Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Though I will say that while skinny doesn't equal pretty, Ukrainian usually does so... :thumbup:
Like I said. Hope it goes well for you and we don't see a future CD thread about your man looking at porn...
ETA:
Hahahahahaha you don't like porn but this is pretty close... In fact, many people would consider that porn. Its all a matter of degrees...
That's kind of hypocritical wouldn't you say?
***Not "outing" but merely following a link from users own page...
Aside from the fact that you had no right to post someone else's photo like that and it's in total violation of copyright and TOS, it begs the question of whether it would be okay for a man to masturbate to a non-explicit nude. That photo may not be "porn" but it is sexual and will get men thinking about sex.
This is why I think the whole porn argument is b.s. Men use all kinds of imagery to get off. A woman doesn't have to be spread-eagled or engaged in a sexual activity for a man to consider her image fodder. There's a reason the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is the most popular. So where do these thought police draw the line?
Aside from the fact that you had no right to post someone else's photo like that and it's in total violation of copyright and TOS,
No it isn't. The TOS says not to post info they haven't.
She posted the page in her info page. She has shared that information on this forum. Clear as day...
"Outing" users by revealing their address, phone number, or other information that they didn't themselves share on our forum is prohibited.
Quote:
it begs the question of whether it would be okay for a man to masturbate to a non-explicit nude. That photo may not be "porn" but it is sexual and will get men thinking about sex.
This is why I think the whole porn argument is b.s. Men use all kinds of imagery to get off. A woman doesn't have to be spread-eagled or engaged in a sexual activity for a man to consider her image fodder. So where do these thought police draw the line?
Exactly...
The photo qualifies as porn in many parts of the world.
Here not so much, though only due to time and people becoming more open, but that is irrelevant.
What constitutes porn is clearly subjective and decrying "porn" means decrying it completely.
Aside from the fact that you had no right to post someone else's photo like that and it's in total violation of copyright and TOS, it begs the question of whether it would be okay for a man to masturbate to a non-explicit nude. That photo may not be "porn" but it is sexual and will get men thinking about sex.
This is why I think the whole porn argument is b.s. Men use all kinds of imagery to get off. A woman doesn't have to be spread-eagled or engaged in a sexual activity for a man to consider her image fodder. There's a reason the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is the most popular. So where do these thought police draw the line?
No it isn't. The TOS says not to post info they haven't.
She posted the page in her info page. She has shared that information on this forum. Clear as day...
"Outing" users by revealing their address, phone number, or other information that they didn't themselves share on our forum is prohibited.
Exactly...
The photo qualifies as porn in many parts of the world.
Here not so much, though only due to time and people becoming more open, but that is irrelevant.
What constitutes porn is clearly subjective and decrying "porn" means decrying it completely.
Not where it benefits you...
TOS says to post a link, not an image. It's very clear. You don't own the rights to that photo, so you may not post it as your own from Tapatalk. What you should have done is post a link to the photo, and a warning that it's NSFW because let's be real here, anyone who works in an office would get in trouble for looking at that at work. I bring it up for everyone's sake.
At any rate, the point is that a visual aid is a visual aid. I'd bet the rent that the OP and the other anti-porners here would be angry and "feel disrespected" if they walked in on their men using a pin-up of Megan Fox, Farah Fawcett, heck, even Bettie Page for the same reason. They just doesn't want their men looking at or thinking of any other woman but themselves, and that's just unrealistic. As I said earlier, what's next? A brain chip?
No it isn't. The TOS says not to post info they haven't.
She posted the page in her info page. She has shared that information on this forum. Clear as day...
"Outing" users by revealing their address, phone number, or other information that they didn't themselves share on our forum is prohibited.
Exactly...
The photo qualifies as porn in many parts of the world.
Here not so much, though only due to time and people becoming more open, but that is irrelevant.
What constitutes porn is clearly subjective and decrying "porn" means decrying it completely.
Not where it benefits you...
That is a bit of extreme and we got side tracked here. My image has nothing to do with how men act towards their partners. I guess people on the beach are porn stars. Young teens in bikinis are slu*s... Ballerinas are porn stars now too...People that wear skimpy clothes are bad and porn starts. You can't put something like hard-core porn with an artsy photo in the same category and throw it back at me. That is a first thing. Lame.
Back to the point, we are talking about a woman struggling with her husband jacking off to hard-core porn, hiding it and neglecting her. That is an issue here. We are not talking about me or my pictures and what part of the world it would be appropriate. That is another thread. Can you differentiate a real issue?
TOS says to post a link, not an image. It's very clear. You don't own the rights to that photo, so you may not post it as your own from Tapatalk. What you should have done is post a link to the photo, and a warning that it's NSFW because let's be real here, anyone who works in an office would get in trouble for looking at that at work. I bring it up for everyone's sake.
Where dies the TOS say that???
I posted the TOS spot that I thought was relevant.
If there was something about photos then my bad.
But, ahem, if it isn't porn them why would someone get in trouble.
And why is anyone at work looking at City Data??? Heheheh
ETA: Doh... Oops under copyrighted material. I'll fix it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The photo of lil fox is not porn.
Ballerinas are porn stars now too...People that wear skimpy clothes are bad and porn starts. You can't put something like hard-core porn with an artsy photo in the same category and throw it back at me. That is a first thing. Lame.
