# Nodak hunters going Crazy?



## Springer

So what is the contest? See who can have the ugliest Avatar?

Between PC and justund223 I would say it is a toss up. uke:


----------



## blhunter3

Leo's is pretty good too. :wink:


----------



## R y a n

It has to do with a thread in the Supporting Member's Forum.. Just look for the "Baitpile" thread and you'll see what I mean. Crazy stuff in there...

You all should join and come check it out!

(That is where the real info on Snow Goose reports is located  amongst a whole host of other schnanigans )

Ohh... and there is more than just those 2 involved in the craziness..

Just a warning... it's an addiction... don't say I didn't tell you so.


----------



## franchi

Oh, blhunter3, FYI Leo=PC


----------



## averyghg

hahah i kind of like mine


----------



## Hamm




----------



## goosebusters2

big women need lovin too


----------



## h2ofwlr

Pictures of ND finest I see...


----------



## diver_sniper

Yeah it's goin too far


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

Yep, if you come to ND and hunt from out of state your future wife will look like them!

Come check out the Bait pile well worth the Supporting Members fee!


----------



## DeltaBoy

Very interesting guys... :lol:

Get the flour and have some fun, just make sure you turn off the lights.


----------



## USSapper

Thanks to this forum I have found several several secret spots of others and have made myself at home


----------



## hunter121390

large munster wins


----------



## Turner

Must be a body double for Jaba the Hut


----------



## jd mn/nd

First off let me start with the fact that all of those are absolutly disgusting!!!!

Second they are the reason that birth controll was invented, the doctor couldn't tell if they were pregnant or not!!!

Thirdly those woman make most men's wifes look like sports illustrated swim suit models!!!

Fourthly don't open up this website and try and read while taking your lunch break at work, because let me tell you where your lunch ends up, all over the dang key board in liquid form.

Chris you really should ban those avatars out in the public forums since you are aware of the fact that children do see this website.

Later JD


----------



## R y a n

Hey JD

The avators will be changing. A couple did go over the line... those guys just need to log back into their account and change it. Some have not been back online since the request was made.


----------



## Leo Porcello

BTW the naked ones (as public nudity is illegal) I will agree with but if they have clothing on I don't see the point just because they are fat. My mom is a 400lber. I guess I will call her right now and tell her to never ever step outside again. :eyeroll:


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey Leo as you know I am FAT and I know it, that does not mean that I would go out in public in a freaking speedo swimsuit or bikini underwear and walk down the street like that or even go to the beach like that. When a person is out in public there is a presumed amount of clothing that should be worn. So to answer your question if I would walk up to them on the street, yes I would if they were out in public like that, no one has any business out in public if they look like that and don't do something to cover it up.

So to give you an example, of what just happened, my 5 year old who is sick today, who had to come to the office with me was sitting here and as I scrolled down and was reading these, says to me on the white chick on all fours, "daddy I saw a fat puppy on there what kind of a dog was that?" I busted out laughing since that was the assumed position of the woman, and thank God my son thought it was a dog and not a person or I would have had alot of explaining to do.

Hey Leo your a good dad and husband do mean to tell me that you would actually let your kids see that stuff? Or anyone elses kids see that stuff? Now you did keep yours clean so I can probably deduct what your answer is. And I was not picking on you, when I mentioned this, your are just plain ugly, but the nudity and the large woman ones those were flat out disgusting.

By the way for the rest of you there is a reason that a strip joint does not employ woman like those, they do not fill the place up with anything other than blubber. In other words they would not make a penny.

Later JD


----------



## goosebusters

hunt4P&Y said:


> Hey, some of them have the big ones, you just have to go to the right ones! If anyone wants to know which ones just shoot me a pm!!!


Welcome Mike,

For those who don't know P&Y is our resident expert on BBW. He actually just picked up a sponsorship from the Big Woman Lovers of America. So he is officially a prostaffer.


----------



## R y a n

Leo Porcello said:


> BTW the naked ones (as public nudity is illegal) I will agree with but if they have clothing on I don't see the point just because they are fat. My mom is a 400lber. I guess I will call her right now and tell her to never ever step outside again. :eyeroll:


Public nudity isn't illegal.

Lewdness and laviscious behavior in public is illegal. If I walk down a public street naked, it is generally _*not*_ illegal. It has to be accompanied by a disturbing behavior. Many officers wrongly arrest people not understanding the law.

The conduct has to be lewd in nature (jumping out from behind the bushes to flash a woman that results in causing her fright and alarm meets that criteria, or having public acts of sexual behavior obviously).

Most people just don't want to deal with the hassle of mis-informed law enforcement using their version of morality to make an arrest decision, and then needing the publicity and scrutiny, and having to fight it in court.

There are lots of people who get in trouble minding their own business on their property, and in some state of undress that have to deal with the silly law too...

Ya gotta love the Puritan influence that still pervades this country..

:eyeroll:


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

yeah, anyone know where I can get a OVERSIZED finisher blind? They want me to start bringing them hunting.


----------



## Leo Porcello

jd mn/nd said:


> .
> 
> So to give you an example, of what just happened, my 5 year old who is sick today, who had to come to the office with me was sitting here and as I scrolled down and was reading these, says to me on the white chick on all fours, "daddy I saw a fat puppy on there what kind of a dog was that?" I busted out laughing since that was the assumed position of the woman, and thank God my son thought it was a dog and not a person or I would have had alot of explaining to do.


That is straight up funny!


----------



## Leo Porcello

R y a n said:


> Leo Porcello said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW the naked ones (as public nudity is illegal) I will agree with but if they have clothing on I don't see the point just because they are fat. My mom is a 400lber. I guess I will call her right now and tell her to never ever step outside again. :eyeroll:
> 
> 
> 
> Public nudity isn't illegal.
> 
> Lewdness and laviscious behavior in public is illegal. If I walk down a public street naked, it is generally _*not*_ illegal. It has to be accompanied by a disturbing behavior. Many officers wrongly arrest people not understanding the law.
> 
> The conduct has to be lewd in nature (jumping out from behind the bushes to flash a woman that results in causing her fright and alarm meets that criteria, or having public acts of sexual behavior obviously).
> 
> Most people just don't want to deal with the hassle of mis-informed law enforcement using their version of morality to make an arrest decision, and then needing the publicity and scrutiny, and having to fight it in court.
> 
> There are lots of people who get in trouble minding their own business on their property, and in some state of undress that have to deal with the silly law too...
> 
> Ya gotta love the Puritan influence that still pervades this country..
> 
> :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

Ha did not know that. For now on just call me Mr Nude. Man I am going to save lots of money not buying clothes! I may loose a few hunting partners as now I will truely be one with nature when I hunt!


----------



## Plainsman

JD, I guess I was looking at that from a different perspective. If one of those was anyone's sister would they want her picture on the internet. I wonder how much money it took to get them to demean themselves.

I'm not fat, I do have a sense of humor, but this generated sympathy from me for these people. Further this isn't a porn site, and JD is right on target.


----------



## jd mn/nd

I agree it was funny, and lucky that he did not get a better look or I would have had a ton of explaining to do. I still chuckle just thinking about what he said.

Later JD


----------



## dblkluk

Although some of the avatars may have been a bit over the line for a public forum, the one thing I find interesting is that 90% of the avatars were of big women who were posing for the shots. 
Its obvious they are proud of who they are, and aren't afraid to show it.

Now I ask you jd, Would you feel the same way if it was a swimsuit clad blond hottie in someones avatar?? 
If I'm interpreting you correctly wouldn't that be just as offensive??



