haha did spell "Idot" right?

Looks like "I Dot" to me...

Funny

Actually I can't. So, yeah. Would you like to take another stab?

Idoit?

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

I agree with alot of folks here I think that the Title of this thread is what needs editing. The Anime picture that started all of this row, I personally think that there is nothing wrong with it or Bluesummers screen shot that he has under his profile. I was fully expecting to see Nudity or Brittany or at least something that broke the rules around our little house. I have to admit wondering why anyone would change his desktop as much as Bluesummers or SS Goku seem to, but hey that is there right. I fully agree that Hentei should never be allowed, but I have seen more suggestive pictures on Billboards driving down the road, than in that particular screenshot. Is it a picture I would have on my desktop, probably not, even though I have been a fan of Anime for 30 years (Captain Harlock) and Animation in general be it Disney, Pixar, or Bugs. But just today I did put an Anime inspired wall on my Desktop "nijikon fetchi" by deaddreamer since I think that it goes so well with Syncronus. But now I'm rambling, in the end, if you don't like it, you don't have to look.

/me goes back to enjoying my Saturday at work

[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

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.

Bluesummers, I see nothing wrong with all your other submitions, but the psycho in over the line.  The guidelines explicitly say:

VIOLENCE: No artwork making the promotion of violence or explicitly representing images of death, blood or physical harm will be accepted.

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

Not picking on any body in particular but I think its funny that people keep posting about how they are offended by the title of the thread and by doing so keep elevating it to the top of the message board

Just stating how I feel. I'd vote this thread Deleted but I'm one small voice...it takes many small voices to make a big enough one to shout into the admins' ears.

#150 by Doomgaze - 5/30/2003 7:57:08 PM i think whats more offensive is the fact that nobody will let this thread die.im sick of seeing "slut" on here at the top of the list

He-he! Iffin' ain't that the perfect example of the "POT calling the kettle back..."

/me gives her one vote for this thread to be extinguished with loving care.

/me wonders how many kids asked after reading this thread, "Mommy what is a slut?"

And what is the male version of that anyway?

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...

Elvira gets away with worse on television.Ifound the little cartoon tears more disturbing than the not quite naked.Nudity on its own should never be offensive.This picture wasnt even R rated.But hey,its not my website.I dont have to try and please everyone the way they do.

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!!!

#131 by Bangkokboy - 5/30/2003 2:37:06 PM KG - i agree with you about the naturalness of the human body, but i'm more comfortable out in the public eye with clothes on - and i suspect that for all your liberal ballyhooing, that you wear clothes to work also.

But, that is not the point.  The point isn't if you wander around nude all the time.  The point is if it is "un-natural" or "offensive" for a young person to see a scantily clad human.  These pictures aren't even fully nude.  The JC Penney flyer that showed up in my mailbox the other day had more provocative pictures in it than what has been shown here (they sell...bras!) 

And, I see nothing "liberal" about what I am saying.  If you actually knew me, you would know that I am extremely conservative.  I am just stating that there is nothing wrong with the human form.  Nothing makes it "dirty" unless it is posed in some sort of erotic or otherwise tasteless pose.

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....

The people that keep posting in this thread saying they want it to die aren't exactly helping. Just let the thread die already!

Um... oops.

#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..

First thing I have to say is: B1uesummers, I LOVE that desktop pic. Where did you get it?

Second thing: The original pic that was linked to is just fin in my opinion.. No genitals, no nipples, no evidence of either. I have seen far worse, FAR worse stuff. I have seen stuff on deviant art that makes this look like wallpaper in a baby's nursery. This is nothing. I say we should just let the moderators do their job. Anything that is questionable I trust them to make a good decision on. I'm sure they have their reasons for everything and I trust them. Thats the critical word: Trust. They are the moderators for a reason. They are good at what they do. Good job folks!

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.

LOOK OUT!!!!!!!!....bare-chested jcg....

Can't an Admin just specify in the About section what their definition of "porn" is? If everybody is so iffy about everything, then why not make a list of acceptable and unacceptable guidelines with it. If it is already there, ignore this post.

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! >

thet = that sry

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?

arraciFleahciM: We already do in the guidelines. It's not set in stone, but it goes like this:
NUDITY AND PORNOGRAPHY:
This is a slightly difficult tpic, but as a general rules artwork containing male or female frontal nudity will be not accepted. We can occasionally bend this rule if the artwork is truly exceptional and if the nudity it contains is only an element of the artwork, not the subject in itself.

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.