Topic: Boobs...

[Eternally Learning]

Look. The discussion is fine. The video is not. It's not fine because of the rule that Skeptress writes in reply #1: women's breasts are taboo. As silly as that rule is, it exists, and you are obviously aware of it, because you are questioning it.

When the rule changes, videos like that will be okay. Yes, I recognize the paradox in that; when the rule changes, videos like that will be unnecessary.

A rule can be questioned without breaking it. The ridiculousness of circumcision is a topic that comes up fairly often here, yet no one has ever seen a need to post pictures of cut vs. uncut penes, or a bris video.

I reject your counter-offer, EL, because I am fine with the situation as it stands right now. I am sad that you have been distracted into turning this into a matter of pride rather than keeping your eyes on the big picture. My offer still stands: remove the video, and I'll move the thread back to Rel/Phil.

This is not coming from pride at all.  Not one bit.  I couldn't care less if you convince me I'm wrong and you're right, but you're not even attempting to and frankly I'm a bit upset that you don't know me a little better than that by now.  You cite the rule that women's breasts are taboo, but nowhere in the forum rules is that mentioned at all.  The only rule I could find concerns pornography and obscenity.  I was initially taking for granted that naked breasts were against the rules, but I've come to find they are not.  I was also about to concede that they constitute porn or obscenity until I actually looked at what defines those words:

por·nog·ra·phy
Definition of PORNOGRAPHY
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

ob·scene
Definition of OBSCENE
1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2:
a : abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity
b : containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage <obscene lyrics>
c : repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles <an obscene misuse of power>
d : so excessive as to be offensive <obscene wealth> <obscene waste>

Honestly, if the definitions of these words weren't so opposite to what I think breasts are and specifically what the video is then I wouldn't really care at all.  I'd just shrug it off and move on.  Still, there is precedent in the rules for things that society considers taboo being posted outside the explicit section:

While we do not prohibit profanity, we do ask users to avoid using excessive foul language. Generally, we will consider "weighted phrases" such as those often used to advertise x-rated websites as content that will definitely be disallowed as well as truly obscene content.

We do prefer people to avoid using foul language, but we won't worry about isolated usage. We trust that the forum will not be swamped in a deluge of "bad words." A user who posts a lot of foul language is likely to have their posting privileges restricted or removed.

I get that pictures and videos are different than words so I submit that moderation in this context means clearer warnings for those who wish to avoid it and a spoiler tag for the video in question. 

Lastly, I'd just like to point out that you have not actually addressed a single word of mine regarding the actual forum rules and how they apply to my actions.  I get that you're the head mod, that the buck stops with you, that you can just decide to ignore me and there's nothing I can do about it, that this is just an online discussion forum and in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter all that much to the larger issues we discuss, and I absolutely get that you have to put up with a lot of shit from stupid people who are looking to grind an axe or "stick it to the man" or some other such nonsense.  What I don't get is how I'm asking for all that much, and I don't get what harm will actually come from moving the thread back to where it was with a clearer NSFW label and a spoiler tag.  All I'm asking for is that you either explain how I'm wrong according to the rules of the forum not society's rules or show me the inherent harm in posting this video like I suggest and I'll back down and concede.  Furthermore, if it's the latter I'd start a thread to amend the forum rules to specifically state that nudity is disallowed.

[amysrevenge]

Bare boobs shouldn't be pornographic by default.  They are pornography by default, by the general standards of our shitty stupid society.

Bare boobs belong in Explicit, whether they should belong there or not.  It should be obvious that this is so, but clearly it isn't since we're having the discussion.  Looks like we can all mix up ought/is.

In 2012 we don't need to explicitly include "nudity" as distinct from "pornographic".  In a better world they would be distinct, but in the real world they are pretty much functionally the same.

[Eternally Learning]

Bare boobs shouldn't be pornographic by default.  They are pornography by default, by the general standards of our shitty stupid society.