> I'm not fat, I do have a sense of humor, but this generated sympathy from me for these people. Further this isn't a porn site, and JD is right on target.


Plainsman, I have to ask you why this generated sympathy? The funny thing is people always think they were payed $$ to degrade themselves, whenever they see pictures like this.
I'm sure a vast majority of these ladies are very proud of themselves and who they are. Its not my cup of tea, but more power to them. 
Its interesting how as a society we have been programmed to be ashamed of (and for) people who are overweight.

And for the record I am not one bit overweight, I'm probably in goosebusters weight class, although he's 9 feet tall... oke:


----------



## Leo Porcello

And I find it to be a double standard JD that you or no one else for that matter has complained about all of stoeger's avatars. In fact they always get ooohhhs and awess. Just because you don't find fat women attractive does NOT mean all men do nor does it mean all men find skinny women HOT! Here is an example:










I truly think it is DISPICKABLE that a skinny woman can wear a halter top to the mall and a fat woman can't just because it does not give you blood flow. Last I remember this is the land of the free not the land of the skinny beautiful people.


----------



## djleye

Ya Ryan, Good luck with that. Walk dow the street naked and lets see how long you last!!!!! Not Very long!!!!


----------



## Leo Porcello

dblkluk said:


> 90% of the avatars were of big women who were posing for the shots.
> Its obvious they are proud of who they are, and aren't afraid to show it.


100% correct. Those women look in the mirror and say DAM I AM SEXY! They have not fell victum to what percieved beauty is. I think what the real deal is that some see themselves as ugly and when they see those women it only reminds themselves of how unbeautiful you feel. Too bad for you, I feel sorry for you that can't look in the mirror and say "I love me" especially when you try to make others feel just as miserable.


----------



## R y a n

djleye said:


> Ya Ryan, Good luck with that. Walk dow the street naked and lets see how long you last!!!!! Not Very long!!!!


That is precisely my point. It depends on the jurisdiction, as certain municipalities have ordinances that put additional restrictions on nudity, however generally speaking it is not illegal. Most people are shocked to realize that.

Hence why most police officers immediately assume it is illegal ....cause it just has to be right? I mean it _*has*_ to be indecent exposure right?

So who decided the level of "indecency"?

How do we compare to European's attitudes towards nudity? Are they all wrong? Where did this nude being bad issue start? I can answer that for you... churches that try imposing their version of community standards, down upon their flock, and then trying to shame folks into behaving according to their standards, and then finally having it written into local laws.

I can tell you for a certain fact exactly what the laws out here in Washington are regarding this, as we have groups of people that do that sort of thing all the time. We have a large contingent of people that participate in a public parade thru downtown Seattle during the Summer Solstice.

Google "Seattle Solstice Bike Riders", and see what it returns for you. Be forewarned, it is *N*ot *S*afe *F*or *W*ork filters. Last year they had 300+ people get painted up in body paint, and publically ride their bicycles down the street to lead the parade out. They are the #1 draw for the parade. They are not arrested, as they are protected under Washington law, and people come to the parade expecting to see it. Last year there was over 25,000 people that went to the parade, fully 5,000 of which were children under the age of 16.

Nude is not lewd Dan.

Hopefully the United States and its older more puritanical generations will start realizing there is a huge difference between simple nudity, and acts of laviscious lewdness.

My .02

Ryan


----------



## h2ofwlr

Enough of the North Dakota's finest. Time to see a few from other states.

From MN we have:









From KS:









From Texas we have:









From Ar and now NY:









From MO:









And last but not least, Montanta's most wanted gal:


----------



## jd mn/nd

It has nothing to do with beauty, has to do with what is considerd decent in the public eye. Leo your picture with the heavy woman and the skinny man is just fine, I am sure that they are happy together. There was not one thing wrong with that picture. However pictures of any kind when on a public forum should always be able to be showen in good taste, that being said, not one single person can tell me that those picture of the large woman naked or scantily clad, or shoving a ten pound cheese cake in their face like it is the last peice of food on earth, are not decent photos nor are they attracktive. No it would not matter if that was a skinny woman or a heavy one, this is not the place for those sort of pictures to be shown. Those photos should be in websites that require credit cards before viewing.

As for appropriate coverage, I believe that it should be relative to body size. Me for example, I am an over weight (fat if you will) man, I will not remove my shirt in public, as I do not believe it is in good taste. I also will not wear a speedo, or bikini undwear out in public as I also do not believe it is in good taste. So should a skinny young woman wear a halter top out in public that leaves nothing to the imagination, probably not, and your right Leo she will have a crowd of men following her around, that does not make it right. But a heavy woman should not do it either, there are clothes that can be worn and still make a person look good or sexy no matter what size they are, and yes leo back when I was even heavier than I am now, I did date a large woman that was very beautiful, and yes she was probably even bigger than I was. However she was a cheating whore and I sent her down the road with the trash she wanted to be with.

So in summary I believe that all photos shown on a public non-paying site open to the general public should be in good taste to all who view them, after all this site like many others do have families on them and this should be kept on that side of the fence in my opion, not that IT matters much to some.

Later JD


----------



## Horker23

its all because of MTV!


----------



## averyghg

hahaha this thread really took off from the last time i was on..............that montanna pic with the sheep was classic!!! :lol:


----------



## Leo Porcello

jd mn/nd said:


> As for appropriate coverage, I believe that it should be relative to body size. Me for example, I am an over weight (fat if you will) man, I will not remove my shirt in public, as I do not believe it is in good taste. I also will not wear a speedo, or bikini undwear out in public as I also do not believe it is in good taste.


Like I said just because you may not love the way you look don't put that on others. You ever been to a nude beach? There are some big fat people there. But you see they love themselves. They are not shallow! Its fine YOU choose to dress how YOU choose to. That is the great thing about America.

BTW you better hide the Sunday paper as there are women in bras and panties. Oh and don't go to JC Penny Target Herbergers Wal-Mart because there are mannequins with bras and panties on. Oh ya but that is okay because they are skinny mannequins.


----------



## diver_sniper

Horker23 said:


> its all because of MTV!


Werd.


----------



## jd mn/nd

No Leo, I have never been to a nude beach, I don't know of any herein MN, of even in ND. I am who I am, I am not ashamed of my size, I just do not believe that the world should be forced to view me naked if they really wanted that wouldn't they walk up and ask me to remove my clothing? If I really wanted to be "buff" as it were. I would make the effort to work out everyday, eat only vegitables, and healthy foods, not saying that a good diet may not be in order, however even if I was skinny and there was a time when that was the case as well, and was also very physically fit I did not run around naked or even half naked for that matter. At that time in my life getting women with my body was no problem. But I always wore enough clothing, no one ever had to tell me to cover up something that should not have been exposed. But my looks or the lack there of are not in question here, nor is my confidence in my self, I am probably one of the few people I know that is very confident in myself and more or less a take charge, tell you were the bear craps in the woods kind of a guy. So self confidence is not a question here. Nor is how much I LOVE myself. I am also not questioning how much someone else should or should not love themselfs or how much self confidence they should have. My quess is that in at least one maybe even two of those photos those woman had no idea that thier photos would end up on the net. Nor should they have been used here by those who did.

I don't ever shop at Herberger's, however the last time I was in Target, JC Penny's and Wal Mart I do not remember seeing any Mannequins. Yah the catalogs do show women modeling undergarmets, but I guess I am not really being forced to view those ads as I can set them down and not look at them, however when I come on here and read this forum or any other that has those photos in the avatar, suddenly if I want to participate here I am being forced to look at those photos.

