All Posters: Please Read!

[fin-atic]

All:

Ok I appreciate a fine woman as much as anyone...maybe even more than most. However, this site is viewed by many people who have kids, wives and families. We have TOS that state what you can and can not post. Things have started getting a little raunchy in here and we are not a porn site. So before you post that picture make sure that you can't see anything. The ladies have to have all the key areas conceled completely. If you dont know what I mean by the key areas then you have no business being in this forum.

Please follow the rules because after this I have to start getting tough and giving warnings etc.

So clean it up folks.

Alright guys, updated rules, follow them and post away.

no:

1. Full nudity
2. Topless
3. Bottomless
4. ANY part of the female Genetalia
5. Pornography of any kind
6. Websites that you link that have links to porn or porn on them
7. Any men posted on here, clothed or naked...will be removed...
8. Please keep pictures under 500 pixals wide.


Thanks.

-Matt

[Wombat]

whew First reply

[cltchperf]

All:

Ok I appreciate a fine woman as much as anyone...maybe even more than most. However, this site is viewed by many people who have kids, wives and families. We have TOS that state what you can and can not post. Things have started getting a little raunchy in here and we are not a porn site. So before you post that picture make sure that you can't see anything. The ladies have to have all the key areas conceled completely. If you dont know what I mean by the key areas then you have no business being in this forum.

Please follow the rules because after this I have to start getting tough and giving warnings etc.

So clean it up folks.

Thanks.

-Matt

So it's alright for a kid to see a woman wearing nothing but straps, even if it is a millimeter from showing her nipples? A woman *** naked? Since when did boobs become not highly sexually appealing. Call my crazy, but I would have thought men appreciated the breasts equally to the nipples? What do the nipples matter if they aren't on top of nice shaped jugs? It's a mutual thing. I'm not talking about cleavage, which is just the top, but every side of the breasts, top, bottom, sides, and right up to everything just shy of the nipple and obviously the vagina covered, but those are genitals, nipples aren't. This isn't for my personal agenda, if I wanted to see nipples I would just look at porn, but I'm just pointing out how this is illogical. How is a woman 98% naked not indecent or so much less indecent for children than nipples. You know, as you see on here, men are just as aroused by a nice bare *** as nice bare ****, after all, it is T AND A and not just T, right?

You don't think children aren;t going to have their eyes open wide seeing a woman in pasties and just straps? Even if her nipples aren't showing it's going to cause a lot of arousal and open eyes. Why do you think few women go *** naked or g strings at beaches, excluding Miami Beach and like that or don't wear pasties or just straps?, because men and children would be highly distracted. What I'm saying, if you are playing this game, then set it where sexy bikinis are fine or skimpy bikinis, but when a woman is 98% naked and other parts that are equally sexually arousing as nipples are shown and you are playing a game of millimeters, that is close enough and sexual enough from the logical reasons I just explained.

[Drumstix71]

Firstly the nip is not the be all and end all. Exactly, i love to see the round bits - that does it for me! me, or and kid could just look at a fashion catalogue to see nip (or hint thereof)...


Of course we cannot take away MTV from the kids...



MY POINT IS THAT AS LONG AS FINHEAVEN CAN FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN DICTATED BY THE MEDIA TODAY, IT WILL NOT BE IN DANGER OF BREACHING INTO BEING A PORN SITE. KIDS WILL NOT BOTHER LOOKING FOR PORN HERE IF THERE IS NO PORN HERE - AND THERE ISN'T (BY MODERN STANDARD)

THERE ARE PLENTY OF PORN SITES THEY CAN GO TO QUITE FREELY, AND IF YOU THINK MOMMY IS THE PROBLEM, YOU CANT TAKE AWAY THIER MOBILE PHONES WHERE THEY CAN SURF PORN THE WHOLE DAY, CAN YOU?

HOWEVER, I THINK I'M GONNA START A "CLASSIC BEAUTIES" THREAD RIGHT NOW! (score some brownie (not brown eye) points with the mods)

[cltchperf]

Firstly the nip is not the be all and end all. Exactly, i love to see the round bits - that does it for me! me, or and kid could just look at a fashion catalogue to see nip (or hint thereof)...


Of course we cannot take away MTV from the kids...



