Opinion of texarkana

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The fact that a woman has a right to appear in porn is not really the issue here. Supporting a woman's right to appear in any type of video or photo does not have to translate into it being OK to splash that picture around on a forum dedicated to completely unrelated topics.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The fact that a woman has a right to appear in porn is not really the issue here. Supporting a woman's right to appear in any type of video or photo does not have to translate into it being OK to splash that picture around on a forum dedicated to completely unrelated topics.

Except there's nothing wrong with the photo. It covers up much more than some folks would see on the beach or walking around in public on a hot day. Plenty of folks have photos in their sigs of things completely unrelated to this forum, how is this any different? Because curvy women make you uncomfortable?

The wording of the photo as "sleazy" is also the issue here. Coming from posters who likely claim elsewhere that they are feminists or at least care about womens' issues: it's hypocritical. 

That pic is the reason I'm only browsing the forum at work on mobile mode so sigs aren't visible now. Most pics in dogs on-related to the forum or politics don't require me to do that to hide them.

If the pic is no different from what people wear on the beach, why is it on a porn site? Perhaps there's more to how suggestive a pic is than simply the amount of skin exposed? There's thousands of artistic style fully nude pics less suggestive than that one.

"Because curvy women make you uncomfortable?" Oh wow, F[INKS] YOU. You clearly know nothing about my taste in women and frankly that's not only an absurd strawman but insulting.

Also what Statilius said.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The fact that a woman has a right to appear in porn is not really the issue here. Supporting a woman's right to appear in any type of video or photo does not have to translate into it being OK to splash that picture around on a forum dedicated to completely unrelated topics.

Except there's nothing wrong with the photo. It covers up much more than some folks would see on the beach or walking around in public on a hot day. Plenty of folks have photos in their sigs of things completely unrelated to this forum, how is this any different? Because curvy women make you uncomfortable?

The wording of the photo as "sleazy" is also the issue here. Coming from posters who likely claim elsewhere that they are feminists or at least care about womens' issues: it's hypocritical. 

That pic is the reason I'm only browsing the forum at work on mobile mode so sigs aren't visible now. Most pics in dogs on-related to the forum or politics don't require me to do that to hide them.

If the pic is no different from what people wear on the beach, why is it on a porn site? Perhaps there's more to how suggestive a pic is than simply the amount of skin exposed? There's thousands of artistic style fully nude pics less suggestive than that one.

"Because curvy women make you uncomfortable?" Oh wow, F[INKS] YOU. You clearly know nothing about my taste in women and frankly that's not only an absurd strawman but insulting.

Also what Statilius said.

I think the forum knows plenty about your taste in women, well, at least their feet.

If you think that the photo is at all suggestive, then I feel sorry for how little of a sex life you have to end up with inappropriate thoughts over a woman who is adequately covered up. This may have appeared on a porn site, and the woman may be a porn star, but the photo itself is not pornographic. It isn't that hard of a concept to understand.  

As Texarkana already explained, they spoke with mods and as long and the porn site was removed, there was nothing wrong with the photo.

Uh, see avatar. I haven't gotten around to changing it back though I'm back in Minnesota now. But I visted my girlfriend there over the weekend, so I'm hardly deprived.

My personal thoughts on the photo are irrelevant, I just don't want it plastered on my work camp's monitor, an issue many others have brought up, and Virginia nicely summarized:

@Tex it would nice tho if you could remove that pic from your signature, at least for the sake of everyone else. A lot of people browse from work or school or other more formal settings, and even something like that might be something people do not wish others to see out of fear it might be taken the wrong way. There is a reason such pics rarely appear in sigs here.

If you must put a woman of sorts, at least use a pic that doesn't stink of porno

Now if you seriously think Virginia is a prude, a slut shamer or uncomfortable with erotic photos, well um...I'm totally at a loss.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Neither did this sig but I still changed it after multiple complaints.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In addition to being creepy as hell, he's also an insufferable spammer. He's posted almost 700 times in November so far.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well these results show that this forum has a bit more clarity in regards to him than they do in regards to "nice guy FF " jfern at least.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Voted HP. Certainly he doesn't act like a grown-up, more like an immature 14 year old. The signature is foolish and bizarre, especially for a political forum.

You're obviously just offended by curvy black women.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Voted HP. Certainly he doesn't act like a grown-up, more like an immature 14 year old. The signature is foolish and bizarre, especially for a political forum.

You're obviously just offended by curvy black women.

Like many other commentators? I think it's just not grown-up, especially in a political forum.

Sarcasm. Some people have literally accused his detractors of not liking his sig or him for that exact reason.