I all I said is that those photos should not have been put on this public forum and make people view them. Also just to make one other comment before this thread get locked up. People do stupid things all of the time sometimes they do it with their knowledge and sometimes without. For those who do things like that willing, PLEASE DO NOT MAKE BABIES, the world has enough stupid people already.

Thanks JD


----------



## dblkluk

Jd.. If your sincere in your words, Why no complaints about the girls in bikinis that H20fwlr posted??

Nothing different there, just a couple pounds in some cases...

I'm trying to figure it out? :wink:


----------



## djleye

> Nude is not lewd Dan.


I never said it was, I said try walking nude down the street where you live and see how long you last!!!


----------



## Leo Porcello

Honestly as long as your butt and front are covered I could care less and even then I more than likely would not mind as long as you were not in my personal space.

So when you open your mailbox and you get the free card or paper with bras and panties on it do you call the company and say don't send me that. How about when Victoria's Secret sends free catalogs? Ever been to a museum and seen the naked Greek statues? How about when your kid is watching cartoons on PBS and a commercial comes on for an upcoming show about art or the Antique Road Show and there is a painting or a statue of a naked man or woman? How about the bible or church or Sunday school? I surely remember pictures of Adam and Eve, Jesus, and others barely clothed. I guess that is immoral and wrong as well.

Hey how about the singing cowboy playing his guitar on the streets of NY with nothing on but tighty whities, boots and a hat? Can't get more public than that. Have you done a petition to stop any of that? And yes this is a public forum that you are not forced to be part of. Maybe if I saw supporting member under your name I would have less beef with you trying to force your view but honestly your just here on a free ride for your own benefit.


----------



## Plainsman

Like they say, this thread has no redeeming social qualities. Locked.


----------



## R y a n

jd mn/nd said:


> It has nothing to do with beauty, has to do with what is considerd decent in the public eye. Leo your picture with the heavy woman and the skinny man is just fine, I am sure that they are happy together. There was not one thing wrong with that picture. However pictures of any kind when on a public forum should always be able to be showen in good taste, that being said, not one single person can tell me that those picture of the large woman naked or scantily clad, or shoving a ten pound cheese cake in their face like it is the last peice of food on earth, are not decent photos nor are they attracktive. No it would not matter if that was a skinny woman or a heavy one, this is not the place for those sort of pictures to be shown. Those photos should be in websites that require credit cards before viewing.
> 
> As for appropriate coverage, I believe that it should be relative to body size. Me for example, I am an over weight (fat if you will) man, I will not remove my shirt in public, as I do not believe it is in good taste. I also will not wear a speedo, or bikini undwear out in public as I also do not believe it is in good taste. So should a skinny young woman wear a halter top out in public that leaves nothing to the imagination, probably not, and your right Leo she will have a crowd of men following her around, that does not make it right. But a heavy woman should not do it either, there are clothes that can be worn and still make a person look good or sexy no matter what size they are, and yes leo back when I was even heavier than I am now, I did date a large woman that was very beautiful, and yes she was probably even bigger than I was. However she was a cheating whore and I sent her down the road with the trash she wanted to be with.
> 
> So in summary I believe that all photos shown on a public non-paying site open to the general public should be in good taste to all who view them, after all this site like many others do have families on them and this should be kept on that side of the fence in my opion, not that IT matters much to some.
> 
> Later JD


Hey JD

I understand what you are trying to say.... I'm not in total disagreement, however I feel the need to present another side of the "decency" debate.

Decency standards constantly are changing/evolving over time. Long periods of time all the ways back to the time of the Romans, to the Renaissance era, to the Victorian era, where many of our currently standards still seem to eminate from.

What may be considered decent to you, is not the same standard as me or Leo, or someone living in LA, or someone living in Europe. It is important to understand that your skewed view of what is "right" has been formed by a blend of your family, your church, your community, and your personal values. Everyone will come in with a different shade of "right and wrong". Larry Flynt had a long court battle to protest "Decency Laws" and his intent to excercise his right to Free Speech under the First Amendment. Others have fought for similar rights to express themselves and their state of being thru similar avenues.

In your descriptions above you say one photo is fine, another is not. My first gut reaction was "Says you."... Why is it you get to be the one to make that determination? I'm just curious? What is "Good" taste? By whose standards? To me "Good Taste" means that they are not depicting a sexual act or trying to display sexual genitalia in an attempt to sexually stimulate another. Anything short of that, is simply beautiful art. So based on my definition, someone posing for a nude photo is very acceptable, and in great taste, as we should celebrate the human body, and accept that all of us are naked under our clothes.

In fact I'd venture to offer that those who have the most problems with simple nudity, tend to be the ones who are most insistent on shoving their views of morality and decency down others throats, and imposing their moral compass on others.

I have a problem with that.

If you were to try and convince me it is done to "protect the children", I'd have to disagree even stronger. Children have no concept of nudity being wrong. Every little kid I know loves to run around without a stitch of clothing on. All of us adults know how innocent, free and pure that is... we all smile and enjoy that carefree playfulness. It isn't until the concept of shame is brought into the picture, that kids are scolded and told that it is "naughty or wrong". Kids need to be _*taught*_ shame. It isn't an engrained thought in their head. They are just being themselves. Kids don't look at their bodies in a sexual manner until they go thru puberty or are taught sexuality thru our despicable media and advertisers.

Recalling last year's Solstice Parade, I overheard a young child sitting on the curb watching a bunch of painted naked bicyclists riding by. One of the women stopped to pose for a photograph approximately 10 feet away from us. She was painted up as a comic book character. The little girl excitedly pointed out to her mother "Look Mom! It's Wonder Woman!"

She failed to recognize the woman was stark naked except for a cape she wore around her neck and a crown in her hair. Children don't view the world thru sexualized eyes like adults. Case in point.

I have many friends here in Seattle who live a lifestyle where nudity isn't a big deal. Their households are fully clothing optional and people don't bat an eyelash about someone's state of dress. It isn't a big deal. Heck I've even sat at people's house in a hottub and the kids come out starkers to join us. It's all dependent on your perspective.

Have you ever been to Europe or to a clothing optional beach, resort or spa in the United States? Like Leo mentioned, it isn't what you expect...

Thanks for hearing me out and understanding there are different lifestyles that exist all over the United States and the world...

Just remember those who do that sort of thing aren't forcing you to look. You are imposing your moral standards onto someone else. It then ceases to be objective, and instead becomes subjective.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n

Ok with Plainsman's approval, and Erik's assistance we will be unlocking this thread.

I've removed alot of clutter on this thread, and deleted some of the stuff that was posted prior. Going forward let's keep anymore "funny" pictures off the thread, and show some sensitivity to those who are overweight. NO more jokes, innuendo or pictures of those in question need to be on here.

I re-opened this so that those of us trying to debate the concept of decency, society's restrictions, and moral standards as to what is considered "acceptable".

This is a hot topic folks. Let's debate and keep it under control.

If we can't then it will be locked again.

Thanks

Ryan


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

> This is a hot topic folks.


It was, until you peeled all the fatties off and caved into the fat guy and those who are most likely married to fatties. Which there is nothing wrong with. Beauty is only skin deep, just on some a little deeper.

Fun's over boys, pack your oreos, cake, ice cream sandwiches, pounders, 12 paks, chips and cheese balls and go play elsewhere.

