give me an L!

What evidence? You have no evidence higher than your own opinion.

so what thrax? its incontrovertible.

GIVE ME AN I!

I have 2 avatars, one clearly interpreted as pornography as per the dictionary and one not. Guess which one is banned and which one isn't?

That's incontrovertible.

And if this is a matter of personal taste, then its completely arbitrary and not even part of the rules you're supposed to enforce. So banning avatars that don't break explicit rules is tantamount to an abuse of mod privileges.

Pornography: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

That's from Merriam-Webster

How in the fuck is Peter's av pornography? Do you even read what you type sometimes? However, the simulation of two individuals FUCKING, be it stick figures, animated figures, real people, etc. could very easily be identified as pornography.

I'm starting to think you're just plain dumb. Disappointing...

Just so I can make this clear, let's break down Webster's definition:

Part 1: "The depiction of erotic behavior"

Dressing a boob up as a mouse and taking a picture is far from erotic, nor a depiction of eroticism.

Making an animated short of two stick figures assuming multiple sexual positions IS a depiction of erotic behavior.

Part 2: "intended to cause sexual excitement"

A boob dressed up as a mouse is FAR FROM sexually exciting unless you like beastality. Do you like beastality Veta? Didn't think so.

A pair of stick figures assuming multiple sexual positions can affect the mind in a way that makes it wander into sexual fantasy. Perhaps it makes me think of past sexual encounters where I've assumed those positions and this in turn will likely excite me.



Are we clear now?

Before you read anything, tl;dr for fucktards. People who have attention spans greater than a gnat, please read on.

So this whole argument reminds me of a lengthy discussion that was had in my college photography class in the late 80's. (BTW photographing those nude models was a pretty cool experience)

But anyway, it seems that the crux of what constitutes pornography is not actually "what is depicted" but rather 1) "how it is depicted". 2) The intent of the artist who created it. and 3) The perception of the viewer.

So when I decide 'what is' or 'what is not' pornographic, I use a majority rule method. So if 2/3 of the above lean toward 'outwardly titillating', 'explicit' or 'raunchy', I deem the image(s) as porn. On the other hand, if the image(s) is tasteful, amusing, or subtle in its implication of sexual suggestion, I deem it as non-porn.

A simple way to think about it is ask this question, 'would I let my 8 year old look at that? If the answer is 'No', then the image is porn to the viewer.

Rest assured, my argument does not follow any rigid and official definition of pornography. But it is a solid example of what may be offensive in a public forum.

I would say that the stick figure image, though (though amusing, but not titillating IMO), is pornographic because of its explicit depiction of sexual acts. I would also say that Peter's 'tit mouse' is so amusing and not immediately identifiable as a woman's breast, that it is not pornographic. BTW, Peter's ava is like my favorite of all time. (If this ava gets banned, I quit Kdice forever)

Ultimately, pornography is subjective at best. And 'good taste' is relative to the viewer.

I don't know of any vendor of stick figure pornography, do you? I have heard of pornography that involves naked breasts though.

This isn't a matter of interpretation Rob, as hard as you try to make it. It's pretty clear cut.

If someone can have breasts as an avatar I can just snap a dick picture and put it up right? I mean as long as I paint it like a mouse or some shit?