Originally posted by no1marauderIll see your porn ..and raise with some gay porn
I posted it because there was a discussion about one of the actresses in Animal House and there was a photo of her on the Playboy site. It showed here semi-nude with one breast visible.
I didn't consider this "obscene" and still don't. Do you consider the Venus De Milo "obscene"? Or any painting by the renaissance masters showing the female ...[text shortened]... I don't think Playboy has been considered porn since the Eisenhower administration.
🙄
http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~rbloem/david.html
The post that was quoted here has been removedI directly responded to your point; you apparently don't know what the word "skirt" means though apparently you think the ladies in Titian's paintings should be wearing some.
I didn't know that the RHP forums were moderated at the lowest common denominator of censorship anywhere in the world. Are we still allowed to post comments about the Prophet or is that verboten because I could get flogged for doing so in Iran?
The line the Mods are drawing is a ridiculous and arbitrary one.
The Venus is a historical work of art, and has value in that context. Playboy's context is the intent to sexually arouse.
The course in recognizing and preventing child sexual abuse I took discussed the grooming that happens prior to the act (in cases in which the perp is known, as opposed to stranger danger). One of the first steps in the grooming process is to make available to the child photographs that are created with the intent to arouse, followed by videos of the same, followed by action videos. Each step leads to the end result of desensitizing the child to prevailing mores and teaching the child that sex is great while leaving out the part about sex needing to be an action between equals. Thus the next step is fairly simple for the perps.
Yes, there are many children who will discover these things on their own, but that's the point -- they're making their own discoveries and it's not being handed to them by adults who care about their overall well-being and healthy growth.
Look at your (you = the site, not marauder) student Bad wolf. He's absorbed every sexual innuendo and link that you've thrown at him. Has he developed a healthy sexuality? Nope. We get lots of threads with his obsession with it, along with other youth saying you should go out and basically screw everything in sight. There isn't a lot of talk about safe sex, respecting oneself and one's partner, its role in a loving relationship, keeping it in perspective, etc. There may be sites where people actually do have healthy discourse about sex, but this isn't it, and pretending that allowing more sexual images is going to change that is bogus.
Originally posted by no1marauderPlayboy is porn. In the US you can't legally buy it if you're under age 18.
I posted it because there was a discussion about one of the actresses in Animal House and there was a photo of her on the Playboy site. It showed here semi-nude with one breast visible.
I didn't consider this "obscene" and still don't. Do you consider the Venus De Milo "obscene"? Or any painting by the renaissance masters showing the female ...[text shortened]... I don't think Playboy has been considered porn since the Eisenhower administration.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI forgot that seeing a bare female breast is just a prelude to child rape. Thanks for clearing that up with your hysterical post.
The Venus is a historical work of art, and has value in that context. Playboy's context is the intent to sexually arouse.
The course in recognizing and preventing child sexual abuse I took discussed the grooming that happens prior to the act (in cases in which the perp is known, as opposed to stranger danger). One of the first steps in the groomin t it, and pretending that allowing more sexual images is going to change that is bogus.
The intent of the maker of the Venus or of Playboy really isn't terribly relevant to the question of what is "obscene" which is what the TOS bans.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerCigarettes are porn according to that definition.
Playboy is porn. In the US you can't legally buy it if you're under age 18.
Pornography requires sexually explicit depictions according to my dictionary not the mere showing of the female (or male) form.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI'd probably post something like this in my TOS:
You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will RHP be liable in any way for any Content,
Wait a minute .........................
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're predictable. I knew you'd miss my points. Seeing a bare breast isn't the issue. A child can intentionally find all sorts of images on the internet if they know where to look or have mastered google, and their parents aren't supervising, just as a child can ask a friend's big brother to supply them with Playboy magazines. In both cases, the child is choosing to be the consumer. That is not what I'm talking about.
I forgot that seeing a bare female breast is just a prelude to child rape. Thanks for clearing that up with your hysterical post.
The intent of the maker of the Venus or of Playboy really isn't terribly relevant to the question of what is "obscene" or "pornography".
I'm talking about when adults present the links/materials to children that the children didn't intend to receive or expect (such as on a chess web site that has specifically declared itself to be appropriate for 13-year-olds). That is part of the grooming process by adults. It doesn't mean all adults who do so are intentionally grooming children for abuse.
And I disagree -- the intent is relevant. A naked infant/toddler in a diaper commercial is different from a naked infant/toddler in a video whose purpose is to arouse psychos.
Originally posted by pawnhandlerI lack your ability to read minds, so I don't know whether the sculptor of the Venus De Milo intended to sexually arouse or not. In any event, the question was what is "obscene" under the definition in the TOS and I don't think it requires your impressive telepathic powers to determine that a photo or a painting of a woman showing her bare breast isn't "obscene".
You're predictable. I knew you'd miss my points. Seeing a bare breast isn't the issue. A child can intentionally find all sorts of images on the internet if they know where to look or have mastered google, and their parents aren't supervising, just as a child can ask a friend's big brother to supply them with Playboy magazines. In both cases, the chi ...[text shortened]... is different from a naked infant/toddler in a video whose purpose is to arouse psychos.
In the highly unlikely event that some user started a thread entitled "For the Kids" and posted links to a bunch of nudie pictures, then it would be OK with me if the Mods deleted it. Happy? What that has to do with a discussion about which actress was "hottest" in Animal House is a bit unclear to me though.
The post that was quoted here has been removedActually it's not off topic because this clan has become synonomous with the racial issues we have been discussing. As I mentioned earlier, I did put the question to Russ and also raised it about the clan avatar and my personal avatar. I did not hear back.