Opinion of texarkana

[America Needs R'hllor]

Needs to change signature ASAP.

This, definitely.

THIS. It's seriously so annoying- I'm probably going to start an ignore policy on whoever has a signature of objectifying nature.

You won't like Grumpy Santa's helpers next week so you might want to iggie me now.

Sorry, but I probably will, at least for a few weeks. I don't want to disable signatures because of one or two people.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Needs to change signature ASAP.

This, definitely.

THIS. It's seriously so annoying- I'm probably going to start an ignore policy on whoever has a signature of objectifying nature.

You won't like Grumpy Santa's helpers next week so you might want to iggie me now.

Sorry, but I probably will, at least for a few weeks. I don't want to disable signatures because of one or two people.

It's quite benign and I've been using it for many years. 

[Virginiá]

One of the well known rules about these threads is the subject of them doesn't engage those who post their opinions.  A couple of comments at the end, maybe, but not this constant back and forth.

This alone makes him iggy worthy and a horrible Atlasian.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if he would have known that. It's not like there are rules posted at the top of the page. Even more, these Opinion Of [user] threads seem like something a little unique to Atlas, so it's not something someone might be familiar with from other forums.

@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

[fhtagn]

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.

[Devout Centrist]

Are we f**king serious right now, you idiots, holy sh*t, etc.

The problem with his sig is it’s creepy as hell, especially after his “Well developed women ” comment

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

One of the well known rules about these threads is the subject of them doesn't engage those who post their opinions.  A couple of comments at the end, maybe, but not this constant back and forth.

This alone makes him iggy worthy and a horrible Atlasian.

To be fair, I'm not even sure if he would have known that. It's not like there are rules posted at the top of the page. Even more, these Opinion Of [user] threads seem like something a little unique to Atlas, so it's not something someone might be familiar with from other forums.

@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

I won't change the pic unless a mod tells me I have to (You didn't say that, and TexasGurl told me it was fine), but as I said, I will try to find a classier photo of the woman.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

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.

This is exactly my point. You see more sexually explicit content than this on prime-time TV.

[wxtransit]

@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.

Please.

[The Govanah Jake]

Besides on the obvious child porn issue, I don't see anything with what he says on a entirely personal level necessarily bad. Obviously I can see the issue with his poster but if it's find by the rules then on a personal note I don't see anything wrong with putting such a image up. It's not extreme and don't really care if it's up or not up. Though I would suggest to tone it one pictures like these because this is a public forum and where hear to discuss politics and general topics right? On the issue of the picture itself or porn itself, "subjectifying women" it obviously is but that is what the porn stars are paid to do. It's there job to be subjectifyied by there clients if they want to stay viable. Overall mixed though I leaned toward a FF.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[fhtagn]

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 suggest learning to read:

I won't change the pic unless a mod tells me I have to (You didn't say that, and TexasGurl told me it was fine), but as I said, I will try to find a classier photo of the woman.

Now if you seriously think TexasGurl would be okay with inappropriate erotic photos on the forum, well um...I'm totally at a loss.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You animals. Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be worthy of being discouraged. We live in a society!

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

If ever a thread needed locked.....ahem. 

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

You animals. Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be worthy of being discouraged. We live in a society!

But not only is it not illegal (duh), it also doesn't break any forum rules.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

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

The two aren't comparable at all, I would never put something like that in my signature.

[Türkisblau]

Make Atlas a Gay Safe Space Again

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Make Atlas a Gay Safe Space Again

Ha ha, you're like the gay version of me (if you're actually gay).

[Türkisblau]

Make Atlas a Gay Safe Space Again

Ha ha, you're like the gay version of me (if you're actually gay).

Yes, very gay. Thanks for your bravery in publicizing the fact that suggestive, yet not pornographic images are allowed in our signatures. FF.

[IceAgeComing]

Make Atlas a Gay Safe Space Again

that man is very clever; hiding the pec that doesn't look as good in order to take the picture

why did i notice that

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Make Atlas a Gay Safe Space Again

Ha ha, you're like the gay version of me (if you're actually gay).

Yes, very gay. Thanks for your bravery in publicizing the fact that suggestive, yet not pornographic images are allowed in our signatures. FF.

Same to you, you massive FF.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You animals. Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be worthy of being discouraged. We live in a society!

But not only is it not illegal (duh), it also doesn't break any forum rules.

That. Is. My. Point.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

You animals. Something doesn’t have to be illegal to be worthy of being discouraged. We live in a society!

But not only is it not illegal (duh), it also doesn't break any forum rules.

That. Is. My. Point.

Do you think my new signature is at least slightly better? I think the pictures are a bit less suggestive than the last one.

[The Dowager Mod]

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 suggest learning to read:

I won't change the pic unless a mod tells me I have to (You didn't say that, and TexasGurl told me it was fine), but as I said, I will try to find a classier photo of the woman.

Now if you seriously think TexasGurl would be okay with inappropriate erotic photos on the forum, well um...I'm totally at a loss.

I was just the messenger btw, Other mods weighed in.

[IceAgeComing]

It wouldn't be illegal or against the forum rules for me to put a big picture of a poo in my signature, but its not something that I've ever do: just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.