Someone explain the rule (hypocrisy) with the rule on avatars

[faceking]

I'm curious why... there is no nudity or sexual suggestiveness allowed for the avatars???

Given, you can (without membership or age verification) view penis pics, pics of tits, pics of assholes, pics of pussies, rhetoric describing every known orifice (and then some), f-bombs flying out of the Electronic Luftwaffe, and everything in/under/around the pornographic sink, alllllllllll under the umbrella of a big dick forum.

If it's to spare someone the courtesy of coming on to the board and have everything be PG-13 is laughable.

 

[findfirefox]

I think its two things...

1) If someone underage does sign up for the site, they have already violated the TOS, if they click on Photo Gal. then they are specificly going for one thing, I thinkit may clear some accountability from the site. (Not Sure)

2) Also I think its the where some people view this forum, I look at this forum in public on my Laptop, and naked pictures could be offensive so when there kept out of avatars its helpful.

But you do make a point, its really don't remember why the policy was changed.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Did you use the search function before you began this thread (again)?

 

[D_alex8]

Users signing up have to state that they are 18. In so doing, the onus falls upon them if they have lied, and the site cannot be held responsible for having wilfully given minors access to over-18s-only content that it hosts.

Attachments and galleries cannot be accessed/viewed by guests who have not signed up and stated that they are 18.

Avatars, on the other hand, can. That is why there can be no nudity in them. There is no hypocrisy involved. Just common sense.

 

[B_big dirigible]

If it's to spare someone the courtesy of coming on to the board and have everything be PG-13 is laughable.

("Spare someone the courtesy"- WTF does that mean in English?)

Not "everything" is PG-13. It's just PG-13 where it should be. Other places it's triple X, but only where it should be. It's a serious attempt to deal with a serious problem, and not laughable at all. Rob made his reasoning fairly clear when the edict was promulgated, and most posters seem to have made conscientious efforts to comply.

There are other benefits. Here's an obvious example. There's a tendency among a certain subset of the gay membership to post nude male buttshots, singly or in herds, as avatars. Those have the side effect of reminding certain members of the non-gay membership that they really should be able to find something better to do than scroll through a forum packed with male buttshots. And - to the extent that they do indeed find something better to do - that cuts down readership, which is detrimental to a forum. (N.B. - this is an historical observation, not an attack on any lpsg member. Really.)