MY POINT IS THAT AS LONG AS FINHEAVEN CAN FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN DICTATED BY THE MEDIA TODAY, IT WILL NOT BE IN DANGER OF BREACHING INTO BEING A PORN SITE. KIDS WILL NOT BOTHER LOOKING FOR PORN HERE IF THERE IS NO PORN HERE - AND THERE ISN'T (BY MODERN STANDARD)

THERE ARE PLENTY OF PORN SITES THEY CAN GO TO QUITE FREELY, AND IF YOU THINK MOMMY IS THE PROBLEM, YOU CANT TAKE AWAY THIER MOBILE PHONES WHERE THEY CAN SURF PORN THE WHOLE DAY, CAN YOU?

HOWEVER, I THINK I'M GONNA START A "CLASSIC BEAUTIES" THREAD RIGHT NOW! (score some brownie (not brown eye) points with the mods)

But that's my point. So a nipples is now porn territory? lol, but every other square inch of nice very arousing boob and a naked *** and being 98% naked is not porn and not raunchy or suddenly less rauncy. So a milliemeter determines something from being porn territory? Where is the logic? Like I said, boobs and *** are just as sexually arousing as the nipples, and you even said how you love the mounds just as much if not more yourself. Well my answer wasn't just from the site, but my response to how stupid the media is. How can the media be so oblivious to think that children are not going to be distracted and highly aroused or not be, because a nipples is covered even though just about every other part of the breast is exposed and very thinly covered by a strap like I have seen and a naked ***. Like I said boys/men kinds a nice *** just as arousing as boobs. Why do you think there are roughly equal back shots and front shots in playboy. It seems like most men have an equal appreciation for the boobs and ***, hence T AND A, not just T. And I would bet there are just as many *** men as boob men. One of the definitions of obscenity: designed to incite to indecency or lust. I think if we are to go with that, then 98% naked seems like more than enough to incite that, and it is foolish to think that a nipple is going to cause a significant increase if the bodies shown are already practically naked and showing equally arousing parts.

I'm just saying for people to make up their mind. If naked breasts are indecent then show sexy bikinis or whatever, but if a woman is just strings and very barely concealed, then it might as well be shown because the reaction to her is going to be not too far off from if she was showing her nipples. What I mean by showing is just the nipples, not the vagina, because those are sexual organs, I believe showing that would be pornographic. This in between, blurred lines, I'm saying is illogical and stupid. And it's not because I want to see them, because I don't care, the reason I care is because it is not logical when you consider everything I brought up, especially regarding cable and the media standards, not broadcast. Apparently some shows on cable can show literally soft porn, but as long as a nipple isn't shown, it's alright, lol. I know the FCC has less restriction, but I guarentee, cable is careful about that, but yet a woman can be on all fours, naked ***, a man behind her thrusting, and he bare breasts hanging down but angled just off where you can't see the nipples but you can see the rest of the breasts. Where is this logic?

If a show can show that, they what in the world is so bad about nipples, especially considering what is shown already? So soft core porn and simulation of sex is fine for a teenage boy or child to see as long as a nipple isn't shown? If I was forced to choose, I would rather a kid see nipples than nippless, soft core porn. I'm just saying there is something wrong with parents if they are fine with a child seeing soft core porn on like Nip/tuck as long as there are no nipples or a sexual portray of a woman's body with just strings and every inch her body exposed except for the nipples that are barely covered and just a tiny string up the crack. Obviously the vagina is off limits, but that is a repoductive organ like I said, it's just silly thinking a nipple is the sudden determination of porn or too much when everything is shown and the reaction it causes for a child who will be reacting like the women is naked up top even if she isn't. Not much logic. I wasn't talking about pics like that Britney Spears one, but one's that were even more revealing. When I was talking about nipple, i didn't mean under the clothing but bare, as I don't see a anything from just a hint of it anyway.

[Drumstix71]

hey man, i agree with you on whole (or hole - LOL) but...

I've seen some posts that show some nip and the moderators don't touch it. I've also seen some,,,... er ..."spiders legs" showing from underneath a g-string (in the bum area) and the moderators dont touch it.

I think what you're looking for is a standard guideline, like:

* partial areola (area surrounding actual nipple) shown - acceptable
* nipple shown - unacceptable
* Vagina vulva (lips) - unacceptable
* Naked butt cheeks - acceptable
* woman shown on hands and knees - acceptable with these conditions: she is not touching herself on her vagi.....,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,

ETC ETC ETC ETC

it is becoming more difficult pictures that make you say damn! and stay within guidelines.

anyway.... check out my boring classic ladies post

[Drumstix71]

<H3>Ladies Lounge House Rules...