Medical dictionaries have bare breasts and they are not considered pornographic depictions.  Bare breasts in paintings and statues are not considered pornographic depictions.  As the video points out, it is not even considered indecent exposure to be a topless woman in NYC.

Bare boobs belong in Explicit, whether they should belong there or not.  It should be obvious that this is so, but clearly it isn't since we're having the discussion.  Looks like we can all mix up ought/is.

Imply that I'm missing the obvious all you want, but until you actually explain what is so obvious then I will still fail to see it.

In 2012 we don't need to explicitly include "nudity" as distinct from "pornographic".  In a better world they would be distinct, but in the real world they are pretty much functionally the same.

This is our own little corner of the internet/world is it not?  Can we not make this a better world if we so choose?  If we choose not to, then what does that say about us?

[ricree]

Don't forget that Beleth isn't just representing himself here.

This is the SGU forum, and the rules reflect on the podcast as well.

As much as you don't like it, that particular taboo exists, and has to be dealt with.  Quite frankly, this isn't really the time or place to take a stand on that issue.

Further, you're coming across as rather demanding and confrontational.  Although you may feel strongly about this, your tone isn't likely to convince Beleth to change his mind.  All it's going to do is leave you angry, and harm the chances of having what might otherwise be a productive conversation.

[amysrevenge]

Imply that I'm missing the obvious all you want, but until you actually explain what is so obvious then I will still fail to see it.

Obvious:  in America, bare boobs are a) taboo and b) obscene/pornographic, in almost every context, breastfeeding included (even a bit titillating (LOL) in medical books).  Reference #1: Superbowl/Janet Jackson.  This is not a secret, and its existence isn't even contentious.  It just is.

It's wrong and bad and stupid, but it is.

[Eternally Learning]

Don't forget that Beleth isn't just representing himself here.

This is the SGU forum, and the rules reflect on the podcast as well.

I'll admit, I hadn't thought about that.  Please tell me why my really, really simple request reflects the podcast and the panel in a bad way.

As much as you don't like it, that particular taboo exists, and has to be dealt with.  Quite frankly, this isn't really the time or place to take a stand on that issue.

What time and place causes this to be problematic?  I'm honestly confused here. 

Further, you're coming across as rather demanding and confrontational.  Although you may feel strongly about this, your tone isn't likely to convince Beleth to change his mind.  All it's going to do is leave you angry, and harm the chances of having what might otherwise be a productive conversation.

Text on a screen has a nasty way of coming across exactly the opposite of how one intends (or it does for me at any rate).  I thought I'd done a good enough job in simply stating that this isn't coming from anger, bitterness, or pride but I can't make anyone believe me I suppose; you either do or you don't.  All that's left are the merits of what I'm actually saying and no one has really seen fit to address them beyond nondescript dismissals.  He's certainly free to leave in a huff and never talk about it again, and I'm certainly not the type to start pestering him about it but the post left in the ghost thread in Rel/Phil specifically says to come here if I want to discuss it and I do.

Imply that I'm missing the obvious all you want, but until you actually explain what is so obvious then I will still fail to see it.

Obvious:  in America, bare boobs are a) taboo and b) obscene/pornographic, in almost every context, breastfeeding included (even a bit titillating (LOL) in medical books).  Reference #1: Superbowl/Janet Jackson.  This is not a secret, and its existence isn't even contentious.  It just is.

It's wrong and bad and stupid, but it is.

I'm not that oblivious.  I get that people in America feel that way but others don't, this isn't a strictly American forum, and no one has bothered to tell me why my solution to this problem is wrong.  Maybe you think I'm on some sort of crusade, but I'm not.  I am really only asking for 1 of 3 outcomes of this discussion:

1.  I am shown a place in the rules which I missed where nudity is specifically disallowed from anywhere but explicit or I am shown how the rules I quoted can be reasonably be interpreted to mean that my suggested fix is disallowed.
2.  The reasoning is explained to me for disallowing nudity outside of explicit regardless of what tags are in place to keep people from unknowingly accessing it.  This is regardless of what the rules say and if it happens means I’d want the rules to be modified.
3.  Beleth concedes my points and agrees with my suggestion for moving the thread back.

