NationStates Jolt Archive

...I would like to know how exactly this http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10102322&postcount=31 falls under the catagory of "PG-13."

PG-13, a concept that was shoved down my throat time and time again less than a month ago, hardly includes two shirtless men making out with some visible tongue.

In a thread that could have easily gotten out of control from the start, I was impressed by how unusually mature people were being until Fass decided that posting this ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10102175&postcount=16 ) about how homosexuality was somehow better than heterosexuality, a comment I may add, that was completely unrelated to what she was quoting, and then could no stop at posting this picture of a guy that was...eh...acceptable. ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10102247&postcount=26 )

Instead, Fass found it necessary to force his (assuming) homosexuality down our throats by way of that makeout picture. If I strolled around preaching to homosexuals that heterosexuality was far superior and then subjected them to visual examples of heterosexuality in action, I'd be warned for intolerance or something. I sure hope it applies both ways.

I'd like to know why you think two men making out with tongue being visible is considered beyond PG-13. If you're using that to suggest that photos of people regardless of whether it's two men, two women, or one man and one woman making out shouldn't be posted, that's one thing. But otherwise, in my opinion, it sounds like you're trying to get the Moderators to enforce your standards of morality in a heterosexist way.

Take your crusade somewhere else, Sarzonia. I was describing a picture. There's two men in the picture. That's why I said two men.

As for my standards of morality...heh...well there's no need to dig that all back up.

The point is, all of this nonsense goes above and beyond my standard of morality, but this is hardly my site and it's not run by my rules. If NationStates wants to be dedicated to keeping its content PG-13, then I will support it, as I am doing now.

The mods don't have time to scan threads looking for shit like this. If I come across it, I put it in front of them for review, just like many other people do. I'm not trying to impose anything on anyone, other than site rules.

So, to make the issue clearer, why don't you just ask:

Is a picture of two people kissing going beyond PG13?

Edit: no seriously...is it?

Because the thread expanded to encompass Fass's entire attitude regarding sexual orientation, and while you decided to ignore that part, my original post does not.

There are multiple issues here. Why limit yourself to simply the picture when attacking my mod-reporting tactics?

Because the thread expanded to encompass Fass's entire attitude regarding sexual orientation, and while you decided to ignore that part, my original post does not.

There are multiple issues here. Why limit yourself to simply the picture when attacking my mod-reporting tactics?
Ah I see. Sorry for getting the wrong impression. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but thanks for making it clear that 'gayness' is very much the issue.

I'll ask what I asked in thread here again, so perhaps someone can tell me:

What does PG13 even mean? I haven't posted anything explicit with genitals and/or boobs with nipples showing - I thought that was the line. We don't have PG13 here, so I really don't know what that is. If 13 = age 13, then I don't think anything I posted would have been unsuitable. I've seen ads more risqué. :\

I'll ask what I asked in thread here again, so perhaps someone can tell me:

What does PG13 even mean? I haven't posted anything explicit with genitals and/or boobs with nipples showing - I thought that was the line. We don't have PG13 here, so I really don't know what that is. If 13 = age 13, then I don't think anything I posted would have been unsuitable. I've seen ads more risqué. :\Stop that. In your 'attack' on his mod-reporting tactics, you've made the same mistake as I, and ignored the real reason for the post.

So, to make the issue clearer, why don't you just ask:

Is a picture of two people kissing going beyond PG13?

Two people kissing is one thing, but two people doing the lickin limbo is quite another. A kiss is just a kiss, but that pic is anything but a kiss. IMO it's overtly sexual and therefore beyond PG13.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG13

Dude...they're mouths touch; thats it.
Category: Kiss.

Get a fucking life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG13
The rating seems to address violence and foul language, but not sexual situations.

Now my interest is really piqued...kissing without tongues, kissing with tongues...is one within bounds and the other not? Has this been discussed before?

Because the thread expanded to encompass Fass's entire attitude regarding sexual orientation, and while you decided to ignore that part, my original post does not.

No, it didn't. This post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10102175&postcount=16) was in reply of this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10102165&postcount=15). The humour, especially as directed toward the notoriously homophobic Atlantian Islands should be quite apparent.

And, contrary to what you may want, I will not be silent about my sexuality just because other people decide to talk about it later on - I left that particular closet long ago. I have as much right to ogle adult stars and talk about my sexuality in relation to that as anyone else in that thread - if people pay more attention to me because I do not conform to the norm, that is nothing I should or can be faulted for.

