Was my thread deleted?

This is an ongoing problem with several forums. I had heard that fsm had changed since last year, when I was kicked for using "verdamnt" in a post.  Maybe it is still for kindergarteners? ModelingMadness, Swanny's, and the rest give no grief.

Hopefully, this was done my a moderator in error, and will be put back up. It's plastic people, and big suprise, women have nipples !

I've displayed much more blatant nudity as well as others at the past year's Nationals.  Sad to see how much violence is favored over something completely non violent.  "Family friendly enviornment" = Pure uninhibited hyprocricy.

I often wonder what the ratio of folks here that are younger than 16 to those that are 16 and older, that regularaly post and read.

gamerabaenre wrote:

"Family friendly enviornment" = Pure uninhibited hyprocricy.

What does this mean? Can you clarify your point?

 

You would think that these forums, where probably 99% of the membership are adults, would have have a PG-13 rating instead of the G rating that seems to be the rule of thumb from the current management...... 

And as others of said, these are not the only forums available to the modeling community. 

ModelNerd wrote:

gamerabaenre wrote:  "Family friendly enviornment" = Pure uninhibited hyprocricy. What does this mean? Can you clarify your point?

Sorry, what I meant was that the idea of a "family friendly enviornment" HERE, with all the pictures of soliders, war machines, guns, historical figures that have done horrific things to other human beings, etc.  That such things are allowed within the realm of the "family friendly environment" bubble, yet a figure with slight nudity and sexiness is not.

 Plus the idea that model building is a family oriented event is utterly laughable.  Sure, there are occasional model building folk who bring along their family members to shows and meetings, but the vast majority of model builders are adult males.  I just felt the use of "family friendly environment" as an excuse to remove my post was insulting and absolutely hypocritical.

I read the rules, I do not think I broke anything.  And if these things are such a gray area.  I highly recommend that the admins add the following text to their rules:

"Its ok for you to post up violence, machines of violence, men of violence, but please do not post any nudity, or anything that can possibly be considered sexual, because this is a family friendly enviornment." 

Well, I saw your thread, and while I personally wasn't offended by it, the rules of the forum are clear:

1. We restrict any language that inhibits any other user from using and enjoying the reader forums. Transmission of any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national, or international law will not be tolerated. 

I don't necessarily agree with the rules, but as I'm not in a position to alter them, I make my choice about whether or not I can live within them. It is up to the admins of these forums to decide what those words mean, and how to apply them.

Freedom of speech is often debated on this forums, about whether or not people can discuss certain subjects or post certain pictures, but freedom of speech doesn't apply here. This is a private forum, and one you must register to be able to post. It is up to each individual to decide if they can, or cannot, live within the posted rules. 

There are other modeling forums out there, and while I would deplore you leaving because of this issue, I would be able to understand your reasons for leaving. 

As the Administrator of a VERY busy forum myself, with a membership of 17,000 worldwide, I can state with some experience that nearly all forum rules dictate that disputes with a Mod/Admin's decisions and actions be handled privately via Email or Personal Message, NOT posted publicly as was done here.

I'd suggest that you follow that path for maximum results.

Fritzfix wrote:

As the Administrator of a VERY busy forum myself, with a membership of 17,000 worldwide, I can state with some experience that nearly all forum rules dictate that disputes with a Mod/Admin's decisions and actions be handled privately via Email or Personal Message, NOT posted publicly as was done here. I'd suggest that you follow that path for maximum results.

 

  I'd put that at a so-so...17,000 (yawn) or not.  If no one knows about the problems, they just continue, don't they?

  Some forums make rules that are privately odd to me, but there you go. To each his or her own, I suppose. I just had hoped that fsm had grown out of the pc b.s.

Fritzfix wrote:

As the Administrator of a VERY busy forum myself, with a membership of 17,000 worldwide, I can state with some experience that nearly all forum rules dictate that disputes with a Mod/Admin's decisions and actions be handled privately via Email or Personal Message, NOT posted publicly as was done here. I'd suggest that you follow that path for maximum results.

Posting publicly however is not only a great way to stimulate discussion (as long as it remains civil) but also a way to get clarification for those "gray" areas of the forum rules. 

So let's think about this for a minute.  What would be considered indecent?  A nude or semi-nude figure being posted in the figures forum?  Would a picture of the statue "David" be considered taboo?  Many of the greatest works of art (sculpture, paintings, mosaics) depict nude or semi-nude figures.  Nudity in itself is not a bad or "indecent" thing.  Depicting sex acts is another story entirely and would clearly be inappropriate for this site. 

