Naked Avatar
mypasswordwontwork wrote: Do any of you realize that a lot of muggers are actually white??can i please ask why your avatar is a very disturbing image of a naked woman?
And that the majority of whites are not rich and are in fact often criminally active? This is the reality that you guys seem either unaware of or unable to accept. Its very very smug and pompous to assume that non-whites are some kind of underclass who just want to pillage and loot the so-called rich white areas. My next door neighbor here in the Slope happens to be a Hispanic woman who owns her whole brownstone and rents one floor of it out to a couple of rather skanky looking whites. She bought the building six years ago.
Comments
-
brooklynpotter wrote: [quote=mypasswordwontwork]Do any of you realize that a lot of muggers are actually white??
can i please ask why your avatar is a very disturbing image of a naked woman?
And that the majority of whites are not rich and are in fact often criminally active? This is the reality that you guys seem either unaware of or unable to accept. Its very very smug and pompous to assume that non-whites are some kind of underclass who just want to pillage and loot the so-called rich white areas. My next door neighbor here in the Slope happens to be a Hispanic woman who owns her whole brownstone and rents one floor of it out to a couple of rather skanky looking whites. She bought the building six years ago.
What is disturbing about it? -
mypasswordwontwork wrote: Armchair, you are cute, by the way.
He looks totally different than what I imagined. He is actually looks hip. I thought he was some crazy old man who talked to his toenails during his free time.
-
mypasswordwontwork wrote: [quote=brooklynpotter]can i please ask why your avatar is a very disturbing image of a naked woman?
What is disturbing about it?
1) She's nude, not that I have a problem with that, but others do, and it makes this site even more NSFW.
2) This is a site that is unrestricted to minors, and it could get DH in to trouble for having 'adult material' without some sort of warning/restriction.
3) By ignoring the first two points, it promotes the 'me first!' attitude that shows a complete lack of consideration for others, and this attitude is what's wrong with America today... -
Nudity in itself shouldn't be offensive to anyone. And this being a privately run forum. owner's rules and discretion apply, nudity or naught. Like the saying goes "turn the channel if you don't like what you are see or hear".
-
Idlewild wrote: Nudity in itself shouldn't be offensive to anyone. And this being a privately run forum. owner's rules and discretion apply, nudity or naught. Like the saying goes "turn the channel if you don't like what you are see or hear".
I agree. Its not as if it is full frontal nude. You don't see any "naughty" parts of this woman. LOL. -
mypasswordwontwork wrote: [quote=Idlewild]Nudity in itself shouldn't be offensive to anyone. And this being a privately run forum. owner's rules and discretion apply, nudity or naught. Like the saying goes "turn the channel if you don't like what you are see or hear".
I agree. Its not as if it is full frontal nude. You don't see any "naughty" parts of this woman. LOL.
You can "barely" see any thing with that lighting. Higher Kelvin and lower asa next time. -
mypasswordwontwork wrote: [quote=Idlewild]Nudity in itself shouldn't be offensive to anyone. And this being a privately run forum. owner's rules and discretion apply, nudity or naught. Like the saying goes "turn the channel if you don't like what you are see or hear".
I agree. Its not as if it is full frontal nude. You don't see any "naughty" parts of this woman. LOL.
it's not just that she's nude. nude is fine. nude is lovely. it's that she's on all fours in fuck-me pumps with her boobs hanging down. that's not just naked, it's porn. and it's porn that, at least with no other context around it, is degrading to women.
worse, you think it's ok to portray women this way because there are no "naughty" parts showing.
it's disgusting, it's juvenile, it's degrading, and the fact that the mods haven't pulled it off is pretty disturbing to me. -
that's a cop-out steve.
"mypassword"'s avatar is the way he/she would like to be portrayed, which is curious considering the fact that this particular thread is about muggings and aforementioned poster seems to think that a stack of us are racist.
if this thread is moving in the direction of how people see us, and why, and how that affects us in our communities, than the avatar conversation is a part of that. -
I've lived in a country where there are porn vending machines on the streets, and every bodega has stuff at eye level when you walk in that would be illegal here. Women there don't seem to mind and do much better in terms of equality, political power, income, education, etc. than in the US. Conversely, there are countries in the Middle East which are extremely restrictive when it comes to such graphical 'degrading' material, and they're hardly a pin-up for women's rights. The disconnect between the espoused ideals of personal liberty in this country and the general level of prudishness never ceases to amaze.
-
brooklynpotter wrote: it's not just that she's nude. nude is fine. nude is lovely. it's that she's on all fours in fuck-me pumps with her boobs hanging down. that's not just naked, it's porn. and it's porn that, at least with no other context around it, is degrading to women.
I agree with these reasons about why it's disturbing, and I don't like it for the same reasons.
worse, you think it's ok to portray women this way because there are no "naughty" parts showing.
it's disgusting, it's juvenile, it's degrading, and the fact that the mods haven't pulled it off is pretty disturbing to me.
However, please don't get all peeved at the mods over this. We don't have the ability to remove someone's avatar. Also, this is the first time that something like this has ever come up and I don't think any of us know whether this avatar is technically against the rules of the site, as much as it grosses me out. I'm PM'ing the admins to try to get a decision from them. -
ok, will await word from above.