I really don’t think this is all that much to expect or ask.

[Bunsen]

I get that people in America feel that way but others don't, this isn't a strictly American forum, and no one has bothered to tell me why my solution to this problem is wrong.

I agree that it's crappy, but the pictures are probably going to have to stay in Explicit.  However, I tend to agree with EL on the above point.  In America, a bunch of prudes have a problem with women walking around in the same state of dress that I see men in all day long on television.  But this thread (along with the forum it exists on) is accessible to the world, and the forum has many different groups from around the world skeptically discussing social topics.

Some people in certain conservative middle-eastern nations might have problems with a woman like, say, Funda publicly voicing her opinions, having strong viewpoints on male society, openly admitting to having a sex drive, or posting pictures of herself with her hair uncovered.  Should we force her to only post in explicit?

In Germany, it's taboo to publicly deny the holocaust in most every situation.  Were a Holocaust denier to post in our politics section, would we jail him in Explicit?

Some Orthodox Jews believe it is a sin to use electronic devices on the Sabbath.  Should we shut down the servers on Saturdays?

And what about the Amish?  Are we going to power these forums using diesel generators?

Why are we drawing the line here, specifically, at non-pornographic, topical, clearly-labeled images of women's nipples?

[Eternally Learning]

I agree that it's crappy, but the pictures are probably going to have to stay in Explicit. 

I think perhaps I'm being misunderstood on this point.  While I get that it is what it is as far as people's reactions, I'm not striving to change society here.  My only moral objection with regards to this issue on this forum is that my video was moved on the grounds of it being pornographic and/or obscene.  I understand that the specific thought probably did not even enter Beleth's head when he made the decision and that the decision was simply a judgement call so I'm not really even calling him out for the initial action.  It doesn't change what the action means in the context of the rules though and that's what I'm talking about here.

Either every image of a nude person is officially obscene and/or pornographic by this site's standards (which seems positively prudish to me), the rules need to be amended to disallow nudity, or tagging and spoilering the thread and video is an appropriate middle-ground.  One of these three must be accurate as far as I can tell, but I'm open to other perspectives, and the only reason I'm pushing it is because it's directly related to the topic of the thread.

[Bunsen]

My only moral objection with regards to this issue on this forum is that my video was moved on the grounds of it being pornographic and/or obscene.

I might have missed it, but I don't believe anybody claimed that but you.  I believe Beleth said it was moved because there is a societal taboo against naked female breasts, not because the specific content you posted was pornography or obscenity.

Sometimes decisions are made that fall outside the explicit forum rules.  The rules are a guide by which the forum can continue to peacefully exist, not an all-encompassing solution to all possible issues.

[Eternally Learning]

My only moral objection with regards to this issue on this forum is that my video was moved on the grounds of it being pornographic and/or obscene.

I might have missed it, but I don't believe anybody claimed that but you.  I believe Beleth said it was moved because there is a societal taboo against naked female breasts, not because the specific content you posted was pornography or obscenity.

No, I know I'm the only one saying it.  I'm saying it because the action in the context of the rule implies it.  Either there needs to be an addition to the rules to make up for something missed before or this rule is applicable to the action.

Sometimes decisions are made that fall outside the explicit forum rules.  The rules are a guide by which the forum can continue to peacefully exist, not an all-encompassing solution to all possible issues.

This does make some sense, but you are the first person to say it to me.  I also think the idea of a living, breathing set of rules makes up for not creating an all-encompassing set at the beginning.  Still, why invite me to come here and discuss it if changing the rules or the ruling is not even on the table?

[Karyn]

If we had to try to figure out the rule for every instance of everything that could ever happen on these forums beforehand, you'd never have the chance to post.  The rules are a rough guideline that we try to follow.  We don't automatically ban everyone that makes a sock.