Like I said before, it seems that this forum is managed to the guidlines of a "G" rated kiddie movie (which to our loss is their perogative), even though that really isn't the target audience.  I'd be willing to bet if you look at the demographics of this site that the vast majority are 30+.  PG-13 would be a better guideline in my opinion. 

If the few kids on this site want to see nudity they can easily find millions of indecent things to look at online.... I hardly think a plastic figure in the figures forum is going to bring about the end of western civilization as we know it.     

Hmm.. I was in the middle of writing a reply, and looked back on the thread for reference, and saw what espins1 posted, so yeah, I have nothing :D

But I will add that I find it absolutely funny that one is free to post up figures of Adolf Hitler, and that it is not offensive.  Because we all know how family friendly good old Adolf was, just as the Franks, on nevermind.  But slight nudity is absolutey offensive.  Curious.

 

Was your post the one with the anime figure? The ridiculous thing is that you had the foresight to post a link, and not pictures of your subject. This of course warns people who may be offended by the subject matter. Considering the many other nude figures that aren't deleted, this does seem kind of ridiculous.
BTW, I liked your work and thought it was interesting and cool how the anime style was rendered into a 3-D model. And I loved the inclusion of the transformer. Perhaps the admin did not like that part so much, but I though it was absolutely hilarious!

---Sawyer

cthulhu77 wrote:

I'd put that at a so-so...17,000 (yawn) or not.  If no one knows about the problems, they just continue, don't they?   Some forums make rules that are privately odd to me, but there you go. To each his or her own, I suppose. I just had hoped that fsm had grown out of the pc b.s.

Your "mine is bigger than yours" reply is quite a sophomoric rebuke to what was an absolutely legitimate statement of fact on my part.

I'll refrain from commenting on the site advertised in your signature line, even though tit for tat seems to be the course this conversation is headed.

sawdeanz wrote:

...The ridiculous thing is that you had the foresight to post a link, and not pictures of your subject. This of course warns people who may be offended by the subject matter. ...

I think the only problem with your analysis is that a kid, specifically an under-age boy with healthy hormones, will not heed the warning, but for curiosity's sake follow the link, all the quicker when it warns of female nudity! Now what? You've just opened the door for a kid to see softcore fantasy pornography in all its 3-D glory! Let's not kid ourselves with any misconceptions about how a nudie figurine in fishnets, bare hind quarters, lifting her top and shaking her goods is somehow classified as "art". That's like saying a pole dancer is equal in artistry to a ballet dancer. It's also degrading to women. (And if you don't agree, just replace the figurine's head with a likeness of your wife, your mother, or your 18-year-old daughter, then you just might see things in a totally different light.)

Don't get me wrong, I can see that the guy who put the thing together did a skillful job of assembly and painting, shading, etc., but the subject matter, like most icons of smut, reduces women to a man's wet-dream-fantasy-plaything. Shows just how far we, as a society, have come!

I have seen many instances where a sculpture, a photograph, or a painting of the nude female form actually glorifies the human female body. But these crass and tasteless resin kits do not. What's the difference? They mainly portray women as having no class or dignity. Some even venture into the realm of bondage and other weird stuff.

I'm not against the freedom to view whatever one pleases (so long as it's not illegal), but this is after all a family-friendly site, and I think it was just a bad choice to post fantasy nudie stuff here, where kids do hang out.

The other problem with your comments was that someone did in fact post some final photos directly in the Forum, rather than to a outside linked remote location.

 

but the subject matter, like most icons of smut, reduces women to a man's wet-dream-fantasy-plaything. Shows just how far we, as a society, have come!

But it's completely fine to post up machines of war, whose sole purpose is to destroy people and things. It is perfectly fine to post up a model of Adolf Hitler, because he was such a wonderfully family friendly icon. Violence is good, sex is bad right?

I have seen many instances where a sculpture, a photograph, or a painting of the nude female form actually glorifies the human female body. But these crass and tasteless resin kits do not. What's the difference? They mainly portray women as having no class or dignity. Some even venture into the realm of bondage and other weird stuff.