:beer: :beer:


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey 4 Curl, you can call me all of the names you want to, and I do not think that they caved in to me as you put it. However, Ryan is going to post up the PM I sent to him after this got locked up yesterday, but basically the point that was being made on my side is that you all are welcome to have your own perspective on things same as me but when it comes to the general public, those types of pictures no matter what size the person is posing in them they are not accepted in the general public. My point being that you can not drive the street and see a woman posing naked in any of those positions on a billboard,nor can you go to any museum and find art work that looked like that, nor will probably go into anyones home and see photos on the walls that look like. So those pictures are not generally acceptable in the public either. If you want pictures of naked women no matter what size, go buy a magazine that specializes in what you like. However when you do that are planning on hanging those pictures in frames in your living room or are going to keep them under the counter in the bathroom, or in your nightstand in your bedroom?

This topic as I had stated at the begging is not about the size or the beauty of the person in the photo, it is however about what is allowed to be viewed in the public eye, someone else stated that you can see that in ads in magazines, I would argue that, as you will not see woman or men for that matter posing like that naked in JC penny's, Herberger, Walmart, or any other national chain store ads. So why should be ok to do here because you paid ten dollars to suck up and you feel you're entitled to what you please? Wrong, you can not do that in public and this is public so you can not do it here either, end of story!!!!


----------



## franchi

jd mn/nd said:


> Wrong, you can not do that in public and this is public so you can not do it here either, end of story!!!!


Yeah, because Tony Danza says so! :eyeroll:


----------



## h2ofwlr

I think some Mods need to lighten up a bit and not be so quick to lock a topic.


----------



## Plainsman

h2ofwlr said:


> I think some Mods need to lighten up a bit and not be so quick to lock a topic.


Just so you know I have a sense of humor:



> Beauty is only skin deep,


Beauty may be only skin deep, but ugly is to the bone.

I didn't lock the post because of my sensitivity, I edited for the best interest of the site, in the interest of others, and in the interest of good taste. It was a judgement call that I have no regrets making. I also know a lot of you guys like each other. I wasn't going to let an unimportant squabble change that. I get into conflicts myself over things I think are important, but over this I would just as soon you all like each other next week, even if your a little sore at me now. Cheers.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey Franch, what does Tony Danza have to with our discussion of what is deemed decent in the public eye? Let me ask all of you something and I would really like an honest answer, if that was your mom, sister, wife, girlfriend, or even someone you know, would you really be ok with them posing like that to posted on a website? I am guessing that is when most of you would turn on your moral and ethics switches. When viewing a photo ask yourself would you truely pose or allow a photo like those to be taken of you or as stated above someone you care about and then posted up for all to see on a website? I bet most of you and would say over 90% would be the first one to say no way!!!

PS: Read Plainmens signature line!!!! It would seem that he must have decent sense of moral and ethics to have qoutes like that by his name.


----------



## dblkluk

> My point being that you can not drive the street and see a woman posing naked in any of those positions on a billboard,nor can you go to any museum and find art work that looked like that, nor will probably go into anyones home and see photos on the walls that look like.


You are wrong... Its everywhere..Its just that some of the women are a few pounds lighter, but often even more revealing..No complaints from you there huh??
According to your standard of what is acceptable in "public" and what isn't, I'm sure you don't own a tv or never look at the magazines at the checkout of the grocery store. 
Heck the SI swimsuit edition cover has women on the cover wearing nothing at all. Are they really considered "naked" if you can't see private parts?
I still didn't here you complaining about the girls in pictures that h2ofwlr posted.. The girls in the bikini were as "naked" as any of the avatar girls (in many cases the h2ofwlr pics were more revealing)
Talk about your double standards... :eyeroll:

And is this site truely public??



> I think some Mods need to lighten up a bit and not be so quick to lock a topic.


I wish it was always as easy as you think it is... :eyeroll:


----------



## dblkluk

> Let me ask all of you something and I would really like an honest answer, if that was your mom, sister, wife, girlfriend, or even someone you know, would you really be ok with them posing like that to posted on a website?


If she was confident in herself and wanted to do it I would be more than ok with it..
Who am I to tell someone to be ashamed of themselves? :huh:


----------



## Hamm

jd mn/nd said:


> Let me ask all of you something and I would really like an honest answer, if that was your mom, sister, wife, girlfriend, or even someone you know, would you really be ok with them posing like that to posted on a website?


If they were willing, whatever, it's their prerogative.

:beer:


----------



## jgat

Are those the sorts of images that you guys would want your children staring at? I sure hope not! I understand that it is a joke between friends, and quite humerous at that. But for guys who are looking at this site at work, or at home with their family around, and having images like that show up on an outdoor web site, I just think it is uncalled for. If guys want to see those types of images they are not too hard to find on the internet, but I think this site should be a family friendly place for us all to enjoy no matter who is looking at the monitor. I felt this thread was justifiably locked, and should have remained that way.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey double cluck, you show me one photo that looked like the avatars, that were being used and I will publicly apologize to everyone here!!!! but you can not tell me that you have ever seen a billboard with a woman buck a-- naked posing doggy style in a bed XXXXXXXX!!!!! There is no double standard here. What I like is not relavant to the what is decent for public viewing, if you had read my prior post I stated that there was only one photo that H20 posted that I did not see as fit for a open to the public website and that was the one with the boobies hanging out the bottom of the shirt, as for the one with bikinis, I did not see that one, so I can not comment on it. However not one of those avatars had women with suffecient if any clothing on them, so that is a very lame comparison. As for the rest of them, they were covering the rest of the body parts with no exposure of private parts. At no point in time have I commented about the size of the women in any of the photos, nor have I made condisending remarks about their looks or thier size, so you can not call me a hypocrit. This debate is simply one issue and one issue only what is decent for the genereal public to see!!! 
What you do on your time and your dime is your business. However when it effects the general public there are certain lines that are not allowed to be crossed, believe me if they could have been people and companies with huge pocket books would have done it a long time ago.

Edited for content by Plainsman. Keep it cool guys.


----------



## dblkluk

jgat, 
Since I can only speak for myself, I'm not debating the fact that many of those avatars crossed the line ..because they did. And they have been removed.

I'm simply questioning the double standards of some of those on the site who never complain about the nearly naked swimsuit models that are on the site or avatars on occasion. But are quick to state that others should to be ashamed of themselves. Which I'm certain is because they don't fit that "supermodel" sterotype.

IMO, its an interesting debate.. Is revealing or provacative dress only acceptable if the model is a particular "size"??


----------



## franchi

jd mn/nd said:


> Hey Franch, what does Tony Danza have to with our discussion


Well it appears that you are the boss, or at least are trying to be by telling us that your word is final. 
Tony Danza=_Who's the Boss_

And it is not like the pictures used in the avatars came from some dirty, hidden website. They were found on Google image search.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey double, in one of my other prior posts I stated that I used to date a very good looking large woman, Women can be beautiful no matter thier size, and some women have more beauty on the inside than the outside, and some have it all. Were all different that is the way God made us, thankfully. However, to answer your question, like I said before the amount of cloth that is required to cover up what needs to be covered is relative to the size of the person, me personally require considerably more than say Leo.

As for the nearly naked swimsuit models on here as you can tell by the number of posts that I have and my joining date I do not use this site as often as some here so I may have missed something in the past. But yes there is a difference between sexy and not leaving anything to the imagination.

