"I know it when I see it"

[Susan in VA]

Jeff and Michelle commented in another thread about the KB gender slant regarding "eye candy". 


There were some pictures deleted recently because they were a little over-the-top, and I suspect that some of the guys here may feel unsure now of what's ok for KB and what isn't.

The gals have been commenting in great detail on, um, fabric draping, and yet if the guys made equivalent comments,  I guarantee that someone would consider it inappropriate and disrespectful.

Short of banning all suggestive photos and comments, which would IMO detract from the wide variety of fun topics on KB, is there some guideline everyone can be happy with?  Such as, post nothing that you'd have a hard time explaining to a twelve-year-old of either gender?   Seems to me that something with sensual appeal is probably fine but something with pornographic appeal isn't  --  but the line between them is in different places for different people. 

Where should that line be drawn to keep the majority happy and un-offended?

Having mods simply remove anything that crosses the line is one way of doing it, but I think it would be friendlier to define the policy up-front.  Removal of one person's post will make a bunch of others wary of posting things even if those would have been much less controversial. 

So...  not complaining about the way anything was handled, just thinking that clarification (or creation) of a policy might be a good thing. 

[Harvey]

Oh crumb, I knew someone was going to ask me to define this.

I really can't define it. I find the running jokes and posts about Hugh and others inoffensive, and fun. They don't bother me.

The pictures that were deleted, which were of very scantily-clad women, were in a different category to me. If "the girls" started posting close-up pictures of Hugh in a jockstrap, I'd likely delete that, too. (And they're unlikely to post that.)

In the end, I can't give you a cut-and-dried policy. I just have to go with what I feel is comfortable for me with my board. That is probably not going to be completely in sync with everyone here - that'd be impossible - but hopefully it is tolerable for the majority of people here.

Clear as mud, but I hope that helps.

[geoffthomas]

I personally would not want to hazard an opinion on this but I would LOVE to hear from the mods.

Thank you Harvey for being clear.
I think it is anyway.

[Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake']

Those photos of Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johannsen didn't offend me.  It's all in good fun and I see it as kind of a battle of the sexes between the guys and gals. 

Did anyone mention the sweater Scarlett was wearing?  I thought it looked like a natural fiber.  Betsy, what did you think? 

[chynared21]

Hmmm, I must have missed the pictures in question. I think the only one I objected to was the one of the nice looking UPS man book cover. I use a laptop so most of the time my 9 y/o DD can't see what I'm doing but that day she happened to be near me and could see the screen...I happened to turn it rather quickly when I got to the book cover.

As far as "racy" discussion...it doesn't affect us here because she doesn't read along with me but it may be an issue for others...IMO.

[Harvey]

Those photos of Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johannsen didn't offend me.  It's all in good fun and I see it as kind of a battle of the sexes between the guys and gals. 

Did anyone mention the sweater Scarlett was wearing?  I thought it looked like a natural fiber.  Betsy, what did you think? 

You are funny, Gertie.

I think there were some that were risque but not over the line IMO; I think those are still there in the screensaver thread.

[geoffthomas]

It seems like I always stumble across the controversies after their over.
Perhaps that is good.  Then I don't get  caught in the middle.
But thus far I have to applaud "the management".

[chynared21]

It seems like I always stumble across the controversies after their over.
Perhaps that is good.  Then I don't get  caught in the middle.
But thus far I have to applaud "the management".

LOL...you and me both. I usually come in after the fact or after "they're" gone 

[Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake']

LOL...you and me both. I usually come in after the fact or after "they're" gone 

It's easier that way. 

[Kathy]

It seems like I always stumble across the controversies after their over.
Perhaps that is good.  Then I don't get  caught in the middle.
But thus far I have to applaud "the management".

Me too. 

[Neversleepsawink;)]

Me three! 

[Betsy the Quilter]

The gals have been commenting in great detail on, um, fabric draping, and yet if the guys made equivalent comments,  I guarantee that someone would consider it inappropriate and disrespectful.

Susan, I'm sure you're right.  I find that almost anything I do, someone considers it inappropriate.   

For me, having made many of the fabric draping comments, if a picture was posted of a woman similarly dressed to Hugh in the pictures (he was fully clothed), I wouldn't have had a problem with someone talking about "crocking."  (You can find the definition in the Australia the Movie thread. )

At the same time, as far as the pictures which were removed, I personally found them more than a little over the line.  All the same, removing them was not a unilateral, arbitrary decision, but one made after receiving member complaints and after much discussion in the mod pit.  Several other pictures of eye candy for guys were left in place.

In the end, just as for many of the intercessions that we make, it was a judgment call, one that I can live with.  Appreciate the kinds words that I've read here.

Did anyone mention the sweater Scarlett was wearing?  I thought it looked like a natural fiber.  Betsy, what did you think? 

Sorry, Gertie, I didn't see the sweater.  I'm sure you're right, though, natural fiber is in, and it does drape well.

Betsy

[Ann in Arlington]

The only pictures I've found offensive were Borat and Zardok . . .or whatever that unfortunate Sean Connery character was called.

[Susan in VA]

OK  --  it sounds like this is a non-issue, then!  

Didn't mean to put you on the spot, Harvey (or anyone else).

I think that my concern arose after being involved in a couple of workplace situations in which risque jokes made by women were the norm, but the equivalent jokes made by men were deemed inappropriate and offensive, sometimes causing serious workplace problems.   And if one of the men spoke up about the one-sidedness, it just caused further discontent, and resulted in the complete absence of any light-hearted humor from then on.     That picture deletion a few days ago made me think of those events, and I wanted to be sure that there wasn't a similar situation brewing here.   Guess I didn't need to worry.  

[Gertie Kindle 'a/k/a Margaret Lake']

I understand your concerns, Susan.  This one's for you.

[R J Askew]

Hmmm, a crucial point of issue. In keeping with the rules of the club it seems that the moderators require the wisdom of Solomon and are bound to offend egg-shell ego at every turn. But the club is the club and all who sit in said club's comfy faux leather chairs should bow to the moderators' decisions, even on the rare occasions when they may be plain barmy. And if you think I am trying to ingratiate myself with said Solomonic worthies, I confess, you are absolutly right. But then you can't flame me for it or, I'll cwy and cwy and cwy and ... Ach, I almost made a gross punctuation violation! Just testing Mods!

[Jeff the Gardener]

  Such as, post nothing that you'd have a hard time explaining to a  of either gender?

I'm reading he decorum rules right now so as not to offend anyone.  Well. I saw this and found it amusing.

I happen to live next to a twelve ear old girl, and she brings her twelve year old friends over to her house. I gotta tell ya--the stuff that comes out of those girl's mouths embarrasses even me and that is saying something!

My point is, you might have to lower that age a little bit--say, like six or so? These kids are smart nowadays!