It is a model, it is a figure kit. If you feel that it is tasteless, that's completely in your right, it is your own opinion. But where is the outrage against the Clint Eastwood and the noose? Against depiction of the horrors of war. No, again, violence is perfectly fine here. The "portrayal" of the destruction of human lives is perfectly "family friendly".

I'm not against the freedom to view whatever one pleases (so long as it's not illegal), but this is after all a family-friendly site, and I think it was just a bad choice to post fantasy nudie stuff here, where kids do hang out.

Do you know for a fact that many kids do hang out here? You have got to be kidding me. Most folks reading these boards are adults that build models, with the occasional exception of a youth. Oh no, we must protect the youths from smut, but violence towards your fellow man is perfectly fine. Am I translating this correctly?

The other problem with your comments was that someone did in fact post some final photos directly in the Forum, rather than to a outside linked remote location.

Hmm... /forums/808116/ShowPost.aspx <-- looks like much more nudity than what I posted is posted here. Yet no there are no complaints.

Just admit that there is a blatant double standard with it comes to what is considered morally right, and what is considered family friendly. A figure responsible for mass genocide is family friendly; dioramas depicting destruction and dead soliders is family friendly; yet the slightest nudity is not. The mere notion that this is a family friendly site is utter hyprocricy.

I love all the violence, the horrors of war, big giant machines crushing helpless humans, and I enjoy the nudity.  But to make a claim that one is worse than the other, is ludricous. 

All of which is your opinion, and is not shared by the people who administer and provide these forums. Their roof, their rules. They are not subject to your opinion, and you get to vote only with your feet.

As I said before, I wasn't personally offended, but I can understand how people could be. Your argument sounds valid to you, but you are making the mistake of comparing history, no matter how violent, with "art". It's an oddity of the US, IMHO.

As for "proof" that kids hang out here, there are many member who allow their children to see "what Daddy and his friends" do, just as there are many members of teenage years. Many of them have beliefs that are obviously different from yours, and more in line with the administrators of this forum.

You started your thread with a warning and provided a link, then you directly posted pictures. At one point you thought that a warning and a link would be necessary, why is that?

You were provided with a link to a website that would be more open to your figure work, which was VERY GOOD. This is just not the forum for it. I quite agree that it's hypocrisy, but I don't set the rules, only choose whether or not I can live within them. Otherwise door is to my left.

I hope that you aren't further upset by this post. My intent is not to anger you, but to provide you with an option and a choice. 

Well stated, especially the bit about the oddities of the US at the moment. The politically correct opinions do have to be respected at this time.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with the nude form in any sense, and that it would be nice to see more figure work of a non-violent nature.

Two different opinions, both valid, but this is the FSM forum.

Maybe we could put pasties over her nipples? It works at the stripclubs. Photoetch, anyone?

Greg

cthulhu77 wrote:

Maybe we could put pasties over her nipples? It works at the stripclubs. Photoetch, anyone? Greg

I love it!!! 

As a casual observer to this thread I'm amazed it has generated so much debate. I've had a nude" Seven of Nine" figure for some time and don't post pictures of it on any forum out of respect for others. There is obviously a titillation factor that surounds this figure of the Borg Babe, so I respect the community and desires of the board owner. When I have posted any pictures of the figure model I always censor them on my own. Some of the arguments here are specious at best. Hilter is a historical figure and there are lessons to be learned from his rise and fall. Violence: there's more violence on television, in movies and video games than I have ever seen here. It seems that some are comparing apples and oranges.  How is the restriction on nudity PC? That seems to be more of a conservative thing than a PC thing. If it's that important to show pictures of the figure, then why not just do so in a way that respects the board rules and the viewers of the board? I think the word is compromise. If there are other forums that allow posting of such things then why not post there? Why attempt to force an issue that is obviously going no where? I doubt the board owners are going to chance the rules to accomodate one thread and one poster.

Sorry, just my two cents. 

 

Here is what I really think this honestly boils down to. 

FSM is not and has not in the past been ( I am a longtime subscriber with issues giong back to #1) an anime-freindly place. I remember reading in the readers comments section years ago after the first gundam wing buildup /detail article appeared (April 2000?) someone wrote that there was no place for this in FSM.  

C. you and I have talked about this off the boards in the past, about how some venues are accepting and others simply aren't.  I have been told at shows I cannot enter my anime fig because it is a "family freindly" show but sitting right there on the table is the Elven Archer with less clothing than the entry I was going to put in!   I find it is pretty much the same here. 

 keep my anime posts pretty much to the forums where they are not only understood, but also taken in context for what they are.  I see no degredation in this. My wife loves to helps pick out which figure is next and I have my sister in law hooked on building 1/6 resin girls.  They certianly don't see it as degrading!

