The FAQ is quite interesting

[notyoueither]

Hmmm. Isn't Zylka intending to shock? Isn't that what he/she gets? The conversation devolves from the point to what Boobygirl-boy should do to get fixed.

I can see Hobbit's point. I can see DarkClouds point.

Wait a minute, I can see Mings point.

Oh wait, what is this point on top of my head? Never mind.

[Ecthy]

To be quite rational, Zylka is a cokenose, and has admited to being a social loser before.

So what are you worrying about?

notyoueither - his intent his to appear cool, such as his feeble efforts in real life. he's messed up.

[Dis]

you people are weird.

There I said it.

Penis and Vagina don't necessarily have to deal with sex. The penis can be used for urination. A necessary human function. The vagina also can be used as a convenient storage facility.

Get your minds out of the gutter people!!!

I'm afraid some of you posters here have no grip on reality. Either that or you don't understand how the human body works.

During the process of giving birth. These organs are in contact with each other. Is that sex? is that incest? You people kill me. You really do.

[Ecthy]

Did I get that right? During the process of giving birth, penis and vagina are in contact with each other?

[Dis]

well it depends on the situation I suppose. There are many variables at work

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Re: The FAQ is quite interesting

Originally posted by TheHobbit
I read the wonderful F.A.Q that came with this site and its rules and its kind of ironic but why are they not enforced. I'm only 14 but I am extremely offended at the subtitle in Zylka's profile.

...No explicit sexual discussion allowed
...

Hobbit, OK, you're only 14, that explains some of your immature reasoning and I won't hold it against you ...

But remember, we live in the 21st century now!!
The period of sexual censorism/uncontested religious power/ridiculous&oppressing fundamentalistic religious claims/dogmas is finished in our modern western society!

Don't bring it back!

The words penis and vagina aren't offensive to NONE! As a matter of fact, even your mother has a vagina and even your father has a penis. Nothing to be ashamed for, is it?

If Zylka would have really offended you (like you did calling Ming a moron), then you would have a reasonable complaint.

Right now not at all.

An age thing, I suppose

AJ

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Dissident
Penis and Vagina don't necessarily have to deal with sex.

No, what what the hack can "From my penis to your vagina" mean? That seems to me quite explicitly referring somebody having a body part in somebody else's body.

I will leave what this "body part" is up to your imagination.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Dissident

Penis and Vagina don't necessarily have to deal with sex. The penis can be used for urination. A necessary human function. The vagina also can be used as a convenient storage facility.

I don't want to be near any woman that uses her vagina for urination or a purse!


Hobbit, I'm 34 and I'm offended by his "wit".



****gyRA!

[ACooper]

Re: Re: The FAQ is quite interesting

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR

But remember, we live in the 21st century now!!
The period of sexual censorism/uncontested religious power/ridiculous&oppressing fundamentalistic religious claims/dogmas is finished in our modern western society!

Riiiight!


****gyRA

[SpencerH]

Congratulations to the moderators for their refusal to knuckle-under to a blatant attempt at censorship (although I believe this is an attack on Zylka rather than a true problem with the use of anatomical terms). Personally, I think the mods are too quick to jump in with threats of banishment etc when (for example) flame wars break out. We're all using the internet. If you dont like what you're reading, just click yourself away. The use of avatars and comments in the location fields or signatures are personal statements about how we see ourselves. Take Zylka's personal statements for what they're worth (in conjunction with what he says).

[Ming]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Personally, I think the mods are too quick to jump in with threats of banishment etc when (for example) flame wars break out.

Remember that this is a private site, and we are enforcing the rules set down by the owners.

And while I respect AND understand your opinion... consider the alternative.

We could just ban everybody involved with no warnings. But in the long run, that would just cause more disruption to the site then my simple "chill" messages do

[Tarquelne]

On whether on not Z.'s location feild is a sexual reference: Oh, come on. The picture, the tag line, and the location field all taken together - you'd have to be a mere 13 year old to not catch the (implicit) sexual context.

Originally posted by Ming
I also said it depends on how you use them

How about the first part of my message? Does you think the inclusion of a a verb make the phrase "explicit?" Any verb? (There are some verbs that'd obviously be offensive.) I'm sure TheHobbit realizes that in, say, a serious (OT) discussion of Z.'s medical problems the words in question might pop up and be of unquestionably valid usage. So what constitutes improper use, if what matters is "how you use them."?

