StarGateWars Forums

This is a warning regarding the following post made by you: viewtopic.php?f=68&p=2017912#p2017912 .


"how about some oral love?"

d. Pornographic and criminal content.
Posting anything of a pornographic nature is not permitted on the SGW forums. Pornographic being defined as: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal (dictionary.com).

Consequence:
Generally this will result in the issuing of warning points. Very serious comments will be given more warning points. This will be judged with input from the Ombudsperson, Forum Administrators and Moderators. In cases of criminal activity, the administrators will not hesitate to contact the authorities.

viewtopic.php?f=71&t=156119

1) "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
No arousal intended from my post, that is clear.
2) As i stated in a later post i meant messages. Yes my previous post can be seen as innuendo.
3) I will attempt to watch some Disney movies later on to prove that there are worse innuendos in that. Disney is way below PG 13.

Innuendos are normally seen as PG 13 because they are not sexually explicit and are often seen in many childrens films or normal daytime TV programs.

I will en-devour to find examples
Also, this is my first offense in this matter.

I will not be moderating this thread myself and will only defend my case. As far as this thread is concerned i am a forum member, no more and no less.

TheFreeDictionary.com wrote:in·nu·en·do (ny-nd)
n. pl. in·nu·en·does
1. An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.

Shrek wrote: Welcome to Duloc / Such a perfect town / Here we have some rules / Let us lay them down / Don't make waves / Stay in line / And we'll get along fine / Duloc is a perfect place / Please keep off of the grass / Shine your shoes / Wipe your... FACE. / Duloc is, Duloc is / Duloc is a perfect... place.

Innuendo in there?

Shrek wrote:Monsieur Hood: I like an honest fight and a saucy little maid...
Merry Men: What he's basically saying is he likes to get...
Monsieur Hood: Paid!

If his post was pornographic then you need to re-write the rules, QUITE badly. Think twice about what you're saying...

Earendil wrote:This is not a Disney movie Jim.
Correct, this forum is supposed to allow MORE than a Disney movie
After the recent influx of cases the last few days and even the previous ones. You should know what is acceptable and what is not.
I am arguing this should be acceptable

Your post, potentially harmless, sure,

But, as I said, you should know better, there have been countless threads dumped and warnings given to forum members breaking the rules for the same violations very recently actually.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit wrote:Jessica Rabbit: You don't know how hard it is being a woman looking the way I do.
Eddie Valiant: You don't know how hard it is being a man looking at a woman looking the way you do.
Jessica Rabbit: I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way.

Sexually implicit. The whole movie is sexually implicit lol so il just find one or two more i guess

Unconfirmed: but somebody said at the end of Lion King 2, Simone hints that all the girls should come back to his place in a "sleazy" way.

So what if disney does it?
Does that allow you to do it?

dastupy wrote:So what if disney does it?
Does that allow you to do it?

My point is that Disney is below PG13.
So is this forum.
Disney is a longer established, better know and altogether bigger company than this.
Disney is watched by millions of people and is aimed at people under 13.
If innuendos are present in Disney, why can they not be present on this forum?

Oh zeek, you know me. Jim does nooby thing, jim does good thing, jim does nooby thing, jim does good think.
Its how i roll!

The question is:

Would you talk about oral sex infront of your 13 yrs old niece (as I suppose you do not have kids yourself)?

When did i talk about oral sex deni?

I would probably not discuss oral sex with a 13year old niece.
I would make innuendos in-front of my 13 year old niece. Nobody in my familly would have any problem with that. Judge my family if you will, but MOST of them are respectable people.

my bad

it was not oral sex but oral love

Even if it wasn't PG-13 that doesn't matter, because NOWHERE in the rules does it state posts must abide by a "PG13" standard based on the MPAA guidelines. In the rules it does state no pornographic posts, so judge the post by that standard especially since that is the rule stated.

Is Jim's post pornographic? In other words, is it's intent to cause arousal (see Dictonary.com definition)? No.

deni wrote:my bad

it was not oral sex but oral love

Correct. And sex is not the only kind of love.

More examples of innuendo on daytime TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtxfJGmj-aE

i would say there are quite a few in that video

Tetrismonkey wrote:Couldnt oral sex be defined as kissing to?

Oral Love definitely could.

Earendil wrote:So, now we have to base the forum rules and their clarifications off of youtube, Disney and other web references?

Thats not what im saying. Im saying if the general public including children under the age of 13 can see innuendos in every day life. Why are they not allowed on the forum?

id imagine its because in real life they or there parents have to get it for them so its there choice what makes it to there children/selves. Where as this forum is viewed by a majority rather than being rented by individuals so people not wanting to see it are having too.

also its a privately owned forum so its not the same as real life

Tetrismonkey wrote:Couldnt oral sex be defined as kissing to?

If he meant kissing would couldn't he post kissing? It's not a filtered word.