C. keep on posting, or at least give the guys here the option to head to your showcase.  The argument that a kid would link to it is moot since your personal site is open to the public and anyone with a simple google search would find it anyway!  I have searched figures and found your galleries in google images so I already know it can and has happened (case in point your fantastic Drow).  This same argument popped up on hobbyfanatics a while back and considering what that forum is, it sure seemed out of place there.

 Now this has me motiviated to finish my next fig from Armor Hunter!

David

 

 

bottom line is...where is the pic posted now? 

ps1scw wrote:

bottom line is...where is the pic posted now?

 I reposted it according to the guidlines :D Click here

As for being angry, not in the least.  I think this is a healthy discussion, sure a little heated, but what discussion where there are disctinct sides never a little  heated?  I've gone and reposted the thread, without pictures and only links.  Hopefully I get some constructive criticism that leads me to build better.  I only build in two genres, anime figures - for which I'm still very new at (building for about 2 years now) and Mecha/scifi.  Subjects not so mainstream as planes, armor, and automobiles - but hopefully, I'll get the same amount of respect afforded to those that build on such subjects.   

It's the great dichotomy of living in America. The very first amendment to our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, but speech isn't free...

Sometimes I feel like we traded ‘Big Brother' for ‘Big Mother'.

 

I feel your frustration, gamerabaenre, I honestly do. But I look at it this way: when I lived w/ my Dad, I lived w/ my Dad's rules. He paid the bills after all; I was just sleeping on his couch.

The fine gentlemen at FSM have spent probably a lot of money to put up and maintain the site, I'm just glad they let me play in their sandbox. Do I wish they would change the rules? A little. Some hypocrisy? Maybe some. But I'm not footing the costs either, and if someone decides to sue FSM because a nude figure warped young Bobby's fragile little mind, it won't say Cosmic J on the subpoena...

Your note about violence being acceptable while the naked human form is not is spot on, but I don't blame FSM as much as I blame all of us, and society in general. I could post a picture of an actual WWII soldier at the moment a bullet takes his life, and no one would blink. Try posting the word **** however...

 

What I do resent is when individuals take it upon themselves to "Police" the site, cloaking themselves in a Holier-than-Thou attitude, telling the rest of us what we can and can't discuss in any way we see fit.

I was exchanging e-mails w/ a fellow from this site just last night, who said he had been continuously harassed by fellow members, not for reasons of content, but for what appear to be economic reasons.

I myself received a PM from an site member that read as follows:

You joined the site only slight(sic) more than a month ago, and perhaps you have not yet had the time to yet realize that we in the Armor forums are a pretty well-behaved and self-policing group of guys. They're(sic) have been many past "flame wars" in the past, which caused the loss of many members who had their feelings hurt or just didt(sic) want to be part of a hostile environment. To avoid that possibility, we try to  take the initiative to try to squelch any post where the participants are starting to lob insults or careen off topic--the site is. after all, about MODELLING(sic).  If you want us to put you on the "shit list" of people with attitudes whose work and questions will be ignored by the members who know that maturity and respect are the watchwords of the site, you're(sic) doing a pretty goog(sic) job! YOU(sic) CHOICE?!?

Who exactly are the members of this ‘cabal', and who gave them the right to decide what was acceptable or not? How is it that they, above all others, have been blessed w/ the knowledge of Good and Evil, politically correct and incorrect? To me, jerks like this are a far more pernicious problem.

 

<Anybody wanting to see the full PM, (including the author's identity, as well as all the spelling errors, malaprops and self-contradictions) should drop me a note; I will forward you the complete text.>

Cosmic J wrote:

It's the great dichotomy of living in America. The very first amendment to our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, but speech isn't free... Sometimes I feel like we traded ‘Big Brother' for ‘Big Mother'.   I feel your frustration, gamerabaenre, I honestly do. But I look at it this way: when I lived w/ my Dad, I lived w/ my Dad's rules. He paid the bills after all; I was just sleeping on his couch. The fine gentlemen at FSM have spent probably a lot of money to put up and maintain the site, I'm just glad they let me play in their sandbox. Do I wish they would change the rules? A little. Some hypocrisy? Maybe some. But I'm not footing the costs either, and if someone decides to sue FSM because a nude figure warped young Bobby's fragile little mind, it won't say Cosmic J on the subpoena...