-
doctorj wrote: The disconnect between the espoused ideals of personal liberty in this country and the general level of prudishness never ceases to amaze.
i knew it was going to come to someone inferring that i was prudish, which is so far from reality.
and really, this isn't about prudishness, it's about common decency -
brooklynpotter wrote:
Your conception of 'common decency' is somewhere on a cultural spectrum, and would be considered prudish by some and whoreish by others. And there are representatives of most cultures on the planet in this town. My point is simply that the places where there are more so-called degrading representations of bodies on display are where you'll generally find women more empowered than here, and where there's more of your 'common decency' there's generally more oppression of women.
and really, this isn't about prudishness, it's about common decency -
i'm not even going to get into this argument.
the avatar's vile, it needs to go. case closed. -
brooklynpotter wrote: it's not just that she's nude. nude is fine. nude is lovely. it's that she's on all fours in fuck-me pumps with her boobs hanging down. that's not just naked, it's porn. and it's porn that, at least with no other context around it, is degrading to women.
It can also be argued that, with no head or face, it completely objectifies women. But if that wasn't the chosen message...
worse, you think it's ok to portray women this way because there are no "naughty" parts showing.
it's disgusting, it's juvenile, it's degrading, and the fact that the mods haven't pulled it off is pretty disturbing to me.
I have to suspect that it's a photo of password/princess, but that she doesn't have the gumption to put her face out there as well.Idlewild wrote: Nudity in itself shouldn't be offensive to anyone. And this being a privately run forum. owner's rules and discretion apply, nudity or naught. Like the saying goes "turn the channel if you don't like what you are see or hear".
I think that nudity is great - I think that the human form is one of the greatest things going. And I agree that nudity shouldn't be offensive to anyone, but the fact of the matter is that it is offensive to many. Owner's rules and discretion should apply, but that doesn't mean that users shouldn't police themselves when it comes to showing consideration for others. And while the photo is small, you can't tell me that the form isn't instantly recognizable on a monitor from several paces away. Some bosses may turn a blind eye to the occasional message board diversion during work hours, but I don't know of many that would turn a blind eye towards message board activity on a possibly adult-orientated site, which this avatar may imply to many. -
The avatar is lame, and the user should change it. But BP, I think we need to be careful about trying to make rules about what avatars are and aren't allowed. We don't want to end up like this guy:
-
carnivore, i absolutely agree. nobody should end up like john ashcroft.
-
Anyone who doesn't like the image can adjust their browser to block it. Here's the URL.
http://www.brooklynian.com/forums/images/avatars/6201516164595eae857597.jpg
Otherwise, I think it's ridiculous to insist one member submit to another member's concept of taste. -
I do think it's reasonable for users to keep in mind that many of us, as WhyFi pointed out, access this site from work and don't really want our bosses poking their heads into our cubicles or offices to see something that make Brooklynian look like a porn site. Hell, I work at the coolest office ever in terms of free speech, with no restrictions whatsoever on what sites we visit, but I still wouldn't want any of my supervisors or coworkers to get a glimpse of that avatar on my monitor.
-
apollonia666 wrote: I do think it's reasonable for users to keep in mind that many of us, as WhyFi pointed out, access this site from work and don't really want our bosses poking their heads into our cubicles or offices to see something that make Brooklynian look like a porn site. Hell, I work at the coolest office ever in terms of free speech, with no restrictions whatsoever on what sites we visit, but I still wouldn't want any of my supervisors or coworkers to get a glimpse of that avatar on my monitor.
Good point, but Alex's avatar would fail on those grounds too. -
what DH got to say about it?
-
I'm not a fan of that avatar either, personally....but some of the others freak me out even more and they aren't sexual (like doctorj's, steve's, that one that somebody used to use that made me feel like I was going to have a seizure).
I didn't go through the diretions on blocking as linked above, but that might be a good solution, and I may have to try it myself to stop dreaming of llamas with mustaches) -
armchair_warrior wrote: what DH got to say about it?
Hasn't weighed in yet. Give him a little time; this just came up late last night. -
Carnivore wrote: Good point, but Alex's avatar would fail on those grounds too.
As did Jack's, when he had the busty lovely as an avatar. My scroll wheel got a lot of work whenever one of his posts was onscreen and a co-worker was about. -
lol i just realize something some of you guys who post from work, would get in trouble with some of the icons on the site
. -
Flexichick wrote: I'm not a fan of that avatar either, personally....but some of the others freak me out even more and they aren't sexual (like doctorj's, steve's, that one that somebody used to use that made me feel like I was going to have a seizure).
flexi, i think you must mean the one one that Q used to have with the little boy mouthing words. it made me insane. (and i told him and he made it go away) -
That might be it, I can't really remember except that it changed/flickered around a lot and gave me a headache. Even AW's makes me dizzy!
-
Flexichick wrote: I'm not a fan of that avatar either, personally....but some of the others freak me out even more and they aren't sexual (like doctorj's, steve's, that one that somebody used to use that made me feel like I was going to have a seizure).
Fear not, the Dali Llama is ephemeral and will be gone as soon as I find something _I_ like better. The sock puppet is the one true eternal Llama.
I didn't go through the diretions on blocking as linked above, but that might be a good solution, and I may have to try it myself to stop dreaming of llamas with mustaches)
I will not say what I think of the yoga poses. -
Doctorj, it's nothing personal, it just weirds me out...like that fish they found with human teeth!
I know that people either like/hate or don't care about my avatar....just like every other avatar here. C'est la vie. -
armchair_warrior wrote: lol i just realize something some of you guys who post from work, would get in trouble with some of the icons on the site
Welcome to the conversation, AW! :P.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds