Wow. I come back to find an incredibly snarky PM from Won, so I'm exhuming this thread from page 6 because my absence has damaged Won's self-esteem somehow. He "deserves" a response or something. I sincerely apologize that my absence has caused anybody hereon any distress, or delusions.
Coupla things -- first, I'm not about "pornography" on PPOT. The Supremes have wrestled with what that word means ("I know it when I see it..."), but there are certainly images that cross the line, and they do not belong here. I'm on the record for having supported Z-Man, in this very thread and elsewhere, and his discretion:
From my first post in this thread: "BTW -- I have no issue with z-man's discretion. I think he's got a pretty good barometer for acceptable, and if he errs on the side of caution, so be it."
Wayne's rule, which you quoted, does not say "no boobies" -- in fact, there are plenty of "boobies" on the PPOT, in various states of display. Whichever definition (from the spectrum of those available) of "pornography" is employed on PPOT, it is not as low a threshold as mere "boobies".
Some displays are too revealing (ie pornographic) and Z-Man deletes them and metes out swift justice. However, his discretion, as a proxy for Wayne, means that some degree of va-va-va-voom is acceptable.
There is, therefore, some degree of "boobies" that is prurient, even lusty, but not "pornographic" by Wayne/Z-man's definition. This is the mind-bending point. This is not my "opinion" -- this is a deduction from plain, observable facts.
Now that I've established that there are sexy images on PPOT that do not "rise" to the local definition of pornography, I hasten to add that I do not support posting of pornographic materials on PPOT. Even in Grid Girls. If K Roman got a week's suspension for crossing the line, the scoundrel probably deserved it (I can't say for sure, not having seen the picture in question b/c Z-man does his job so well ... do you have a "watch list" that alerts you when certain people post, Z?).
To clarify, the whiners to which I referred are those who lament in the most pious of tones, that there are too many sexy (but not, by PPOT definition pornographic) pix on PPOT. Bytching, essentially, about the boobies and tail and "come hither stares" that survive Z-man's scrutiny.
The lament with which I take issue is that there are too many even of
these pictures. These sexy, but 'non-pornographic' -- by definition, because they've survived Z-man's scrutiny, pictures. If
these images are too much... TFB. If there are "too many" of
these images for you, TFB.
"why do we have to see all these girls" (I paraphrase...)
Don't look. Find another thread. You don't
have to see anything.
"my girlfriend/daughter/sister/aunt might see me looking at these"
Don't look. Find another thread. Look when they're not around.
"I'd be embarrassed to be seen looking at these at work"
Don't look. Find another thread. Look at home -- when the womenfolk aren't around. (see above)
"But I
want to look; I feel cheated if I can't, whenever I
want to."
Those are "You" problems. You can't get what you want, so others must change for you. Have some freaking discretion; grow up.
"But, honey, I
have to look at this stuff, I'm a moderator."
Oh, wait... that's Z-man.
I have, in fact, had girlfriends walk in to see me scrolling through Random Pictures, with some hotties on the screen. First, if she's got an issue with that -- knowing it's not a porn site, but PPOT, that's a "her" problem. Second, if she can't understand that it is largely a "boys club" and boys put up these pictures, that's a "her" problem (and she's probably got an issue with "men" generally).
Third, if, notwithstanding "her" problems, I try to reason with her (we know how gently I reason with people), and explain that the site is predominantly just goofy photos and I have no control over what pops up ... and she is still upset, then we've got a real problem. If I can't look at something that *might* contain
not-even-pornographic images, well, there's a whole bunch of movies I'm not allowed to see, and I might as well unplug from the Internet --> at which point, her problem remains her problem and she can find someone else upon whom to foist it.
Actually, I recommend the approach: "you think
that's porn?!?!. Here..." (.... click click click ....) "... Now
THAT's freaking PORN. Pelican doesn't look so bad, now, does it?"
Frankly, I could see some guys getting all "um, ... er, ... um" if they are sitting at the 'puter looking at a huge image of a gorgeous female athlete, in skimpy, very tight fitting athletic wear, holding a pole of some sort ... and in walks the missus. "What's
that you're looking at, eh?" Even "innocent" images can get you in "trouble"; use discretion, take responsibility.
One last thing, actually ... I'm aware that, according to Wayne's Rules, something need not be "pornographic" to be stricken, only "objectionable" (whatever
that means). So I hereby declare that picture of the female athlete objectionable b/c, among othe reasons, I "might" get in trouble if I don't use some common f*cking sense and discretion when looking at this site. Truthishly. It's too much for me. It's not porn -- like so many of the other pictures that
aren't porn on PPOT -- but this one is too much for
me, even though it's OK with Z-man, it's the last straw for
me, so it must be removed to preserve
my ability to view this site unoffended whenever, however, and in front of whomever
I want. And I'm not being unreasonable ... because
I say I'm not.
Hunh, if I look at the world as though it's there for
me, I
can "justify" anything I want. That's got to be a liberating sashay through life; but, alas, it's not for me.
Nor is grammar-checking right now... apologies in advance to those who are offended by off-the-cuff ersatz grammar and run-on sentences.
To assuage the ordinarily tender and already bruised self esteem hereon, I will make an effort to check back tomorrow, or at the latest Thursday evening. TTFN.
JP