Yeah, I knew I was going out on a limb stating my... ehh - founded opinions?, so yeah I knew that attacking a staffer - being a lowly member myself, was probably going to get me banned. After all, having negative thoughts of someone who represents the model pattern of behaviour isn't nice to have around, especially if there isn't hardcore proof. Striking though that she can call me racist and homophobic, which is unfounded, yet I'm the one getting warnings.
In any case, the only reason I went at your staffer was to prove a point, (see below). This wasn't out of hate or spite, nor out of wish to insult anyone. If I did I truely
Anyway, if we are to revert to the original question, I was asking why
was the descision made about that avatar. People are free to resent the bouncing-breasts avatar (of course), but by creating this thread I was questioning "why?" the administration/moderation who voted on banning the avatar, chose to do so.
So in the end - when leXX just above made a point that *men can't define what's insulting to a woman, then what were the men (and here I'm assuming a big number of the voting cabinet) thinking when they voted "yes, it's inapropriate"?
How do you decide? Jed, you said you deal with things as members complain to it, so how many people (women in this case) are needed to make a thing offensive?
I hope that question wasn't sexist/bashful/abusive. It wasn't meant to be, in any case.
Also, another question - am I allowed to ask questions like these?
After all, curiosity killed the cat...
*=By the way, the people who want to say, "But she was just arguing that to show how you contradicted yourself." - due to the fact that sexuality and offenses aren't connected as infinitives (there is sexual offensivness, but then again there are a lot of other sexual things) - that was her own point, not mine.
I didn't contradict myself, she contradicted me, because I said myself that I am not one to decide which part of a female is sexual for the female - the exact thing she repeated.