And as I wrote here, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10102394&postcount=37) it was a thread about favourite adult stars, and he is mine.

Stop that. In your 'attack' on his mod-reporting tactics, you've made the same mistake as I, and ignored the real reason for the post.

This should find it sufficiently rebutted, IMHO.

Stop that. In your 'attack' on his mod-reporting tactics, you've made the same mistake as I, and ignored the real reason for the post.

Oh aren't we clever? The real reason for the post is to help people in NationStates better understand the rules set before them. I made the mistake a few months ago of doing something that I had absolutely no problem with but the mods said it was a no.

Rulings on situations such as this help define rules.


Get a fucking life

You yell at people over the internet and yet I need a life? Grow up.

And, contrary to what you may want, I will not be silent about my sexuality just because other people decide to talk about it later on - I left that particular closet long ago.

Where, Fass, did I say that I hate you for being gay or that you need to keep your homosexuality a secret? You were blatantly forcing your homosexuality down the throats of everyone in that thread and implying that you were somehow above those who are heterosexual. Who else posted pictures Fass? Who else insulted someone else's sexual orientation? Even so, if you manage to find an example, it still doesn't excuse your actions.

Reverse racism is rampant today, yet I have to say you're one of the first people I've seen to have reverse homophobia...or...what...heterophobia?

Why not phrase it more generally? Well, lets see ... maybe because a) it isn't just kissing, what with the picture having definite erotic intent, and b) the picture in question is two men, regardless of the sexual preference of the person reporting it? Still, can understand broadening the question for an across-the-board statement, if one is given. I rather expect we'll hear something along the lines of 'general guidelines, but case by case scenario as one hard rule can't possibly cover every example'.

Then again, you go into General, and what do you expect? It has always pushed the boundaries, and I daresay, has been the main driving factor behind many of the rulings that have been made for NS. A good 90% of the threads in this forum deal with General forum problems/questions/irritations/arguments. It isn't bias, it's a simple fact - controversial topics and things that are bound to irritate someone out there tend to get discussed in General, which is no big surprise given what all its intended to encompass.

For myself, I don't care what preference or combination of sexes is displayed, I think we ought to have some limitations. That being said, meh. It may be pushing the line, but I don't see anything worse than some tongue - which as far as I'm aware, isn't past PG-13. Not really sure what the ruling on that would be. As for the comments, I see straights arguing their stance just as hard as Fass does his - on his part, often with more than a little humor that may not always come off as such to everyone, and on their part, resorting to bible-bashing and the like. If you don't agree, debate it. So long as it doesn't cross into personal attacks, it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

Walk through any one of those threads and I'll bet you'll find things you may feel challenge your ideals, boundaries, morals, beliefs - doesn't mean people don't have a right to express them outside of outright hate-speech which is rather deplorable. Context and delivery can make a world of difference - something to bear in mind.

That probably ought to go for some of the folks posting here too. It's never a good idea to flame or get nasty with people in a Moderation thread.

The rating seems to address violence and foul language, but not sexual situations.

Now my interest is really piqued...kissing without tongues, kissing with tongues...is one within bounds and the other not? Has this been discussed before?

I only wanna show what PG13 says.
I think it has nothing to do with the tongues, just that there are 2 guys...

Where, Fass, did I say that I hate you for being gay or that you need to keep your homosexuality a secret?

When you were claiming that I was "forcing" my homosexuality down people's throats just because I was not being silent about it, and returning Atlantian Islands snide little remark with a bit of humour.

You were blatantly forcing your homosexuality down the throats of everyone in that thread and implying that you were somehow above those who are heterosexual.

Again, taken in context, which you once again in this post managed to omit, it was humorous. Everybody else seems to have gotten that - methinks you're just bitter about some former ruling and are looking for something, anything, however minor and taken out of context and blown out of proportion to pin on someone so that you can attempt to manipulate the mods into action because you're afraid someone will get away with something that you want to surreptitiously portray as equal to what you did to warrant action.

Who else posted pictures Fass?

Pure Metal. Of a woman. Don't see you bitching about that.

Who else insulted someone else's sexual orientation? Even so, if you manage to find an example, it still doesn't excuse your actions.