Later JD


----------



## jd mn/nd

Hey Franchi, I have been to Minot many times and I have not seen a billboard, poster, art work, or anything else like on the streets in public view yet, I also have friends that live there and I am sure that if I asked them if they have they would also tell me that they have not either. So I am not telling how to live your life or that I am the boss the only statement that I have made through this whole argument is that the photos used for avatars were completly inappropriate for public viewing, this website and millions of other ones like are street that people walk down every day of thier lives, so this is not any different than walking down broadway in Minot or any other city in the US for that matter. So I never said my word was final, what I continue to say is that it is not appropriate on this site or any other one like it. If want to see photos like that go to the google search and veiw them privatly, but you are not allowed to subject me or anyone else to have to forceably view them. And until this site is a pay per view site this is a public forum once it become pay to play it then is private.


----------



## jd mn/nd

As promised here is a copy of the PM sent to Ryan yesterday on this topic, hence part of the reason I am sure it wa

Hey JD

Here was your PM:



jd mn/nd said:


> I see what your saying, however we also have look at this from both sides at the same time right? Hence my whole point is this not a generally accetable practice in the the public, otherwise why are there not any billboards showing what was shown in the avatars? Any place in the Americas that you go you will not find that type of material out in the open in public view, granted you may not have to look to hard to find it, but it is not in the immediate public view. As for H20 there was only one photo of his that I personally would not have posted that was the one with the breast haning out of the bottom of the shirt on MILF. The rest could be seen anywhere in the public, and probably even more of it. When I look at decency and what I consider it to be in the public eye, is one thing, then there is what I prefer personally that is a whole different case in it's own right. Then there is the church, family, and so on involved in decision making process as well.
> 
> You were correct about small children running around shameleslly naked, my son (5) does it in the confines of our home all of the time, does not mean I would let him do it out on the street in the public, nor would most anyone I know. Including Leo and YOU!!! Heck I walk around my house naked too, does not mean that anyone besides my wife needs to see my johnson.
> 
> As for the 1st amendment I am all for it, however there are some levels of decency that should be maintaned, and if the 1st amendment was really all it was cracked up to be no one would ever win a liable suit in court so that just became a crock of crap didn't it? I am just saying that certain things should be kept amoung those who appreciate it and away from those who don't, you know like everyone knows someone who really likes to drink alot, and they generally hang with people who like to drink alot, and then there are people who like to have social cocktails and occasionally drink too much, two completly different groups of people that you seldom if ever see hanging out together, right?
> 
> As for the response about art versus porno, there is a huge difference there. I will not even get into that one. I have been to some of the most famous museums in the states, and have seen some of the most beautiful art work, including portraits of nude or partially nude people, but in those cases it is more than just the picture on the canvas. There are whole realms that open up different interpretations of art work.


Later JDs re-opened or unlocked.


----------



## R y a n

jd mn/nd said:


> However, Ryan is going to post up the PM I sent to him after this got locked up yesterday, but basically the point that was being made on my side is that you all are welcome to have your own perspective on things same as me but when it comes to the general public, those types of pictures no matter what size the person is posing in them they are not accepted in the general public.


Hey JD

I sent you that PM back for you to post.

Ryan


----------



## franchi

I just don't see how this site is any more public/private than a regular search engine. You keep bringing up the idea of billboards and posters with these type of pictures on them. What would be wrong with that. Even though billboards with women with little clothing on them are not being shown in Minot currently, they are still out there. I just spent 2 years down in Vegas, and they are everywhere. I didn't run into anyone crying foul about those. And beleive it or not, there were children there too.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Franchi were those billboards or signs showing NUDE photos of women? I bet they weren't. I mean no clothes totally nude up on big huge signs for all to see. If they were nude were they showing women posing for sexual acts like doggy style or spread eagle from behind? I still bet money they weren't. So you still don't get it do you? Let me ask you were do hide your playboy's from your wife? Under the bed? Out in the man cave (garage), under the bathroom counter? See my point is I bet more money you don't keep them on the coffee table or the end tables out in the open for everyone to see when they come to your place do you? Why is that? Are you embarassed by them? Or are you embarassed that people would know that you look at naked pictures of women? Why exactly do you not keep them out in the public viewing areas of your home? Well I can tell you why because it is not a a generally accepted thing in our society and we do not by nature wish to offend other by what we do. So unless you display photos like that on your living room walls or even on the outside of your home, you have no business doing it here either!!!!!


----------



## franchi

I don't know if you have been to Vegas before or not, but there are pictures, banners, flyers, and billboards with very similar pictures on them. Yes, even large women. You say NUDE. There were no areolas being shown, no female genitalia posted on here. The amount of clothing being shown on some of these gals is no different than what is being shown on TV. And that is all OK'd by the FCC.
Do I hide my Playboy's. No, because I don't have any. I have not treated myself with that to date. And I am not married at this point in my life. I have a relative who does leave his Playboy's on his coffee table. He is not married, but is in a very serious relationship. I bet he has 20+ magazines out in view for anyone. He doesn't put them away when his parents come over, when is girlfriend is there, or even when Grandma Carol stops by.
Why you are so offended and opposed to this I do not know. I too am a larger guy and feel the exact opposite of you on this topic.


----------



## R y a n

Ok I'm back from my morning meetings now. I'd like to chime in on some of the things discussed earlier.

Much of the statements made have been erroneous. I'll try and address some of the misconceptions as best I can.



jd mn/nd said:


> those types of pictures no matter what size the person is posing in them they are not accepted in the general public. My point being that you can not drive the street and see a woman posing naked in any of those positions on a billboard,nor can you go to any museum and find art work that looked like that, nor will probably go into anyones home and see photos on the walls that look like.


This is simply not true. There are many instances where the general public has accepted images that have been controversial to some. It is all subjective to the particular person who thinks they are the "public" at that moment. Some feel it is no big deal, others get up in arms.

I have gone to museums here in the States in the past year and viewed art work that depicted those types of images, and even more "provactive" images than those. I have also visited the homes of friends who have those types of poses on their walls. It is actually quite common in certain circles.



jd mn/nd said:


> However when you do that are planning on hanging those pictures in frames in your living room or are going to keep them under the counter in the bathroom, or in your nightstand in your bedroom?


I have artwork depicting several friends hanging on walls. It's not a big deal. It's art. You seem to be continually focusing that all nudity is inherently evil and deserves to be shoved under the "counter in the bathroom". I don't approach simple nudity that way. It is nothing to be ashamed of. If I told you that I have posed as a model for an art class would that change your opinion? If I went further on to tell you that the artists have given me samples of that artwork to be hung and dispayed at my house, and that I would have no problem displaying it for friends, would that convince you even more? Curious?



jd mn/nd said:


> I would argue that, as you will not see woman or men for that matter posing like that naked in JC penny's, Herberger, Walmart, or any other national chain store ads.


Does Abercrombie & Fitch, Victoria's Secret, Fredrick's of Hollywood, or Dove Soap count? Here is a great example of a National advertising campaign done recently by Dove Soap. The original ad, featured the female president of Dove Corp., walking around nude in an office, with her entire staff participating nude in the video.(http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/in ... mpaign.asp).

Here are some good sites to reviewon their efforts at trying to change the beauty and modesty debate in the world:

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/ds ... px?id=7373

http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/pr ... ction=news











http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... =323982306



jd mn/nd said:


> Wrong, you can not do that in public and this is public so you can not do it here either, end of story!!!!


This is not public. This is a website accessible via the internet. We can do it here, provided it falls under the owner's Terms of Use. It is a private entity where he gets to decide the rules and limits.