Alright guys, updated rules, follow them and post away.

no:

1. Full nudity
2. Topless
3. Bottomless
4. ANY part of the female Genetalia
5. Pornography of any kind
6. Websites that you link that have links to porn or porn on them
7. Any men posted on here, clothed or naked...will be removed...

The staff reserves the right to move pictures that break the rules to the staff lounge for further viewing...

</H3>

THIS IS GREAT AND EVERYTHING BUT PERHAPS YOU GUYS SHOULD CONSIDER A MORE DETAILED AND INTRICATE RULE LIST - AFTER ALL, THINGS HAVE CHANGED AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "FULL NUDITY" AND NON-NUDE CAN BE millimeters AS DISCUSSED ABOVE.

[DolphinPhan]

How about everyone just use a little common sense and stop pushing so much that they shut the forum down altogether. Having a detailed and intricate rule list is not necessary. The mods can use thier judgement. They've gotten that position by being commited and showing good judgement. If you need pictorial assistance to shake your soda then goto another site.

[cltchperf]

it is becoming more difficult pictures that make you say damn! and stay within guidelines.
es post[/QUOTE]

Exactly, that is what I'm saying. And if us adults are saying that, think what young boys are saying seeing some of the shots. Like I'm saying, bare nipples are not allowed, but then posters can show two topless women who have their breast against each other, and pressed just slightly, and that is what prevents a nipples from being seen, but you have two big boobs like this, and this is what I mean, that is more than what even MTV does. I didn't think the Britney spears pic you had, as I've seen pics like that before, but believe it or not, there is even less coverage on this site and on some cable TV stations like FX. I don't want to shut down anything, I'm just saying for people to actually think that children's aren't going to be damn! or that suddenly nipples are going to be such a big deal, when a kid's eyes are already popping out from amazing naked ***** and naked breasts with straps just barely covering, but the huge boobs all exposed, then people are certainly oblivious to things. I'm just saying it's silly that nipples suddenly are not allowed to be shown, when you can already show everything else, and a boys reaction to looking at the pics will most likely be in great excitment and I know (duhm I'm a dude) nipples are very sexually appealing, but I didn't know they were more arousing than a naked *** and the jugs they sit on themselves? Your a man, it seems that men like the breasts just as much as the nipples and *** as much as boobs. It makes it seem like what is being implied is that nipples are more sexually appealing than boobs, but they are actually equal.

So why are two parts that are equally sexually attractive allowed, but not the bare nipple? I'm just saying when some cut it as close as some do, its just like make up your mind already, because that line is very blurred and it's just silly to believe that it is suddenly fine for a boy to see even though he gets really excited from the naked pics (excluding the nipples), because that's what I believed obscenity was about for this instance was the incitement of distraction and lust, ad I'm wondering how some of the pics I described don't fit into that greatly and how one part makes a big difference. I'm not trying to be a hard ***, and I'm not trying to say let's stop this tight rope walk, because to think that showing everything but the nipples is fine for children, when I already said how arousing it is seeing that much, but not the bare nipples is silly and oblivious to the effect the other equally and arousing parts might have on a boy. I don't know I hope I'm explaining it right, or if you get what I'm trying to say. I mean you just said how nake areola has can show and is fine, but naked nipple is not. Is that not extemely fickle and stupid? I'm just saying it's not consistent at all, the guidelines, and if people are showing everything, then I don't see a how nipples make such a big difference, after what is already shown or if that is shown then show the nipples. Or just show sexy bikinis and not do the 98% naked thing and make a decision. Either show them or cover a little bit more, so this stupid blurred boundaries and tight rope walking is done.

[cltchperf]

How about everyone just use a little common sense and stop pushing so much that they shut the forum down altogether. Having a detailed and intricate rule list is not necessary. The mods can use thier judgement. They've gotten that position by being commited and showing good judgement. If you need pictorial assistance to shake your soda then goto another site.

Common sense, the reason I wrote this is how it isn't common sense or is illogical. I'm sure they do have good judgment, and I wasn't trying to diss the mods. I just said this because I see this as the same thing for the media and it is not always logical with what they show, thinking it is decent for children if the nipples are covered by one millimeter, yet every other highly arousing part is shown and that effect on the child. I just brought this up to think about, I don't want the site to get in trouble, even though I'm bringing up how it's not logical to show sometimes what is shown here or the media and think that it isn't going to effect a boy greatly just because a nipple isn't shown or showing that extre millimeter is suddenly the big difference compared to the woman being 98% naked before that.