My actions are as transparent as are yours here, rest assured.

Your opinion, that there is something wrong with homosexuality or that Fass' opinions on it cannot be expressed as openly as the opinions of a heterosexual who thinks homosexuality is sinful, reflects poorly on you.

You've made your agenda quite clear.

No Jocabia, you and Fass and other have defined my "agenda" for me. Look right after this thread on the moderation forum and you'll find one similar, and yet *gasp* there are no people furiously posting there because it's not some hot topic issue.

That brings me to two things. My opinion is worthless in this situation. I'm merely asking a question to the mods, which the lot of you interpreted as me attempting to enforce some sort of law upon off all of NationStates.

Secondly, nothing I've said reflects poorly on me. Where have I stated that I'm against homosexuality? Where have I given a double standard in the case of what I think should be posted and what I think shouldn't be? I'd be glad, Jocabia, if you could find it for me. Tell you what, I'll save you the time and inform you that it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, all of a sudden I'm a stereotypical bible-touting southern gospel singer out to abolish all that is sinful.

This isn't general...it's not a place for debate on homosexuality. If you have an opinion on me or what you assume my opinions are, start one in general. If not, just wait for a mod to make a decision. I'm not going to be upset at either possible outcome for the picture, and while I think Fass crossed some sort of line in insulting heterosexuality, just as I would have if I had insulted homosexuality some how, that's ultimately not my decision to make.

There is no agenda here. There is but a question, the person who asked the question, and some specific people who completely overreacted to the question.

You yell at people over the internet and yet I need a life? Grow up.

Alright, first, I didn't yell.

"Get a fucking life," isn't yelling. Its text. It can't yell at you...

And you need to get a life in a sense of opening up to new ideas.
Someone can be gay...
PG-13 is a very hazy border; we can see someone's head shot off, but no titties.

Kind of hard for me...which am I more likely to see in the world?

methinks you're just bitter about some former ruling and are looking for something, anything, however minor and taken out of context and blown out of proportion to pin on someone so that you can attempt to manipulate the mods into action because you're afraid someone will get away with something that you want to surreptitiously portray as equal to what you did to warrant action.

Pure Metal. Of a woman. Don't see you bitching about that.

I did not see the picture of a woman. If it is inappropriate, I ask the mods to look at it. If not, then it's not a big deal. I made no complaint about the first male picture you posted, only the second.

As for this secret grudge I have, while your vocabulary is impressive, your desire for some sort of conspiracy falls flat. I am hardly the one who has blown anything out of proportion. I asked a question, was attacked for it, and argued back...nothing more. If I had an agenda I'd start a thread about it...and nowhere have I compared this to whatever I did.

Someone can be gay...
PG-13 is a very hazy border; we can see someone's head shot off, but no titties.

Kind of hard for me...which am I more likely to see in the world?

I never said that someone couldn't be gay. That is not even close to the point here. The fact that those two guys are gay doesn't matter.

Also, your opinion on the hypocricy of violence vs. sex, while I agree with it, doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how you or I feel on what is or isn't PG-13. It matters what the mods think.

I did not see the picture of a woman. If it is inappropriate, I ask the mods to look at it. If not, then it's not a big deal. I made no complaint about the first male picture you posted, only the second.

Then why mention it? Why accuse me of "forcing" anything on anyone?

As for this secret grudge I have, while your vocabulary is impressive, your desire for some sort of conspiracy falls flat. I am hardly the one who has blown anything out of proportion.

You purposefully omitted the context of my comment and tried to depict it to be something it was not, and something so heinous, that it would demand mod attention. Into this you accuse me of "forcing" things on people.

I asked a question, was attacked for it, and argued back...nothing more. If I had an agenda I'd start a thread about it...and nowhere have I compared this to whatever I did.

PG-13, a concept that was shoved down my throat time and time again less than a month ago

Your own words betray you.

WAAAAHHHHH!!! I didn't get away with something, so I wanna see someone else in trouble! WAAAAAHHHHH!!!

:rolleyes:

Here is a list of movies that received the PG-13 rating. I'm sure you'll find that many of them have racier content in abundance. For example, Memiors of a Geisha or Aeon Flux. Wait a minute, there's Rent in there. Hmmm... I think I distinctly remember some kissing by same-sex couples and dealing with AIDS and a number of other 'racy' subjects. Uh-oh. Someone call the MPAA.

http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/search/index.htm

Oh please. There is nothing wrong with this picture. It isn't teh pr0n. And as the thread is about adult porn stars in the first place... what the heck were you doing reading it in the first place if you are so sensitive to the subject?

