haha did spell "Idot" right?

Looks like "I Dot" to me...

Funny

Idoit?

Good God, I can't spell
But you'll knew that

I want to have the option of changing my desktop at any given moment to something that fits my mood and that is why I have so many different ones.

Oh, may I add that I rejected it. Other moderators had the same opinion.

Thanks, Patric....I'd left it there intentionally so other moderators could cast an opinion....it had the look of a 'splatter movie'....[more so than a 'snuff' one]...something Sam Peckinpah [sp] would be proud of...

EventHorizon, I am with you. One of the reasons that I like this site is it's dedication to art that the whole family can enjoy. Now I'm not saying that there's anything pornographic or anything that children might not have seen at the beach either. But what I am saying is that just because the beach is out there doesn't mean that it needs to be in this website. Drugs are out in their schools (obviously not in a day-care but definitely in middle and high-school) so why don't we post marijuana adds? The question is rhetorical. Just because something exists doesn't mean it has to be at this website. I have an appreciation for the human body - the body of my wife. I'm not interested in anyone else's . . . whether a bikini girl or an anime. Keep up the good work Wincustomize!!!

Shmoopy...I'd already mentioned that...just for a bit of perspective...

The male version of a 'slut' is in fact a 'stud'.

For discriminatory reason/s the former is seen as derogatory and the latter as a positive characteristic.

It is sad that the town 'stud' who gets his leg over anything in a skirt is a hero when the female equivalent would be refered to as the 'town bike'.

The double standards inherent in THAT is the 'obscene' bit in all of this....

#121 by Wizop Koasati - 5/27/2003 3:55:35 AM Interesting, ....... people that find the "s" word offensive continue to bring the thread back to the top of the board.

In other words, I agree jcg..

Okay; I feel duty bound to point out the inconsistency of at least a few of the arguments used to justify the, shall we say, "naughty bits".

"One guys art is another guys porn" - true as far as it goes (I won't go into a discussion of how far it can go). However, I've heard the argument, more than once, that this is NOT an art site, its a skinning site. That explanation alone has been used to reject many a wall, as can be easily gleaned from the message board.

"You're just a prude" - ad hominem, the last resort of the intellectually lazy. Address the issue, not the poster.

"The title of this thread is more offensive than the work" - oops, see item one. Besides, it is simply away of avoiding intelligent discussion of the issue presented.

There, got that off my chest.

And another thing. There is nothing wrong with that screenshot but many things wrong with the title of this thread. I think it is very rude to degrade someone's art like thet, EventHorizon! >

Personally, I don't think family sites should show anything not intended for the family. For example, anything related to the Matrix or T3 has to go, because those movies are rated R. Do we really need another Columbine, folks?

I don't think this thread should "die", there are obviously a lot of different opinions and some interesting points made.
As was mentioned way earlier in this thread, Anime and it's fixation with female youth, is a cultural issue. "Japanimation" was a word I used to hear often. Is it appropriate for this site? Maybe not all of it, but some of the arguments against it... well
Lets see... The Road Runner/Coyote episodes i remember and love, did that contribute to Columbine? Did it make me a violent psycho? Or anyone else?
Worried about children? Then dont take what would of been an otherwise harmless "pic" of a CARTOON girl, and stigmatize it. Read my first reply to this thread. My kids arent freaks. They gave their own opinions of the picture. They saw art, a girl, a PC "desktop". Funny, they didnt get embarassed and ashamed. They didnt "see" sexuality. They havent been corrupted yet.
They need guidance but not thought control and not over exposure either. The "pic" that started this was neither.
I still say, if you see young , scantily clad girls (and rendered in ink no less) somehow sexually stimulating , and embarassing and inappropriate, that is your own issue, and please, PLEASE stay away from my kids. While they are innocently running thru the sprinkler in their bathing suits, you are getting hot and bothered by the sight. Thats scary.
Me? I will teach my my kids right from wrong, while I give them room to grow so they arrive at adulthood without a lot of extra baggage. It shouldnt be a case of barring a genre. An inappropriate pic can be rendered in any medium, and, justly, should not be available here . This pic/CARTOON, from a culture far removed from my own of what appears to be a young girl, in "loose" clothing ( or as my 8 yr. old, Corin said "she's dressed like a boy") with a tear in her eye is not in that category. I am still not sure why the tear mattered so much to so many here? I hadnt even noticed it till someone pointed it out here. Again, I guess it goes where you take it. I for one wont teach my kids to take it there in the first place.