No, not at all. Where did I say anything like that? I said I don’t make subjective judgments in IMHO. You’ll have to ask the mods there about the criteria they use when making subjective judgments about the nature of explicit sexual acts. Christ. You picked out the last line of everything I’d typed and chose to ignore everything else.
Perhpas you could explain your comment?
Now that is a political platform we all can support!
I don’t mind them locking the thread, like most sex threads it was right at the line to start with. Add in the factors listed by UncleBeer and the decision wasn’t arbitrary or capricious, which is all I ask. However, some sort of standard maybe helpful down the line for those who wish to discuss such sorts of things.
Just my $0.02.
Now you have this thread.
Oh, Blah, blah, blah! That clause in the registration agreement is just a bunch of CYA horsehockey that, if actually enforced, would result in more threads being closed than open. It just got selectively/subjectively enforced in this case.
So, basically, all you need to do is post the same thread in a different forum with a different mod and it’ll fly. Well, not this one, not now, but you know what I mean.
Fair enough. Have a good one.
Hey, HEY, HEY, HEY !!
Don`t get this one closed too. 
Thanks to UncleBeer for the explanation(s).
Actually, what you say is true. But the Mods need to have some foundation to stand on when they decide to make subjective judgements. It gives them leverage to act with impunity. Which is, you know, thier job.
UncleBeer, when I opened up the original thread with “My buddy (right) swears this happened to him.”, could you have taken the “(right)” as an admission that it was actually ME that this happened to? Or does this break some registration agreement about the post being *truthful to the best of our knowledge *?
If you believe that, feel free to test your hypothesis.
Upon review, my last post may seem a bit sarcastic, but the tone in my head was serious, UncleBeer.
Nope. Not taking the bait. I don’t want to post anything vulgar or obscene, particularly. I was just pointing out that, by definition, subjective enforcement of the “rules” will result in the thread sometimes flying, sometimes not. Y’all don’t catch everything or consider the same things out of line.
I think you should sue the Chicago Reader for the return of your membership fees.
Oh, I don’t really have a particular problem with the thread being closed. If you post a thread like that, you run that risk. I was sort of acknowledging the irony of someone being recited the rules after a subjective enforcement.
Damn, I also think UncleBeer needs to get out more. What year are you living in, 1950???
NEWS FLASH! Something like rimming is no longer considered taboo, UncleBeer. There is absolutely nothing wrong or “dirty” about it. I really wish you would explain why you think it is so vulgar or obscene. There is nothing wrong with being able to talk freely about normal sexuality between consenting adults, and you took that away from us, UncleBeer. You are living in the dark ages. To the average sexually healthy person today, this type of sexual activity is NOT “offensive to accepted standards of decency.” GET WITH THE TIMES MAN!
Also, I would like you to explain how the “rimming” thread is any worse than the thread about the guy who gave oral sex to his best friend’s wife with his own wife’s permission (I think that was in this forum…) That was extremely graphic and involved some interesting moral issues. I enjoyed reading it and examining and contemplating certain aspects of human sexuality and the many forms it takes. There is absolutely no difference between the two threads. In fact the aforementioned thread was actually much nastier.
Tell me, UncleBeer, does the fact that the reciever of the “rimming” was a male have anything to do with your decision??? Was it crossing a little too much into the realm of straight men who enjoy anal sexual activity (which is extremely normal and common)?
I think it is important to be able to discuss these issues. People should not have to feel ashmed or made to feel dirty or immoral for having normal sexual feelings and experiences or . Please try to have a more open mind, UncleBeer.
Yeah. That’s it.
Thanks UncleBeer for being sarcastic and not answering any of my serious questions. I think if you’re going to make the decision to censor the thread, then you should stand up and be prepared to give the reasons behind it and answer genuine questions about it.
This just shows me that you made a reactionary decision when pulling the thread down, and didn’t think it through. And it shows me that you didn’t bother to consider any of the valid points I made. Please try to be more open minded and conscious of how the way sexuality is viewed has changed dramatically. And please don’t perpetuate the shame associated with sexuality that persisted through Victorian times and into today in closed-minded backwards people.
birdgirl
Banned
Registered: Mar 2003
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 59
Look birdgirl if you are basically going to call someone a homophobe you better be able to back it up. Go ahead and provide us a cite for that ok?
Also, given his numerous posts to this thread, his stated reasons seemed clear enough. Just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean they were not made.
Let’s be clear before I get branded an asskisser (sorry, bad pun, ummm, how about “shameless Mod toady” instead) that I have no issue with the thread in question, rimming or alternative lifestyles (heck- I went to Berkeley, I practically got a minor in them ), but I was a bit disgusted with the veiled, and now not so veiled accusations. Back them up people, go ahead and put that search feature to work. Show me. Otherwise, IMHO, I think an apology and retraction is in order.
:mad:
In this case, it seems that closing the thread brought more attention to it than the original thread merrited.
The original thread would have died off by itself by now, probably.
Another thread popped up questioning the closure of the first one and now this thread. It`s like the media covering a couple of protestors, suddenly they get national attention.
I’m afraid I didn’t take your questions seriously. They seemed more a tirade than a legitimate inquiry. The use of multiple question marks and wholly-capitalized sentences will nearly always lead to that conclusion. If you wish to be taken seriously, the accepted standards of communication should be adhered to.
I’ve given many reasons; a quick re-reading of my posts using that open mind you advocate so strongly, will show that. If you don’t accept my reasons, I can’t help that, but it doesn’t cause them to be non-reasons.
Quite a conflation you’ve constructed there, birdgirl. I closed a thread because in my admittedly subjective judgment, it was improper for the arena in which it was being discussed, and for that simple action, I’m re-inforcing Victorian-era stereotypes regarding the qualitative nature of a sex act? Methinks you’re reading an agenda where there is none. I suspect this is due to your own predisposition towards the nature of sex in general and this act specifically. If such an agenda indeed existed, would I not have made a comment condemning the act? Something I assuredly did not do.
No. The issue is propriety and decorum. It’s not sex, or any specific sex act. As I’ve said, not all things are properly discussed in all places. This happens to be one of them.