----------



## R y a n

jd mn/nd said:


> Let me ask all of you something and I would really like an honest answer, if that was your mom, sister, wife, girlfriend, or even someone you know, would you really be ok with them posing like that to posted on a website? I am guessing that is when most of you would turn on your moral and ethics switches.
> 
> When viewing a photo ask yourself would you truely pose or allow a photo like those to be taken of you or as stated above someone you care about and then posted up for all to see on a website? I bet most of you and would say over 90% would be the first one to say no way!!!
> 
> .


The answer to this question from me is...

If they are comfortable with their body image, and have full knowledge of the intention of the photos, then yes I have no problem with it. That is my moral and ethical switch. I am allowing them free will to excercise their Freedoms under the First Amendment at free speech. That is their choice, and they made the complete and willing choice to do with their bodies as they please.

To take it a step further JD, I have had 4 girlfriends in my past, that have no problem with being photographed, or viewed. They have all had tremendous self esteem.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n

jgat said:


> Are those the sorts of images that you guys would want your children staring at? I sure hope not! I understand that it is a joke between friends, and quite humerous at that. But for guys who are looking at this site at work, or at home with their family around, and having images like that show up on an outdoor web site, I just think it is uncalled for. If guys want to see those types of images they are not too hard to find on the internet, but I think this site should be a family friendly place for us all to enjoy no matter who is looking at the monitor. I felt this thread was justifiably locked, and should have remained that way.


jgat

wrong.

My kids will be brought up to have respect for all people. They will not judge on body image. Simple nudity will be common around our house, as both my girlfriend and I live a laid back lifestyle in regards to dress.

Therefore it is doubtful they will stare at all. Staring implies they would be shocked and wouldn't be able to look away. The fact is, that when nudity is not made scandalous or forbidden, noone cares. If you go to Europe to a beach, noone (except the tourist Americans) even notices the girls are topless/nude. They blend in after just a few minutes of the novelty wearing off. I bet right now, in your average day, you've walked by a woman who had a bare arm showing. Did you stop to stare? Why not? The answer is you didn't stare, because it was commonplace, and you've seen millions of arms in your life. The same concept quickly applies when a different bodypart is no longer forbidden. Europeans laugh at our boob fetish. Rightly so in my opinion. In fact I'd guess you might have your own too right?

Now, I do agree with you that there are certain places, where you might not expect to see certain images, and you have a valid case that if you come to a hunting website, you would expect to only see hunting related things.

The thread was reopened to discuss the merits of what is beauty, and what isn't, and what is the definition of decency and who gets to choose the definition of that, and it's applicability in different areas of society.

Just because it is controversial, it shouldn't be locked. That is what Hot Topics are for... I take it you have read the sticky post that things in this forum are more controversial, so if you have issues, just skip this forum.

Right?


----------



## R y a n

jd mn/nd said:


> Franchi were those billboards or signs showing NUDE photos of women? I bet they weren't. I mean no clothes totally nude up on big huge signs for all to see. If they were nude were they showing women posing for sexual acts like doggy style or spread eagle from behind? I still bet money they weren't.


There are nude images on TV and billboards everywhere you go in Europe. Nude is not lews JD. Like I said before. There is a huge difference between simple nudity and someone depicting a sexual act. You and everyone else offended by nudity needs to learn to seperate that detail.

Both in Canada and Europe I see open nudity all the time on TV. It is the United States that is so prudish and backward in regards to this issue, and is ruled by the draconian FCC.

Fact: Americans watch more TV than any other country in the world. According to a survey found on wikipedia, we average watching just over 5 hours a day. And this is even in the internet age where people are spending more and more time online.

How crazy has our prudish American FCC become? Take this example.

In January of 2007, the FCC fined ABC-TV $1.4 million dollars for showing the bare buttocks of one of the shows actresses, Charlotte Ross, during an episode of NYPD Blue.

For those of you who want to see what caused this big uproar youtube has the scene: *click here*

This is the FCC's position:



> "We find that the programming at issue is within the scope of our indecency definition because it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs -- specifically an adult woman's buttocks," the FCC wrote. "Although ABC argues, without citing any authority, that the buttocks are not a sexual organ, we reject this argument, which runs counter to both case law and common sense."


The FCC says it is "common sense" to consider bare buttocks as a sexual organ. Now I will grant the FCC that many Americans think naked butts are sexy, but a sexual organ? I think if maybe American schools had sex education classes, those people at the FCC might learn a little bit more about the birds and the bees and human reproduction.

As far as ABC failing to cite authority that buttocks are not a sexual organ, maybe the FCC members need to take a class in human physiology. Last time I knew human reproductive organs were located on the other side of the buttocks.

So let's see, the FCC says the buttocks are a sexual organ. Since the FCC is obviously confused about the human body, the next thing we know, what they will say is that the brains are located in the buttocks. Well, maybe if they said most politicans brains are located there, I would believe that.

*TV Guide Magazine* has an internet poll. Unfortunately you have to register to see the results.

They ask 2 questions:

1) Do you agree with the FCC position... that a person's buttocks are a "sexual organ?"

12.8% said yes 87.2% said No. For the poll and to vote *click here*

2)Is the FCC justified in fining ABC stations for airing in 2003 on an NYPD Blue episode showing Charlotte Ross standing nude in front of a young boy?

14.7% said yes and 85.2% said No For the poll and to vote *click here*

Now TV Guide is a conservative publication. It was founded by Walter Annenberg (who lived in the Palm Springs area until he died). He was a major financial supporter of Republican causes and especially Ronald Reagan.

These are amazing results from a conservative publication.

This poll shows most Americans have common sense. It is just too bad that our politicans and government agencies do not.


----------



## R y a n

jd mn/nd said:


> So you still don't get it do you?
> 
> Let me ask you were do hide your playboy's from your wife? Under the bed? Out in the man cave (garage), under the bathroom counter? See my point is I bet more money you don't keep them on the coffee table or the end tables out in the open for everyone to see when they come to your place do you? Why is that? Are you embarassed by them? Or are you embarassed that people would know that you look at naked pictures of women? Why exactly do you not keep them out in the public viewing areas of your home? Well I can tell you why because it is not a generally accepted thing in our society and we do not by nature wish to offend other by what we do.


OK so this will be my last post here for a bit, now that I've caught up.

To answer your Playboy question.... my answer is that I don't have a subscription. I have the internet if I really feel some urge to view something.

However that being said, my _*girlfriend*_ does have a subscription to Playboy, and *YES she does leave them out *for everyone to go through. Yeah... pretty sure she isn't embarassed by them. In fact she has an attitude I'm pretty sure that 99% of guys would give their left nut to have a partner have.

I take offense at the implication that we live by some general rule that "we do not by nature wish to offend other by what we do". I don't live in a manner where I am constantly bending my behavior to accomodate the whims of those I "might" offend. The world needs to become more tolerant of everyone. Tolerance that I might not meet your expectations of morality or conduct. Tolerant that I might hold views that are contrary to your own, but you know... that is A OK!



jd mn/nd said:


> So unless you display photos like that on your living room walls or even on the outside of your home, you have no business doing it here either!!!


Well I guess since we've covered the fact that I do indeed have a girlfriend with a Playboy subscription, and have displayed photos on my walls, and even outside my home in art albums, that I'm golden to do it here! sweet!

Thanks for tolerating my views on the issue!

Ryan


----------



## Southwest Fisher

I think Ryan is making some excellent points about the way that our society is, and I can't even pin this entirely on the evil media, it's all of us. I remember being in Vicenza, Italy (home of the 173rd Airborne Brigade, what a duty station) for an Annual Training period, we were on pass one day and went to a local beach on the Adriatic that happened to be "clothing optional." I was towards the back of the bus and by the time myself and some of the younger soldier actually got to the shore all of the local girls were covering themselves up - much to our chagrin! The reason wasn't as simple as them disliking the pasty Americans that had arrived - it was because the guys before me started hooting and hollering at the first girl that they saw, thereby causing the rest to cover up and basically ruining life for the rest of us. Those of us with a clue moved far down the beach to enjoy the scenery, and noticed that as long as we were polite, discreet, and respectful the ladies had no problem letting their bodies be natural. They were used to men giving them an appreciative glance and a smile, along with respect, and that kept it great for everyone. Nothing wrong with discreet comments, but be adult about it. If you don't act like it's a big deal, then it's not.

And yes, it did turn out to be one of the best days that any 20 year old ever had. :beer:

Now that's the kind of world I want to live in.
(stolen from Superbad!)


----------



## dblkluk

> Now that's the kind of world I want to live in.
> (stolen from Superbad!)


Hilarious.... :lol: :beer:


----------



## jgat

Ok, so European customs are a little more liberal than ours. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that at all. How about the customs of those in Muslim countries? I could cite several countries where women are required to cover every body part except their eyes. Just because it is their custom, does that make it right? Does that make it wrong? I don't think this thread was intended to discuss ones perception of "beauty."


----------



## jgat

R y a n said:


> Just because it is controversial, it shouldn't be locked. That is what Hot Topics are for... I take it you have read the sticky post that things in this forum are more controversial, so if you have issues, just skip this forum.
> 
> Right?


I am fine with topics being controversial. I am not fine with graphic images showing up on my monitor at work. Images that I could be fired for viewing.


----------



## R y a n

jgat said:


> Ok, so European customs are a little more liberal than ours. That is fine. I do not have a problem with that at all. How about the customs of those in Muslim countries? I could cite several countries where women are required to cover every body part except their eyes. Just because it is their custom, does that make it right? Does that make it wrong? I don't think this thread was intended to discuss ones perception of "beauty."


Part of the thread originally was about perception of "beauty", as Leo, Erik and JD were discussing whether one avator was acceptable based on a certain standard of beauty, while another was not... hence me going down that path a bit..

In regards to the Muslim vs European comment, I would offer that the difference is one choice is free will, whilst the other is based off of an oppressive religious doctrine. A custom is reasonable provided it isn't part of a mandated requirement with no choice in the matter...

My .02.. well ok.. maybe by now I"m up to a $1.25 

Ryan


----------



## jd mn/nd

Well Ryan and Franchi, Kudo's to both of you!!! You are as I have said numerous times already free to live you life as you chose and whom you choose to live it with but again I am back to the fact the points I have made about doing this in the street are no different than doing it here. Even if the Chris does view this as a private domain, that is incorrect, this a public forum, that is privatly owned. Because it is open to the public to join in at no charge, this is no different than walking down the street. People come here and many other FREE websites with certain expectations. Seeing nudity that is sexually explicite in nature, weather or not genitals were showing has no bearing on the matter, it is not expected that one should be able to view it without asking to see it. It is also not the norm as we all know it.

Weather I walk around naked in my home and weather I enjoy it or not, has no bearing on what I do out in the public. I fail to see how what one does in thier personal life, is the same as what the GENERAL public expects or has a reasonable expectation of encountering when out in the public weather it be behind a computer or on the street. Hence the reason that I have made numerous references to billboards, national magazines, and nation wide companies advertising slicks. It is not that I am a prude, because seen sexually explicite videos with my wife, and we have fun with them. But it is not something that I feel needs to be inflicted on others in my life. That is my choice, not everyone elses, so I do not feel that I have a right to impose on thier comfort level of nudity or sexuality. There is a difference between the two by the way, there is also a difference between tasteful nudity and and distastful nudity for public viewing. But everyone always wants to group them together and say that they are one in the same they are not. As for art that is hung in museums the person posing understood that, they were putting thier body out there in the public in some capacity when posing, however I would ask and possibly even venture to guess that it was not done in a sexual capacity that would offend most of the public. Some of the most famous artists in the world did nude portrates dating back centuries but they were all done tastefully with little or no sexual inuendos. Yes most of the artists I am referencing were of european decent as well. Understanding that the human body is a beautiful object people have been for thousands of years taken by it natural beauty. There is probably more art work portraying the human body than any other kind of art. That being said, I still would defy anyone to call those avatars in question art work. Because as least in my definition of it they were not even in the same universe as anything I am in reference to. Again I would like to make sure that everyone understands this has nothing to do with size of the body it is has everything do with the suggestive nature of the portrait, photos, slicks, ads whatever you want to call them.

This debate could go on and on and yes I understand that we all have a different tolerance level for what we percieve to ok with public viewing.

Later JD


----------



## R y a n

jgat said:


> R y a n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because it is controversial, it shouldn't be locked. That is what Hot Topics are for... I take it you have read the sticky post that things in this forum are more controversial, so if you have issues, just skip this forum.
> 
> Right?
> 
> 
> 
> I am fine with topics being controversial. I am not fine with graphic images showing up on my monitor at work. Images that I could be fired for viewing.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you. Like was mentioned, I think that is a very fair and reasonable argument.

It's just such a shame that we've been forced to become so ultra PC, and so have our employers, as the ACLU and other do gooders have made us a sue happy culture, and employers have no loyalty or trust in their workers that they fire someone out of fear of legal action if they don't.

ya know? :eyeroll:


----------



## jgat

R y a n said:


> It's just such a shame that we've been forced to become so ultra PC, and so have our employers, as the ACLU and other do gooders have made us a sue happy culture, and employers have no loyalty or trust in their workers that they fire someone out of fear of legal action if they don't.
> 
> ya know? :eyeroll:


We've found some common ground! :beer:


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y

WOW this has kept going and going and going! I will add one thing. 
JD, how do yo feel about about Abercrombie and Fitch? How do you like there billboards?

Here is an example. http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/s ... ryId=12202

Take a look around on that site. They are wearing less clothing and these are on TV, billboards and on ads all over the world.

I have tried to stay out of this but I coulden't resist.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

> I didn't lock the post because of my sensitivity, I edited for the best interest of the site, in the interest of others, and in the interest of good taste.


Were you weak in another life? Stifling and trampling everyone who has an opposing view from yours is socialistic. I've been watching you for quite sometime and you are good at calling people out without comprimising your position as a holier than thou superduper moderator until your quarry blows their cool and ends up getting the boot. We share many views and standards, but I would never stand beside you. Alot of the real personalities that used to post here have left because of you.

As for the dude who was *****in' about the kids seeing this thread, this would be the least of my worries. Maybe you only had a computer for a couple weeks or so.

JD, you have a choice. If you don't like what you see, don't look. If you don't like what your reading, put the book down or close the thread. I don't know how old you are but some guy on the internet shouldn't be telling you this.


----------



## Plainsman

What can I say, sorry you think that.


----------



## jd mn/nd

Ok Hunt P&Y, I went to your link the only two picks that I could see after clicking on men and women both was one of a guy with his shirt off and and wearing a pair of long pants and a pic of a women with a t-shirt on with only her arms showing. Secondly I can't afford to shop at places like that heck until you pointed out who they were I had never even heard of them.

4Curl, I am going to say this once again when you open up any thread that has people using avatars you do not have a choice but too see them!!! What part of that do you not understand? Just like I have to see yours of a dog painted on an old saw blade. There is no choice!!!! Yes I was the guy "*****ing" as you say about kids seeing things like that. Yes am old enough to know that how to use a computer and what it should be used for I probably have to use one for more hours a day then you. What makes you think that you or anyone else for that matter have the right to force others to view things that are not acceptable for general viewing? What rock pile did you fall off of? The avatars in question were not acceptable for public viewing and you know it!!! Why are so upset about this. Do you have a family ( wife & kids)? Is that something you would expect to see on a say a website your kids or wife would visit? I bet not. This is no different there ARE women and children of all ages that come here for the same reasons as you and me. Do think that it is reasonable to force them to view something that is not a normally accepted general viewing practice? If you are married and have kids what would you say if your child came to and told of that being visible on this site or any other site for that matter? I am curious as to how old you are? Because don't seem very well round in life.

Later JD


----------



## Leo Porcello

*FPP FPP FPP FPP FPP FPP FPP FPP FPP FPP *



jd mn/nd said:


> . What makes you think that you or anyone else for that matter have the right to force others to view things that are not acceptable for general viewing?


What makes YOU think you can decide what is considerred acceptable and not acceptable.

I bet you 100 hunts that if all those Avatar were of Paris Hilton, Pam Anderson, WWE Divas, or any other hard bodied chick you would not have said a thing. Sure you will deny it but Stoeger has had those pictures for almost 2 years now in his Avatars, you have been on those posts and you have said nothing.

I can open up the paper or turn on the public TV and see women in bikinis, G-strings, bras, panities, pasties, etc etc. So obviously that apparrel is considerred acceptable for general public viewing.

Plain and simple you have a beef with fat women or people having confidence and feeling sexy. Get over it. It is their right, not for you to dictate or put them down because they have the guts to do something you don't.

So now type us another novel of how your way is the only way. To me this is just as bad a racism and its a shame double standard thinking exists in our society!

BTW I passed on to my mom that she should not come out of the house unless she has a cloak on. That made her day! uke:


----------



## Springer

hunt4P&Y said:


> WOW this has kept going and going and going!


That is what I was thinking. Wow I was just asking what they were doing.
I am going to have to get into that members area i guess. Too many of these online forums.

JD I think you have to register and sign in to see the avatars if you just come to the site they don't show up. Not that that makes any difference as anyone can sign up for free, just a few less people seen those pics.


----------



## jd mn/nd

WOW!!! Hey Leo, first off I have not seen any of stoegers avatars as I have not even seen him post up anything on here in like forever, so I am not familiar with them. You can blast me all you want but again this is not about the size of the person, heck you know what size I am, and I go out in public all be it fully clothed. Yes your correct they do show all kinds of people on tv, in all forms of advertising scantily clad in clothing or the lack there of, but they are not naked and posing in a sexually explicite pose.

I guess you are going to believe that I am sort of a bigot, but you are wrong I told about my family and none of us are skinny people. I am not ashamed of who I am or what I am or even what I come from. So I am not sure how you can call me a bigot. Once again this has little if anything to do with the looks or the size of any individual doing what ever they do in their homes or where ever. It does have everything to do with nude sexually explicite material posted on a website that is the open for public to be forced to view, when coming to the site. This type of material is the kind that if you found it on Disney.com while your children were going to use that website you would ballistic. There is a public website that is privatly owned. Sexually explicite pictures are not acceptable in the general public, and you all know it, your all getting ****** at me for pointing it out, I have not said you can't do it in your homes or in your cars or in private any other place, I did say you can not do it in public. Otherwise why doesn't budwieser have photos of nude woman holding beer on a billboard? You don't think that their product sales would go up? Sure but they can not do that. Everyone keeps saying that this ad and that ad all have half naked women in them, that maybe but they are not totally nude posing doggy style or spread eagle are they? Nor are they eating cheese cake in thier underwear. I am asking anyone to showme an ad of some sort that is from a ligetimate company here in the USA that looks like one of those avatars did. I will bet you 100 hunts you can't. Not even playboy get to run public ads that look like, nor did larry flin. That is my point. Leo I had hoped that you would have viewed in the proper manner however I think that did not happen. Sorry that I ****** you off so bad and that you totally misunderstood that point that I have been making. I hope that we can still at least be congenial friends after all of this.

Later JD


----------



## hunter121390

If you don't like the pictures, don't look at them. If you have a problem with fat people, move to another country, because the U.S. is the fattest country in the world. No matter where you look you're going to see fat people. I don't see why you complain about fat people that are in sexual poses wearing bras and panties or whatever, but you can look at hot chicks in bikinis all the time, wherever you look. Hot women in bikinis is a huge advertising plus, because it gets guys like us to look at them. We look at the ads and might buy the things. You turn on the t.v., open a magazine, whatever, and you can see women in thongs and bras, people having sex, making out, fondling each other, whatever. Heck, walk through a high school. People grabbing each other, making out, all those things that I'm sure you think are unacceptable, but you can sit at home and watch it on your tv. I think people just need to deal with it, because it's everywhere. Naked people, fat women, skinny women, big breasted women, people having sex, whatever. If you don't want to see it, get rid of your tv, computer, magazines, and go live out in the boondocks where no one is going to find you. Oh and also don't let your wife walk around naked or in her bra/panties/ night gown, because you'd be contradicting what your saying then.


----------



## jd mn/nd

I GIVE UP YOU ALL WIN!!! I WILL CONCEDE TO THE FACT THAT I AM PRUDE, BIGOT, AND WHATEVER ALL OF YOU WANT TO CALL ME. I will even pull off the site if that is what you all want. In parting remember that I have stated that it has nothing to do with the size, but with the content and the way it was protrayed, as well as where it was located.

SEE YAH,

Later JD


----------



## hunter121390

It's a hot topic and controversial. This isn't a reason to leave. I personally was not trying to get you to leave or get you to hate me. I was simply stating my opinion. An I'm sorry if it upset you.

If it got to the point where someone is going to leave maybe this should be locked and forgotten?


----------



## dblkluk

How that saying go about fighting on the internet and the special olympics??? :box: 
:lol:

We can just agree to disagree...

Hopefully this one can just fade away...


----------



## hunter121390

sounds good. here. sorry again about upsetting anyone.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

dblkluk said:


> How that saying go about fighting on the internet and the special olympics??? :box:
> :lol:
> 
> We can just agree to disagree...
> 
> Hopefully this one can just fade away...


Right on!! 

Besides the smell of poopy diaper here is getting nauseating!!


----------



## h2ofwlr

As for the FCC, they are nuts IMO.

Not ok to show a bare butt on TV, but it is Ok to see someone wasted by a gun. That is Ok.... :eyeroll:

I do think Europeans have it right. There it is Ok to see what we call an X film for nudity/sex at age 16. But our R for violence is 18 min with parent or 21 YO there with out from friends have told me that stayed there.

Here in the US, it is the Puritan value that nudity and sex is "dirty" Vs the rest of the world, it is natural. And where the rest of world is appalled about violence, we say no big deal.

In some ways the US, is really screwed up, and the nudity and violence values is one of them.


----------



## Robert A. Langager

h2o,

You nailed it right on the head. I liked my time in Europe when you could turn on the TV and see some good ol' boob action. Not here though, but violence is just fine. :eyeroll:


----------



## USSapper

Its sad to see the things that people worry about these days when there are much more important things at hand


----------

