henryb: you are correct that the Administrator is the only person who can enforce things here. But if you bother to look around the site you will find that he has asked members to assist him in that by bringing to his attention (flagging) people who break the easilly understood and clearly defined rules.
As to why would he choose to shut the site: well it is HIS to do what HE wants with it.
Seems like a crapshoot. I've had pics rejected when I can't believe what others get through the process.
It's easy to miss the odd dodgy picture when you have a lot of them to go through as a moderator. I moderate couple of groups on Flickr which forbid erections and pictured where the genitals are prominent. Usually I can pass or fail pictures looking at the thumbnail without clicking on it to look at the full size image but this means that I occasionally pass something which should be rejected. Once this has happened the picture will stay in the group forever unless I decide to spend hours going back through iit or somebody draws my attention to the lapse.
Also the moderators have decided to enforce the rules more rigidly over the last year or so so there are pictures which got through under the old regime but should be rejected now.
The main reason why the offending pictures are still there is that none of you are flagging them up.
If you wish to post such pictures they should be in trueswungers.
I understand wanting to keep the site nudist, not porn, but there are some of us who are just erect more often. I stay away from nudist beaches because I get an erection when I get naked, even around the house. To me it's normal and it has nothing to do with other people's stereotypes or views. By denying this you create your own stereotypes of people who might have this kind of physical, mental makeup as being bad in some way.
Just like simple, casual nudity in a social forum ... Is it even possible to defend simple, non-sexual, erections to someone who has already decided it IS sexual... and therefore, offensive? ... However, being held accountable for -and defending- your conscious actions, such as posting a picture, is a different matter.
Just like simple, casual nudity in a social forum ... Is it even possible to defend simple, non-sexual, erections to someone who has already decided it IS sexual... and therefore, offensive? ... However, being held accountable for -and defending- your conscious actions, such as posting a picture, is a different matter.
Unfortunately for you the moderators are obliged to assume that all pictures with erections are posted with a sexual motive and to react accordingly.
I have had pictures which feature my genitals a bit too prominently removed by the moderators when they were intended to illustrate a problem which some people have with certain garments. Sometimes we just have to accept that a particular line has to be set and adhered to as carefully as possible.
Unfortunately in most men an erection is a semaphore that he is sexually excited. And we are supposed to separate nudity and sexual excitement. I guess the Mods have to draw the line somewhere. I feel for Dazhar's misfortune in getting unintended erections when naked even though he's been a nudist for 40 years. I have the opposite problem - often I can't get erect even when sexually excited.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!