Now here's the part that tends to bug me:

These days, if you want to discuss things with other people, say to let people know about your recent model work, you're pretty much dependent on being in the good graces of someone else's popular website, and playing by their rules. There is no infrastructure for discussion apart from what we (collectively) create ourselves - most people don't use newsgroups any more - and so while you can conscientiously object to a site's rules, pack up, and move elsewhere, the basic problem remains. You wind up on someone else's "private forum" playing by their rules and their prejudices, or else start your own where other people will have to deal with yours. Neither solution is very good since the goal - reaching people, communicating and sharing work - depends on the size of the audience at the site where you post the information.

It seems this particular case here has been resolved, more or less? Still, the overall problem disturbs me. Instead of communities we have independent "private systems" - probably more of them than our hobby can support. To reach a broad audience you have to post the same thing on several of them - to keep up with what's going on you have to monitor several of them - and if you can't work with one site then you're cut off from the audience there. It's all a bit of a drag IMO.

Pragmatic response. Nudity is against the rules. Why is that a problem? You agree to the standards when you agree to sign on and post. Each community sets its own standards, you agreed to bide by those standards. No nudity? What's the problem?

gamerabaenre wrote:

... But it's completely fine to post up machines of war, whose sole purpose is to destroy people and things. It is perfectly fine to post up a model of Adolf Hitler, because he was such a wonderfully family friendly icon. Violence is good, sex is bad right?

That's not an accurate assessment. Most war machines exist to secure a nation's sovreignty and its occupants' liberty. A bust of Hitler has historical context, whereas the nudie babe doesn't. The world (including the youth) should know about Hitler and his atrocities, so we can be vigilant to prevent history from repeating itself. But what does the nudie babe teach us, and our youth, except that women are merely mens' pleasure playtoys? A bust of an evil man is not the same as a degrading portrayal of a woman. Unless you check your logic at the door, you really cannot say that there is no difference between the two.

"Violence is good, sex is bad?" It's not that succinct. You have taken two concepts way out of their context. You have attempted to assert that if someone objects to viewing an icon of a woman degrading herself, then the objector thinks sex as a whole is bad. That's like saying food is bad because some people eat too much of it and become obese. There is nothing wrong with sex. If I really thought sex was bad, I would not have made two kids with my wife. You mistakenly assume this is about sex. The figurine you (skillfully) constructed has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with degradation. Again, I would ask you to replace the girl's head with a likeness of your 18-year-old daughter, and then tell me you would have no problem posting the pics in a public forum, or showing it off to your buddies.

gamerabaenre wrote:

... But where is the outrage against the Clint Eastwood and the noose? Against depiction of the horrors of war. No, again, violence is perfectly fine here. The "portrayal" of the destruction of human lives is perfectly "family friendly".

If there was a body swingin' from the noose, then it WOULD be in bad taste. But it's a man, standing next to an empty noose. And Clint's not flashing his junk, either. Why would this be offensive? C'mon, man.

gamerabaenre wrote:

Do you know for a fact that many kids do hang out here? You have got to be kidding me. Most folks reading these boards are adults that build models, with the occasional exception of a youth. Oh no, we must protect the youths from smut, but violence towards your fellow man is perfectly fine. Am I translating this correctly?

No, you are not translating correctly. You seem to go out of your way to twist good for evil, and vice-versa, for the sake of justifying your pro-porno position. Can I ask how old you are? Do you have kids? If so, are they allowed to see your nudie collection, or surf websites containing fantasy porn images? See, I do know for a fact that kids read these forums, because, it was my 15-year-old son who brought your post to my attention in the first place!

If you interpret the free posting of photos of military hardware on this site as proof-positive that the moderators condone violence, then you indeed are refusing to apply logic and reason to this conversation. How did we defeat Hitler? With guns and tanks, as I recall. Military hardware brought peace! Posting photos of military hardware does not "teach" youths to go kill people. But it does teach them the terrible price we must pay to preserve our freedom. And this is a valuable lesson, unlike the lesson of Miss Nudiepants, who teaches kids what whores look like, and reduces them to meat. Are you aware that there have been studies which link pornography to violent or abusive behavior?

gamerabaenre wrote:

Hmm... /forums/808116/ShowPost.aspx <-- looks like much more nudity than what I posted is posted here. Yet no there are no complaints.