Here's what I think: Z.'s location field isn't technically _explicit_, because it does rely on the imagaination of the reader to imbue the phrase "my penis your vagina" with some "action", to make it an act, or to bring two simple body parts into some sexual contact. However, the amount of imgaination is soooo tiny that the phrase is, in effect, explicit. For all that, I can't imagine any explicit phrase that'd be less explicit or offensive. Unless the reader's imagination is the problem, the phrase doesn't evoke anything beyond a very basic biological act/fact. Basic (non-pathological)biology is often kinda gross, but it shouldn't be offensive. Z. seems to merely be going for some minor shock value, and there isn't a concerted effort to offend*. Only on the border of explict, no intent to offend (nothing beyond "cable TV humor"). Thus: no ban.

Finally: The faq says sexual "discussion." Z. has thrown out what amounts to a sexual statement, but a single, simple, statement (even if repeated every time Z. posts) is not a _discussion._ If Z. presented a more complicated statement, one in some way inviting more thought/words on the subject of sex by the other readers then Z.'d be posting the beginnings of a discussion. Likewise, if people continually picked up on Z.'s references and started discussing sex explicitly then the mods might ask Z. to change the location field etc. because they keep sparking explicit sexual discussion. ("Disturbing the peace" sort of thing.)

For all your good natured winky-smilies and refusal to commit to an opinion on my example phrase of "simple nouns", Ming, I think your statement that it _might_ be considered explicit/offesive reveals that you probably act under the same guidlines I would, as explained in the paragraphs above. Certainly, some other factors beyond mere grammer ("simple nouns") must be at work. Intent and _degree_ of explicitness are the best possibilities for those other, "it depends on how you use them" factors.

So, there you go, TheHobbit. It took some verbage, but there's a straight answer that I think should satisfy you.
Personally, TheHobbit, I suggest you either Ignore Z. (I don't think you'd be missing much), or do leave Z. in, but cultivate a sense of condesention and personal superiority whenever you see Z. post.


*OTOH, maybe Z. is a sexually repressed flake, or a classic chav. pig, and it never occoured to Z. that there might be something iffy about the location field, avatar, and tag.

[Tarquelne]

Re: The FAQ is quite interesting

Originally posted by TheHobbit
I am extremely offended at the subtitle in Zylka's profile.

What about it makes you "extremely" offended? Sense of "fairness" violated by Z.'s precieved violation of the rules? Or the sexual context? What factor of the sexual context? (BTW - I understand if you don't want to discuss it.) It's easy to imagine someone having better things to do than dwell on something they find extremely offensive.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
Intent and _degree_ of explicitness are the best possibilities for those other, "it depends on how you use them" factors.

As I said... It depends on how you use them... That's sums it up far better than your long post

And AGAIN... it's a matter of opinion. The owner of the site is familiar with this example. And he has not asked him to change it, or directed me to take any actions. So those are the "opinions" that count here.

Just because one person has complains that something offensive, doesn't mean that it is. There are many times I get silly complaints from people about a word, avatar, or signature that are just too crazy to believe. Heck, somebody could complain that they your name had some strange sexual meaning. (don't laugh, I get those kind of complaints)

So for the record... It's how you use them, and it is solely based on the admin and mods opinion. See, so simple, and only one sentence

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Ming


As I said... It depends on how you use them... That's sums it up far better than your long post

Since I went to the effort of making that long post, I'm going to defend it's length:

"far better."? You didn't give any info on what factors your judge when you form an opinion. TheHobbit didn't seem seem to go away satisfied, and I strongly suspect that others weren't either. I know I wasn't - I started reading the thread because I was curious about the Z. case. I didn't think Z. should be banned or anything over the location field, etc, but I was interested in how the mods. explained it. "it depends"/"it's a matter of opinion", while completely true, are, IMO, pretty lame.

Now, your job most certainly _isn't_ discussing and defending why you act as you do - I dont think there's anything wrong with the fact that you didn't post a long explaination or make a concerted attempt to persuade TheHobbit or others to your point of view. However, I assume that you don't make arbitrary decesions, I think that many would like to know how you do make your decisions, and (finally) I think the reasons I presented do explain how you make such decisions, at least in Z.'s case. So I think _my_ explaination is "far better."

and even , to boot.