How come?
 

How come no one has complained about this picture
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/09.../oopssmall.jpg
but when i had this picture http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...sing/image.gif
there were loads of complaints, which makes me ask is violence easier to accept than sex ?

Good question.

I hate that picture.
First time I came across it I had to close the thread, makes me feel ill
Cant remember who has it but I dont like it

And its a very good question!

I like titties.

Just turn of the sigs and you won't have to look at any of those pictures.

And I agree, Panama's sig is disgusting, but since no one's saying anything I guess it's accceptable by the rules of this board.

Ice

why has this thread been moved?

Too true about violence and sex, Russ. That's sad.

I suggest someone moves this one back. Over here only a few will see it and the issue will not be discussed.

I agree , can a mod please move it back. thank you

Where was it posted at first?

NBJ - Everything else.

It does seem that violence is more widely accepted than nudity, let alone sexual nudity. I remember a case Jim posted about once how a woman bought ger grandson one of the Grand Theft Auto games, an 18 rated game for her then 15 year old grandson, perhaps one of the few most violent games available, and she complained when she found out there was sexual content too.

The problem seems to be more of people worrying that they will get in trouble for allowing it beause a lot of people don't actually care.

I still don't understand how much fuss was kicked off over the superbowl thing with Janet Jackson. Everyone in the world has nipples, so I'm not sure who found it so offensive. Apparently in New York women can now go topless, as men could anyway, so the laws are being more balanced, but it is quite ridiculous really.

I totaly agree with everything you said there neil. violence is accepted far too easily than what sex it . yet i find violence far more disturbing than sex .

Not that I'm aware of....

I'm not even referring to sex though, just nudity...though it is odd how, in this country, people can legally have sex at 16, but sex films and such are still rated 18.

Nudity though isn't necessarily sexual, it depends on the situation and the intent of the person, though that could be hard to distinguish. For instance someone exposing themselves in the street, flashing, that is exhibitionism done for sexual thrills, but someone like Steve Gough (http://nakedwalk.org/) who walked from Land's End to John o' Groats nude is just a more natural thing to do more with comfort and such (although part of why he personally does it is to try to change laws on the subject - and has been arrested several times for it).

One thing that I find quite odd too is how a lot of people use the excuse that if someone is nude than a child might see them or such, as if that would mentally scar them. However it tends to be children who are not fazed by nudity and it is only when they are told that it is so 'bad' that they then begin to feel differently about it and that can cause body shame issues, which are more likely to cause problems.

Topfree equality or topfreedom is a social movement in North America, where resistance is much greater than in Europe or Australia. The goal of the movement is to give females the right to remove their clothing above the waist in public wherever males can legally do so (e.g., at a beach, swimming pool, or park). The reasons cited include keeping nursing mothers from having to find a hidden place for breastfeeding, sun tanning, comfort in places such as pools and beaches, and legal equality.

The movement does not try to secure a right for women or men to be without a shirt in a restaurant or where such is not accepted for either gender, but with ensuring equality under law for women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topfree..._North_America

Exactly!! where as seeing violence can scar a child . so why is it that people seem to accept it more?? where as nudity is more or less harmless but is frowned apon .

At least in general we are more relaxed here than in the US. It is somewhat a product of the prudish victorian era. We've come a long way from people wearing swimming costumes which covered their whole body, but still there is an odd balance. Everyone is fundamentally the same, despite the basic difference between genders and then differences in size, shape and colour, there is no real need to hide or be ashamed of ourselves.

please keep your clothes on, neil.

hehe....you always make me chuckle!

Why would you consider that picture depicts violence?

It's got blood, but I don't see any violence... violence against one self perhaps, but not commonly understood violence...


But yes, violence is much more acceptable than nudity...

I too think this belongs in NBJ!

There's been a debate on the sexy sigs because at a time there was a provocative escalation with them.

Panama's sig is the one and only violent one I remember seeing. So I guess it's just a matter of it being the first one, it's never been discussed. Just like no one complained about the sexy sigs when it was Javier's ass (hehe) only, but then you and Seb added your own and the debate started.

If a couple or more sigs like Panama's showed up we'd be hearing about it. But then I guess this thread will provoque the debate.


Ponrauil

Basically, I think it's like Ponrauil said. The sexy/nude sigs were made an issue. Users pushed the limits enough to cause Peter to make some guidelines of what's allowed and what's not.

Maria , like you said its violence against himself.
Becky and Ponrauil i agree with you to a certian extent .However no one complained about it at all , which made me ask the question is violence easier to accept than sex/ nudity ? which is obviously is .

aww diddums lifes just so unfair for dirty pervs like you aint it? :(


would you let your little 5 year old kid look at porn or your sigs cause its so 'harmless'?

cause there isnt a 16 cert? legal age is 18 in america- go figure.


omg go live in a bloody commune!

adrian had a gun for his av for ages and ages and i think that sparked something but i cant remember how long ago that was. and while we're on the subject of violence, jim's sig talks about battle or whatever- surely that should constitute as being violent too?

if you wanna have a ban then have a proper ban- none of this partial nudity bollocks- err no nipples blah blah- thats crap! either do it properly or dont do it at all!

