my wife cheated on me when i was in morocco

[faith 0]

I am not going to read all 18 pages of this thread, but wouldn't it make the most sense if we could all agree to not post images that we wouldn't want our own boss or young child to see?

problem with that is not all of us agree on what is appropriate for our bosses or young children to see...

Most HR departments in the US are quite clear on what kind of content may approach the bar of creating a "hostile work environment".

As for your children, if the New York Times (print) and CNN and Channel 13 News and the rest of the mainstream media can self-censor in a manner that is acceptable to most, I don't think it's that hard. Not a radical concept.

All I meant with my post is that some people don't feel like their kids should see anything but G rated Disney stuff...

And was being silly as my boss is my brother and couldn't care less what I look at online.

But serious, I don't post pics on here (cept my ultrasound pics) so that way I'm safe with not offending anyone.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But serious, I don't post pics on here (cept my ultrasound pics) so that way I'm safe with not offending anyone.

My point isn't even about offending people.

It's about content that may make it more difficult for them to use this site. I don't really care if they're offended. There are plenty of immigration-related threads that do that.

[faith 0]

But serious, I don't post pics on here (cept my ultrasound pics) so that way I'm safe with not offending anyone.

My point isn't even about offending people.

It's about content that may make it more difficult for them to use this site. I don't really care if they're offended. There are plenty of immigration-related threads that do that.

I guess I can see that if they have a strict internet policy. But if they have a strict internet policy why are they here at work anyway?

*shrugs* I don't really care It doesn't affect me one way or the other

[mikeize 0]

I want to know why it's okay to show "native" breasts and #######' (ie national geographic), and it's not the same as a playboy/girl pinup. Make jokes if you want, but this is a serious question. Like, if you were to see two pictures side by side on a billboard... one of a bare-breasted pygmy woman from africa, and the other of say, janet jackson... would you be offended (cover your kids' eyes?) by one, and not the other? What's that about?

-mike

One is a fact of life. The other life in fact.

Playboy <> National Geographic by any stretch of the imagination, and neither does it solely display breasts in a sexual provactive manner. It is different and therefore falls into a different category, even under the porn laws. Agree or disagree.. it is yours to decide. But please keep apples to apples. NG I know I could get pictures inside of bare breasted women if an article is covering deep amazonian tribes or the like. But that isn't 100% gaurantee.. unlike PB or such mags as that which is gauranteed to show them.

I know, I know. What I'm getting at is what makes apples apples, and oranges oranges? Is it the "intent" of the photo? Is it the cultural setting of the subject? What? Is it because the average "deep amazonian" woman doesn't meet our lofty standards of physical beauty? Would a PB mag be considered pornographic (or even erotic) to "deep amazonians"? These are my imagination stretching questions.

-mike

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Would a PB mag be considered pornographic (or even erotic) to "deep amazonians"?

Maybe they might see it the same way we see National Geographic, if we could convince them that the images in PB portray the natural habitat and dress and appearance of the average American female. Hell, if we could convince them of that then maybe they'd also be willing to give up their isolation and line up at the nearest US Consulate for a visa!

[*Robert* 2]

One is a fact of life. The other life in fact.

Playboy <> National Geographic by any stretch of the imagination, and neither does it solely display breasts in a sexual provactive manner. It is different and therefore falls into a different category, even under the porn laws. Agree or disagree.. it is yours to decide. But please keep apples to apples. NG I know I could get pictures inside of bare breasted women if an article is covering deep amazonian tribes or the like. But that isn't 100% gaurantee.. unlike PB or such mags as that which is gauranteed to show them.

As to AS's point, he stressed it fairly well. Self censorship can and is a good thing here especially if you do not expect to come across rather graphic visuals on a thread that actually by topic has nothing to do with the pic that got removed. And as such he thought he was safe to read article from work, but then obviously couldn't really as it wasnt.

Things are not always as we would have them, but most laws are set to protect the majority who favor them. Well, in theory anyway.

I've always thought of National Geographic as "National Pornographic"! As a kid, it's a easy way to see pictures of naked women! Readers Digest was also a good source for occasional sex stories!

[Peter Miami 0]

wow!

[mikeize 0]

I've always thought of National Geographic as "National Pornographic"! As a kid, it's a easy way to see pictures of naked women! Readers Digest was also a good source for occasional sex stories!

Readers Digest is the worst ####### out there. It actually blows my mind what a load of ####### that rag is. I don't remember the sex stories though...

-mike

[ceriserose 1]

When I was a newbie

They didn't even -have- the internet back then...

*runs away*

[almaty 19]

ceCrise, it was back when vj was done via letters....and a magazine....