NationStates Jolt Archive

Would a picture of a naked man from the behind, with only the bum as the "slightly naughty bit" pass the PG-13 rating and be OK to post?

I can supply the image if needed.

Would a picture of a naked man from the behind, with only the bum as the "slightly naughty bit" pass the PG-13 rating and be OK to post?

I can supply the image if needed.

I'd say if you need to ask, you already should know the answer.

(also, mods please note that that definition is so vague that saying yes would mean it's ok to post goatse =p)

Nudity is not appropriate to these forums.

Nudity is not appropriate to these forums.

There are gradations of nudity, of course, hence why I asked. A naked, supine man seen from the back "exposing" only his gluteals doesn't strike me as anything damaging to children, but as I still don't understand "PG-13" I had to ask. I shall henceforth assume that an innocent bum is not so innocent under the PG-13 system, then.

*ponders if the "p" stands for puritan, has low faith in own ability to understand the system*

Ok -- and in what context is an "innocent" naked bum appropriate to a game about, and forums discussing, politics?

Ok -- and in what context is an "innocent" naked bum appropriate to a game about, and forums discussing, politics?
well, the American Republic Political Party is an Elephant and the Democrat's symbol is an A... Nevermind. :p

My rule of thumb is if it's something a Conservative can complain about, then don't post it.

Rather harsh, but it tends to keep one safe when in doubt.

Yes, but THAT ass is Equus asinus.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6812/1041/320/ass.jpg

Ok -- and in what context is an "innocent" naked bum appropriate to a game about, and forums discussing, politics?

You'd claim the human body irrelevant in politics? And I thought you were from the US. :\

Nevertheless, it is a humorous picture I meant to post in a suitably light-weight thread about what sort of car other posters would use, depicting a man washing a car in the buff exposing no genitals or orifices except the naso-oral ones and only showing part of his gluteals and superior aspect of the natal cleft, reminiscent of a plumber who is remiss in keeping his trousers in the right place.

To a Swede such as myself who grew up with childrens programming that showed people nude from the front, keeping with the tradition of not seeing the human body as something lewd or shameful, understanding why such a picture would be harmful or would warrant reprimand is difficult, but since I've seen people be reprimanded for innocuous things such as breasts, I felt I should ask, lest I risk the same.

The ruling regarded, I am glad I was prudent.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9445233&postcount=8

Acceptable or Not? A Rough Guide

...
* Actual boobs: no (I know, I know, who gets offended by breasts? But it's only fun to post them because it's naughty, and that's why it's banned)

So there ya have it, from [violet]'s own keyboard. We may logically extrapolate that if boobs are banned, bums are likewise.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9445233&postcount=8

So there ya have it, from [violet]'s own keyboard. We may logically extrapolate that if boobs are banned, bums are likewise.

The circular Anglo-Saxon-influenced reasoning behind [violet]'s quote and my non-identification with the notion of breasts being "naughty" notwithstanding, I wasn't questioning the correctness or legitimacy of the ruling, I was just partly explaining why I asked, having been obliquely questioned about it by Axis Nova, and partly why I wanted to post such a picture, having been asked by your very self.

Apologies if you took it as questioning the ruling or a reluctance to finding myself in it.