How about individual users having the personal responsibility to choose images that are USER FRIENDLY for a COMMUNITY instead of selfishly testing the limits like children seeing how much they can get away with before Mommy slaps them on the wrist?

Would you want your child to see an image of someone mutilating himself? If not, then why is it in your signature? Ask yourself the questions you pose to someone else.

Well not in my book they shouldn't. Neither should yours btw.
I understand your sig can disturb some, it can also bring up some reflexion.


Was that addressed to me or everyone? Because I never asked for a ban...


Ponrauil

No i wouldnt let them look at porn of course not. but as for my sigs yes as Becky asked would i mind my children seeing it. nudity is natural, however your sig is not. its self harming . i have never shown nipples in my sigs , if peter says no nipples then i would not post a pic showing them not that i would anyway.
Still you havent looked at my orignial post anyway as not once have i mentioned your name but asked is violence more acceptable than nudity/ sex? however instead you took this as a personal attack which it wasnt.
You do seem to take pleasure in attacking others though ,its almost as though its a way of making you feel better for your own faults?? ive never attacked you but you have attacked me on more than one occassion .
So either answer the question or stay out of the thread.

so i should respect the 'community' of this board- why? most users havent deserved my respect (and im pretty sure i havent deserved theirs either.) maybe i dont have the capacity to judge what is user friendly for a community unless ive been told, im sorry im not as mature as you folk.


firstly you dont actually know that this person is mutilating themselves. its only a bit of blood and a clean knife- youre just assuming.

please be aware of the fact that ive never once said that it was okay for a child to see such pictures- whereas UKjovi and neil did say that it was okay for kids to see naked people. if they say such remarks then yes i will comment back, regardless of my own opinions, just to see if they still think in the same mentality.

i dont have a child nor am i at an age where i should be considering to have one, nor do i know children of a very young age, so at this precise moment i cant really tell you what my reactions would be. unless i find something disturbing then i guess it would be okay. (if i was a parent then my reactions may be different- i dont know). but then again i feel that they do need to be aware that stuff like this does take place.

more than anything else i think that was what i was after. thank you.

it wasnt to you, it was to everyone, or possibly me thinking out loud. sorry for the confusion Ponrauil.

what?

society hasnt been brought up that way. why dont you walk around your house naked let your kids see you cause you seem to think thats okay. if youve grown up in some tribe where everyone did that then youd be okay with it too.


once again- it depends on your view of what natural is. maybe my sig is natural for me. i am not here to suit your needs, if you dont like my sig then ask me to remove it, and maybe there would be something to reconsider. you have not done so.


you may not have mentioned my name (i bet you thought you were really clever in thinking up that loophole) but your last post has just demonstrated that you were attacking my sig and kinda attacking my judgements- so yes a personal attack.

please kindly explain to me what my faults are, if you do not want to bastardise your thread then take it to PM.

i dont attack people for no reason, its not my fault that i think most of what people say to be utter rubbish (im sure the feeling is mutual). once again you bring this- 'oh-i-havent-attacked-you-so-dont-attack-me' crap up. when will you realise that i dont care? most of the time its what you say that i find to be stupid- not you personally.


i was addressing issues raised in the thread. but practically the first page was people saying 'ooh good question!'. im glad youve taken note on them not answering the question. ooh wait a minute- was that a personal attack on me? good heavens!

Different people have different views on what little kids should see or not see. It's silly to tell someone 'do you want your kids to see this' because no ONE person is the authority on what they should hear/see/experience.

In fact, lots of people would take nudity over violence for their kids to see - even though one might not think so, living in the US.

Nudity and porn are very different.

As for kids visiting this board - they have no business here. If I, as a parent, am worried my kids could see naked breasts or blood, I wouldn't access sites that contain that material while they are looking over my shoulder. Spend your time with your kids not on the internet while they are about .... oh no, htat might actually make sense...

Don't feel bad. You're not the only one.

Even if they are Bon Jovi fans?

I think my daughter was visiting this board when she was 13 years old - she's over 16 now. She is a Bon Jovi fan and I never had a problem with it. And in my house nudity is perfectly acceptable - as a matter of fact getting people to put their clothes on can be tough LOL. I am not someone who thinks that their little darling is going to be scarred for life by seeing a disturbing image whether it be violent or naked. And as far as seeing swearing on the board - my kids live with 2 engineers who work in construction. They hear worse at home.

It surprises me that people who object to these images probably own and watch TV. If I felt that way, I wouldn't even own a TV since more violence is shown there that most people ever see in their entire lives (fortunately).

Everybody has some sort of an agenda here - take the avatars for what they are. For the most part I ignore them and sometimes I enjoy them.

Kathleen

what's that got to do with it?

My son is a Green Day fan, I have not signed him on to a GD message board and he doesn't have unsupervised computer time. He has absolutely NO business browsing websites - fan or not. He is 8.

But then, the nudity in Russ' sigs for example would be the least of my worries.... (and neither would be Panamas for that matter).

I agree with Maria and Kathleen in this matter, so I'll just be their cheerleader:
http://www.bonjovi.nl/forum/images/smiles/pompom.gif http://www.bonjovi.nl/forum/images/smiles/pompom.gif http://www.bonjovi.nl/forum/images/smiles/pompom.gif