rules of the forum, yet clearly those in charge have deemed these pictures acceptable and no action has been taken. If the old rules no longer apply, please explain to me what the new rules are.
No female nipples and no genitals, I assume. A full view of butt cheecks is obviously okay, judging from the pictures I saw. But suppose I posted a picture of a woman in a full top, with full-length jeans on, but the jeans are riding a little low, and a little bit of her butt crack is peeking out. Would that be okay? Or how about a frontal view of a nude woman whose nipples and genitals were covered? And if these are not okay, then why exactly are the pictures I described above okay?
Again I want to stress that I'm not complaining about the nudity. I'm asking for more explicit rules, posted clearly, so we all know how much nudity we are allowed to put here. Of course the rules are always subject to change as Thunderfall changes his mind about something, but I'd prefer to know precisely what I will and won't get in trouble for. I don't want to post a picture that I judge more mild than one that's already in there, only to get busted because I've violated some obscure sub-rule that can't even be found in the Forum Rules section. So I'm not asking that indecent pictures be removed. Screw decency.
I'm just asking for clarity, that's all.
...well, not that nasty... consequences