I think you may feel you have been singled out, but I would wager that there's just not enough time in the day for the moderators to catch every single post.  

gamerabaenre wrote:

Just admit that there is a blatant double standard with it comes to what is considered morally right, and what is considered family friendly. A figure responsible for mass genocide is family friendly; dioramas depicting destruction and dead soliders is family friendly; yet the slightest nudity is not. The mere notion that this is a family friendly site is utter hyprocricy.

OK, let me ask you two questions, then. Is it morally right to portray women as cheap bimbo whores? Is it then also morally right to post its photos to a forum where kids often go?

See again, you toss out logic. No one suggested Hitler is "family friendly". But I think it cannot be debated that evil exists in the world, and it is wise to educate ourselves of this fact, so that we might recognize it and avoid it. And for this reason, knowing the history of Nazi Germany has significant value.

I would have to say the double standard comes from people who say everything should be accepted, then they reject the moderators' point of view! You are demanding a dictatorship, with yourself on the throne!

gamerabaenre wrote:

I love all the violence, the horrors of war, big giant machines crushing helpless humans, and I enjoy the nudity.  But to make a claim that one is worse than the other, is ludricous.

So you enjoy seeing effigies of women in degrading or compromising positions? Are you married? What does your wife think of it? I'd really like to know. How about taking the figurine to your local shopping mall. Ask a random 10 or 20 women there what they think of it, and how they think it portrays women in general. I'm glad you have the freedom to enjoy what you enjoy. But please don't foist it upon others who don't enjoy it. Or where kids can get to it.

(Glad we're keeping the healthy discussion friendly.)

 

I finally got to see your figure.  Very nice work! 

I also can't believe that generated so much controversy... heck, I've seen more nudity watching the Superbowl!  

ModelNerd wrote:

gamerabaenre wrote: ... But it's completely fine to post up machines of war, whose sole purpose is to destroy people and things. It is perfectly fine to post up a model of Adolf Hitler, because he was such a wonderfully family friendly icon. Violence is good, sex is bad right? That's not an accurate assessment. Most war machines exist to secure a nation's sovreignty and its occupants' liberty. A bust of Hitler has historical context, whereas the nudie babe doesn't. The world (including the youth) should know about Hitler and his atrocities, so we can be vigilant to prevent history from repeating itself. But what does the nudie babe teach us, and our youth, except that women are merely mens' pleasure playtoys?

An alternate interpretation would be that it is a celebration of human beauty. An affirmation of a simple reality of the human world. There is no man in the image making the woman his playtoy, that's an interpretation you provided yourself. "meat" is a reality of our world. We are meat, and what you might call "base" desires or scenarios are a natural function of it. For men and women.

The "daughter" analogy is flawed: every woman is some man's daughter, and many of these men wouldn't want to think of their daughters in sexual situations any more than the daughter would want to envision the father in a sexual situation. The bonds of family do that. And yet, sensuality and sexuality still exist in the world, regardless of whether we choose to see them as healthy realities of our state of living, or reject them as sinful or shameful. Men find other people's daughters - and still, many of those fathers won't like to think about it, but they must accept it or they won't get to have grandkids.  :D

A bust of Hitler teaches no more about history than the nudie figure does. At best it serves as a reference: yes, there was a man named Adolf Hitler, and here's roughly what he looked like. You could learn more facts about WWII from an episode of "Hogan's Heroes" or "Star Trek". But I also don't buy the argument that the WWII stuff is necessarily a celebration of what went on, rather it's just a representation. And yet, people confuse the issue. People who model Nazis take flak for celebrating them, for instance.

Cosmic J wrote:

It's the great dichotomy of living in America. The very first amendment to our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, but speech isn't free...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The first amendment applies to "congress,' i.e., the govenrment, not establishing any laws abridging free speech. It DOES NOT apply to individuals putting limits on expressions they will tolerate or accept. It doesn't say nobody can set limits on what you can say in their presence, their businesses, their homes.

The people at Kalmbach set up this forum and established rules which we agreed to when we registered. It's their house, we have to abide by their rules. They've taken a relatively conservative stance on nudity, vulgarity, and what might be viewed as offensive material, as well as discouraging non-modeling discussions which is more problematic to me. That what their limit is far below my level of being offended is okay. I can live with that.

