[ SECRET POST #3053 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3053 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[The Kid (Charlie Chaplin)/Starsky & Hutch ("Gillian")]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Network]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Sci-Fi/Fantasy]


__________________________________________________



05.
[In Plain Sight]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Captain America: Civil War]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Samurai Warriors]


__________________________________________________



08. https://i.imgur.com/Tr3NZUD.jpg
[NSFW image (shirtless 16 year old? girl), discussion of underage sexuality]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Joss Whedon]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 011 secrets from Secret Submission Post #436.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

Boobs should not be considered NSFW. The are publicly appropriate. Women breastfeed, after all.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with you on principle, but they are, in fact, NSFW in the most literal sense of the word

(frozen comment)

[case]

Depends on the boobs. Same deal with dicks. e.g. David the statue is fine. A random boner pic from Grindr is not!

In this instance, the boobs aren't too bad, but the character is supposed to be 16, so it's gonna be linked.

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

Boobs and dicks aren't comparable. It's never legal to have your dick out in public, afaik. Breasts are legal to show in public. Would you ever put a photo of a man's bare chest behind a cut, simply because of his chest? No, so why put a woman's chest behind a cut?

(frozen comment)

[case]

The point is the character (and possibly actress) is 16.

(And exposed breasts are not actually legal in all places.)

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

But you don't put every character/acress who's under 16 behind a cut. You wouldn't put a character/actress under a cut for showing her bare arms. Likewise, it shouldn't be cut for showing bare breasts.

(frozen comment)

[case]

Not every character/actress under 16 is being directly sexualized by the context. In this movie, in this scene, in this secret, there is sexualization going on (OP even wanted the underage sexuality thing mentioned). Context matters!

If it were a picture of breastfeeding, it probably wouldn't be linked.

Like I said: it depends!

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

It's legal to have your dick out in LOTS of places. "Indecent exposure" is not actually illegal in many, many, many jurisdictions. Here in Portland we host the World Naked Bike Ride every year, for example.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

Meh, that doesn't mean it's legal in Portland, just that police turn a blind eye for a particular event.

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

I stand corrected. The point is, breasts are being unnecessarily sexualized. A man's chest wouldn't be behind a cut, so there's no reason for a woman's to be.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

unfortunately, we live in an unenlightened world, and breasts are in fact nsfw

(frozen comment)

[herpymcderp]

Depending on where you live, exposure of the female torso might be legal (guess what, it's not legal everywhere in the world and this is the internet), but regardless of legalities you're going to get in some serious trouble if you're looking at boobs at work.

That is why it is NSFW and linked.

Don't be that guy, blitz.

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

The guy who wants equal rights for men and women? Everyone should be able to go topless!

you're going to get in some serious trouble if you're looking at boobs at work.

Well I wouldn't. They know they'd get an endless harangue about how sexualizing women's chests is wrong.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with you. In our national television, boobs are more like a PG-13 thing...

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

The boobs were attached to a secret discussion underage people, I'd say Case is being safe rather than sorry.

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

Underage male chests aren't cut for NSFW, so underage female chests shouldn't be either. It's Case's call, so I'm not going to argue with him about it, but I still don't agree with it.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

So...you want us all to get in trouble for seeing a topless underage girl? Wtf. You realize it is illegal for us as adults to look at that right?

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

You realize it is illegal for us as adults to look at that right?

Obviously it's not or they never would have played it in theaters.

(frozen comment) NAYRT

[(Anonymous)]

That's not what NSFW means.

It doesn't mean "this should morally be hidden."

It doesn't mean "it is right that people think this should be hidden."

It literally means "Not Safe For Work."

As in, this is a thing you can get in trouble at work for in a lot of workplaces if you click on it/look at it while on your work's internet.

As in, the mod is considerate enough to look out for people's jobs and helpfully put a cut and an extra "NFSW" label there, even though there is a NSFW label at the top of the page, so that people who insist on visiting this site at work don't get into trouble for looking at it at work.

In fact. At the present moment. On May 15th 2015. A time that, factually, takes place prior to any future utopia of boob-freedom.

The word or concept of "should" does not enter this conversation in any way, shape, or form.

That is literally the full extent of Not Safe For Work.

Really, you'd encounter a LOT less resistance to this line of thinking if you posted a thread in the GC section in support of the end of breast-covering, instead of trying to tell a mod NOT to protect us users from, you know, getting fired.

(frozen comment) Re: NAYRT

[blitzwing]

instead of trying to tell a mod NOT to protect us users from

I haven't told a mod what to do. I brought up my concerns and shared my opinion on the matter, which, afaik, I'm welcome to do.

As in, this is a thing you can get in trouble at work for in a lot of workplaces if you click on it/look at it while on your work's internet.

If you want to get technical, no, for most people, you can't. Most workplaces specify something like no "obscene" or "pornographic" material. Image in question is of a nude woman standing at a window. It's not in itself sexual, obscene, or pornographic. Most of the cases of people being fired were for them downloading things from PornHub. Not for looking at an artistic nude on DA.

(frozen comment)

[caerbannog]

I check FS on my breaks I can assure you both man and female breasts are not something id want on my screen! Especially underage!

I do agree breasts are over sexualised but I also like not getting frowned at at work. Or fired. Probably just warned really but it wouldn't look good.

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

I check FS on my breaks I can assure you both man and female breasts are not something id want on my screen! Especially underage!

The issue is bare man chest gets shown on FS. I seem to recall bare Teen Wolf man chests too, and I think (fandom osmosis) that most of the characters on that are underage? It's a double standard.

(frozen comment)

[(Anonymous)]

It's a double standard that society perpetuates. It's not a double standard that Case created, or that I created, or that Caerbannog created. Caerbannog's bosses, and my bosses, don't care about bare man chest and they do care about bare women chest. That's unfair, yes, but I don't particularly care to be forced to make a stand for your principles when it might get me disciplined at work.

(frozen comment)

[blitzwing]

So you don't care to take a stand for the equal rights of women? Well that is your choice.

(frozen comment)

[caerbannog]

Oh it's totally a double standard and I don't mind it being fought, but id rather FS not be the place to fight for it until it becomes more acceptable in the work place.

Topless man? Probably a frowny face unless I scroll fast enough. Topless woman? Oooh boy. Probably a sexual harassment class actually.

Tldr currently not approved in the workplace and while in the workplace I try to abide by workplace rules cause I like being employed and getting along with ppl.


Eta. And just in general id prefer secrets of sexualised children of either she under cut so I don't see it. Even if you need movie context to know it's such. Also It's kinda illegal here. Even cartoon children. So if it's under a link in good to go and can ignore it but if it's not linked? Eh risky and I have some moral objections.

However if FS decides to have a NSFW not linked Saturday I won't mind.