1.  I am shown a place in the rules which I missed where nudity is specifically disallowed from anywhere but explicit or I am shown how the rules I quoted can be reasonably be interpreted to mean that my suggested fix is disallowed.
2.  The reasoning is explained to me for disallowing nudity outside of explicit regardless of what tags are in place to keep people from unknowingly accessing it.  This is regardless of what the rules say and if it happens means I’d want the rules to be modified.
3.  Beleth concedes my points and agrees with my suggestion for moving the thread back.

Quit being a rules nazi.  It's really not appreciated, pretty much everyone disagrees with you, and it's starting to make you look whiny.

[Eternally Learning]

That's honestly the most disappointing thing anyone I respect on this board has ever said to me.  I'm speechless...

[Eternally Learning]

To clarify; I get that I have tone issues online, but I really thought you and Beleth knew me better than to think I'm just raging against the machine here.  I know that I pretty much incapable of conveying my personality through text conversations.  I'm just asking that people take a step back and ignore however much of a pretentious dick you think I'm being and actually just read what I'm saying.

I'm not trying to be a rule nazi.  I'm not saying that everything has to have a specific rule.  Nudity it seems, is a big one though and the only rule related to it is regarding porn and obscenity.  Am I really being an ass to ask for a more thorough explanation?  That's where all this is coming from, but Beleth stopped answering me (not saying he should have been, I know he has a life) and others jumped in at which point I felt the need to expand on my thoughts.  Perhaps that was my failing, and I should have just waited for his response, but if on this site we cannot even discuss why non-pornographic nude breasts are considered inappropriate outside of explicit then what does that say about us? 

[TheLostVertex]

I will cross post my thoughts on this so you can see them EL. If beleth disagrees with anything he can elaborate.

If it is image or video content that can get you in trouble or fired from an job because some one glances over your shoulder, we do not allow it in the general areas, or to be indexed by search engines. I dont think beleth cares about seeing a boob or ass or what ever, and I know I dont. Some people browse the forums in their free time where looking at any material that could be taken as obscene could get them in trouble. If some one glances at their screen and sees them watching a video with some breast in the take, I doubt they are going to engage them in an intellectual discussion on the state of acceptable body exposure in america.

In response about the "pornographic" language in the rules

Your right, they are some what different. REDACTED

In addition to that, I have always been under the impression that the mods try to follow as closely to the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law. The have been instances of people making sock puppets that were allowed to for various reasons, even though that would technically call for  a ban. I do understand this case is a little bit slippery because of the potentially charged language used in the rules when applied to this.  IE citing no obscene or pornographic materials as a reason to move an image of a womens breast implies that their breast are pornographic, even though that implication is not meant at all.

This is a case of implied and intended meanings I think...

I hope you understand that the reasoning for adding the exclusion of "obscene" content, and understand that this particular case wasnt thought of before hand when those rules were written up all that time ago.

Cranberry sausages,
-Steve

[uolj]

pretty much everyone disagrees with you, and it's starting to make you look whiny.

I don't know if I'd agree with this. Obviously within the context I'm just one more nobody, and perhaps my voice is especially irrelevant given that I often fight the exact same "tone" issues that EL is having in this thread. But there may be others who see this as an honest request for further clarification so I'll humbly throw in my two cents.

And that's all it is, an honest request for further clarification. He's gone out of his way to make it clear that he's just asking for a more thorough explanation than what he's gotten so far. What's wrong with that? The alternative is to immediately accept any answer to your question even if it doesn't actually completely answer the question to avoid looking whiny. But that's not a very cool alternative, is it?

I realize people often tend to get whiny and bitch about stuff that isn't that big of a deal, but it would be nice if we could strive to recognize some simple, dispassionate discussion of an interesting question and treat it as such especially when he has gone out of his way to make it clear that that's all this is.

(And note, that doesn't mean Beleth or any other mod or admin actually has to take the time to answer the question more thoroughly, since we all know and appreciate the work that is put into running these forums and that answering these types of questions isn't always worth taking away from the limited time available. But I don't see the harm in asking.)