You have to decide which hill you'll bleed on, and quite frankly, this one hill isn't worth a plug nickel.

A bust of an evil man is not the same as a degrading portrayal of a woman. Unless you check your logic at the door, you really cannot say that there is no difference between the two. How did we defeat Hitler? With guns and tanks, as I recall. Military hardware brought peace! Posting photos of military hardware does not "teach" youths to go kill people. But it does teach them the terrible price we must pay to preserve our freedom. And this is a valuable lesson, unlike the lesson of Miss Nudiepants, who teaches kids what whores look like, and reduces them to meat. Are you aware that there have been studies which link pornography to violent or abusive behavior?

That sir is an opinion.  I never thought of it as a degrading figure, nor have the several womeon at a local contest felt embarrased or angered over it.  The figure I build is not real, it is fantasy.  Hitler was real; and just as you belive that it is a history lesson, I chose to believe that it serves to only glorify what he did.  I wonder where the thousands of neo nazi groups out there based their skewed belief system upon?  Studies?  Please, there are studies done that support every angle of every argument.  This is a difference of opinions, at the very least, lets not clutter this with more utterly useless bs.

The figurine you (skillfully) constructed has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with degradation. Again, I would ask you to replace the girl's head with a likeness of your 18-year-old daughter, and then tell me you would have no problem posting the pics in a public forum, or showing it off to your buddies.

You are mistaking something made in the fantasy realm for something in reality.  There's a distinction between the two.  One isn't real, while the other is.  And again, it is your opinion that the depiction is "degrading".

If there was a body swingin' from the noose, then it WOULD be in bad taste. But it's a man, standing next to an empty noose.

I have no problems with a noose.  But put one up in your neighborhood around holloween, and see if you get complaints.  This past hallowween there were complaints about what the noose represents.  This is a complete farce.  This goes back to how political correctness has completely nerfed our society as a whole.  And I use it in part of my argument, it's a slippery slope.  Slight nudity is considered pornography, degrading to women, etc.... where does it end?

You seem to go out of your way to twist good for evil, and vice-versa, for the sake of justifying your pro-porno position. Can I ask how old you are? Do you have kids? If so, are they allowed to see your nudie collection, or surf websites containing fantasy porn images? See, I do know for a fact that kids read these forums, because, it was my 15-year-old son who brought your post to my attention in the first place!

Of course I'm going to twist this to benefit my side of the argument.  Otherwise, why bother continuing on the fun little merry-go-round of rhetoric?  I'm 32, no kids, but a wife.  She has no problems with this.  I've had friends with their kids over at my house where I have such fantasy object displayed prominently.  And they do not come over and quickly gasp in shock as to what I have displayed.  They are able to discern fantasy from reality.  As for your 15 year old son, congrats!  He's one of the few exceptions.  The majority of viewers and posters are adult males.  Lets not kid ourselves.

OK, let me ask you two questions, then. Is it morally right to portray women as cheap bimbo whores? Is it then also morally right to post its photos to a forum where kids often go?

Again, this is fantasy, animation, read: not real.  Yet you continue to put the realistic labels of degradation.

See again, you toss out logic. No one suggested Hitler is "family friendly". But I think it cannot be debated that evil exists in the world, and it is wise to educate ourselves of this fact, so that we might recognize it and avoid it. And for this reason, knowing the history of Nazi Germany has significant value.

And again, I choose to believe that the portrayals in model form only serve to glorify his actions, his past, etc.

You are demanding a dictatorship, with yourself on the throne!

Of course I would.  Who in their right mind wouldn't chance the thought that the world would be a much better place if they were the ultimate emperor?  But I make no demands, I just wanted to point out a hyprocrisy that I see.  Again, this is my own opinion, you're not going to change it, just as I'm not going to change your opinion.  But this little merry-go-round is fun isn't it?  

So you enjoy seeing effigies of women in degrading or compromising positions? Are you married? What does your wife think of it? I'd really like to know. How about taking the figurine to your local shopping mall. Ask a random 10 or 20 women there what they think of it, and how they think it portrays women in general. I'm glad you have the freedom to enjoy what you enjoy. But please don't foist it upon others who don't enjoy it. Or where kids can get to it.

Fantasy vs reality argument.  Freedom is a wonderful thing.  There isn't a day that goes by that I don't remember the time I served in my insufficient attempt to repay the debit I owe for it.