I think someone is just trying to get [back] at someone and the Mods really have better things to do. (Like whining with Jolt to fix the broken accounts >_>)

My bad, I forgot this was a moderation thread.

However, the MPAA link should be helpful in showing that the guidelines enforced by the mods does, in fact, coincide with the guidelines of the group that invented the rating.

I apologize for debating in moderation. Would it possible to split this topic to general? It appears to have sparked a bit of debate.

I never said that someone couldn't be gay. That is not even close to the point here. The fact that those two guys are gay doesn't matter.

Also, your opinion on the hypocricy of violence vs. sex, while I agree with it, doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how you or I feel on what is or isn't PG-13. It matters what the mods think.


SO what your asking is basically, what to draw the line at when it comes to intimacy on the forums?

I think the rule goes as long as theres no titty, penis, etc. shown then its all good.

Jeebus H. Hyskos. You people are kidding me, right?

Paragraph One. Steel: PG-13 movies have full-mouth occasional-tongue kisses all the time. As someone put it previously, it's a kiss (and not a particularly erotic one at that in my view, given how overdone the whole thing is). There are enough body parts absurdly considered dirty already; I'm not going to run around saving people's children from seeing tongues.

Paragraph Two. Everyone else: Shame on all of you for jumping down someone's throat and trying to politicize what is a legitimate question (no matter its motivation). So he didn't make it gender neutral. Big deal. It's the Moderators' job to make the resulting decision gender neutral; he was just stating, as he said, what was in the picture, which undeniably consists of two shirtless guys kissing with tongue. Had it been two women, then it would have undeniably consisted of two shirtless women kissing with tongue.

Paragraph Three. The "Debate," which consists primarily of "You're a homophobe!" "You took me out of context!": No, I am not going to split it to General. I am going to trust all of you to step back, take a deep breath, let it lie, and not bring it up again. As far as I'm concerned, the eternal homosexuality vs. heterosexuality debate is absurd. Some people like one or the other, some people like both, and some people can't tolerate one or the other... and there are probably not going to be any conversions concerning it. If someone is guilty of wrongthink, feel free to let him know... but if you people could just let it lie at "letting him know" I swear that half the problems this absolutely pointless and petty "debate" causes would cease to be. Worry about how you think, not others.

Jeebus H. Hyskos. You people are kidding me, right?

Paragraph One. Steel: PG-13 movies have full-mouth occasional-tongue kisses all the time. As someone put it previously, it's a kiss (and not a particularly erotic one at that in my view, given how overdone the whole thing is). There are enough body parts absurdly considered dirty already; I'm not going to run around saving people's children from seeing tongues.

Paragraph Two. Everyone else: Shame on all of you for jumping down someone's throat and trying to politicize what is a legitimate question (no matter its motivation). So he didn't make it gender neutral. Big deal. It's the Moderators' job to make the resulting decision gender neutral; he was just stating, as he said, what was in the picture, which undeniably consists of two shirtless guys kissing with tongue. Had it been two women, then it would have undeniably consisted of two shirtless women kissing with tongue.

Paragraph Three. The "Debate," which consists primarily of "You're a homophobe!" "You took me out of context!": No, I am not going to split it to General. I am going to trust all of you to step back, take a deep breath, let it lie, and not bring it up again. As far as I'm concerned, the eternal homosexuality vs. heterosexuality debate is absurd. Some people like one or the other, some people like both, and some people can't tolerate one or the other... and there are probably not going to be any conversions concerning it. If someone is guilty of wrongthink, feel free to let him know... but if you people could just let it lie at "letting him know" I swear that half the problems this absolutely pointless and petty "debate" causes would cease to be. Worry about how you think, not others.

Actually, I was referring the substantive part of the debate about what can be considered PG-13. Outside of this site, the rating exists and there was a bit of discussion about what can and cannot be considered PG-13. I'll just start a thread about it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=459450

SO what your asking is basically, what to draw the line at when it comes to intimacy on the forums?

Ya...that pretty much hits the nail on the head...

...and Scolo...thanks...but you can never be too sure it seems