"Thank You Moderators"

[LovesYng]

I don't know about other people that saw the gross nipple posted on herex( but I want to THANK the Moderators for taking off that pic. I'm still grossed out from it.

 

When in doubt I whip it out :+

[VaHawk]

RE:

 

Anyone who saw it was grossed out, man! But, I don't see why the thread was deleted, especially before we got a definitive answer of what it meant, from someone in the know.

 

Lord, was it any more gross than some of the pics you see on the sex sites? You know, the ones that show some nasty spread ass cheeks shot of a dirty hole? Ugh, those are much worse than this pic was!

 

Man, we're all adults here, or so I suppose. If this is the grossest thing you have ever seen, then count yourself lucky. I guess one of the moderators deleted it just because it personally disgusted him, but that doesn't make it right. IMO, the censorship here sometimes goes overboard.

[taylorky]

RE:

 

you are so right hawk...censorship is the weapon of cowards!

 

heres a cool site http://www.snopes.com some pretty groady and interesting stuff.

one of the worse is a guys brain being eaten by maggotts...and he is alive, full color pics of course.

[Doc]

RE:

 

I thought maybe the pic wasn't real. I have never seen anything like that before. It did look disgusting. I think the moderators made a good call.

[JamesK840]

RE:

 

I'm with you on that one, even though I'd just written a long post on why I thought it was fake (when are my posts not long...). Looked too clean, like a well done Photoshop...

 

But it is an image that I kept thinking about, really something I didn't need to see. Yeah, there are more disgusting things out there, but why see any you don't need to, especially on this board?

 

My $0.02.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Censorship

 

To me it was just bluenix's dry humor. Very gross, but provocative. I normally find udders gross anyway.

The censorship issue does have some bearing here. Why can't we decide not to look at it rather than have the choice taken away from us?

[jackhammer91406]

Instant image.

 

Lucky,

I would say the number of times I have disagreed with you could be counted on one hand and still have digets left for several of Rick Monroe's finger condoms. The problem with leaving the viewing of the pic to individual tastes is that when you select a thread that starts with a pic, you have an instant image (with DSL service) and once that image is viewed, it's too late to decide whether you want to view it.

I have to say the aftershock of viewing this image has been very strong for me. Having spent much of my life making love to women, I am not grossed out by "udders" (a really disgusting and sexist term IMHO) BUT, the pic in question was so graphic (whether tricked up by a computer or not) that for several days I have been bothered by the concept of "gross thingies" coming out of a breast. I know AXE, I need to make an appointment and have some Oedipal (sp?) counseling.

Had I moderator's status, I would have opted for deleting the pic, but posting a written link for those who wanted to see it, and then left the remainder of the thread for discussion (although this thread provides the same vehicle). After all, it wasn't like viewing a pic posted by LES, who's vacation has gone on long enough!

 

Just MHO.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Instant image.

 

The grossest picture posted here by far was the one of the guy putting a metal rod into his urethra. That didn't get censored!

Anyway, jack, I think the fact that you disagree with me is a tribute to your mental health!

[Guest jstlooknthx]

RE: Instant image.

 

It's kind of funny that censorship is just fine when it's censoring something you have negative personal feelings about. Kind of cracks me up. I imagine AOL has some negative feelings about all the escort ads they censor also. Letting your personal tastes decide for you whether or not censorship is a good idea is kind of missing the point, don't you think? I would have been happy to miss that pic of the diseased breast also, but insisting you agree with me is always a questionable practice.

 

I realize this is the crux of any censorship debate. Where do you draw the line is always the issue. It just seems I'm hearing the stance that not liking something is a clear enough reason for censorship. That idea always scares me. The whole 'glass houses' concept has always been a powerful one to me.

[jackhammer91406]

RE: Instant image.

 

I have been in some discussions about censorship before (as Woodlawn may remind us all) and I would restate that I am not advocating censorship, I simply offered my opinion which would have allowed for viewing the pic and further discussion without deleting the thread. Having said that, I will also reaffirm what I have said before, that no one dislikes the "agree with me or get lost" mentality more than I. It is pervasive in our country today as well, not just on this board. If anything I said in my previous post on this thread gave other than that impression, then I should have been more clear.

 

x(

[TotallyOz]

RE:

 

One site that a lot of guys enjoy is http://www.rotten.com I think it has some really wild stuff on it. LovesYng, give it a try!

[bigguyinpasadena]

RE:

 

The image was an image of a seedpod super imposed over a breast(male or female-not sure)I get those pods all the time at the flower mart,great for wreaths and dried arangments.

Actual photos of flesh destroyed by viral or parasitic infection are much more disgusting.

[hiJinX]

RE: Instant image.

 

>The grossest picture posted here by far was the one of the

>guy putting a metal rod into his urethra. That didn't get

>censored!

 

Well you lost me (actually you never HAD me but whatever). The "sounding" pic you refer to didnt faze me , granted I have a very high tolerance for gross but the larval infestation pic, fake or not, DID.

 

At least in the case of the sounding shot that can fall under some kind of self inflicted fetish type concept that still makes is tangentially relevant. The larval pic, I have a hard time finding an argument for relevance beyond something necropheliac (sp?) in content. And even then it was a WOMAN'S breast making it more off topic hereabouts I would think.

 

I don't have a problem with moderators steering off topic and objectionable stuff in this case.

 

And I will think twice before I open a thread again.

[bluenix]

RE:

 

>I don't know about other people that saw the gross nipple

>posted on herex( but I want to THANK the Moderators for taking

>off that pic. I'm still grossed out from it.

 

Gee, I never thought of myself as controversial. I think I like it.

 

I did mean for the pic to be a gross out, and I'm aware that the image stays with some people who'd rather it didn't, so yeah, I should have figured out some way to post a warning. That acknowledged, I'll leave it to you to guess the depth of my contrition.

 

Bigguyinpasadena got it right, btw. It's a lotus seed pod photoshopped into a female breast. Anybody who saw "larvae" was just reacting to suggestion.

 

Which brings me to my slightly larger point, one I had expected to make in due course before the thread was deleted. It's about, for lack of a better term, ‘ways of seeing.' How is it that two more or less innocent photos become horrendous when merged? And how much do other factors, like narrative, influence what we think we see?

 

I've always tended to think of seeing as a physical, more or less objective act. But lately I'm beginning to think it is far more a mental subjective process.

 

I just wanted to share.

[+ Hoover42]

RE:

 

Photoshop can be a deadly tool in the hands of an expert!

 

The photoshop expert...Hoover

[phage]

RE:

 

>Bigguyinpasadena got it right, btw. It's a lotus seed pod

>photoshopped into a female breast. Anybody who saw "larvae"

>was just reacting to suggestion.

 

That’s putting it mildly and kindly. Some of these guys with their oh-so-delicate sensibilities need to try using their heads a little more. Besides the fact that it just plain looked artificial and completely masked the actual nipple, logic would tell you that NO ONE would just allow something like to grow on their breast. Do you know anyone who wouldn’t freak out at the very first eruption? “No…I’ll just let these things grow and see what they turn out to be.” Puh-lease.

 

It amazes me that these delicate flowers would support censorship because they found the picture so disturbing. Sounds like every old lady I’ve ever heard when she describes her utter disgust at pornography.

 

The pictures of the guy who injected silicone, or whatever it was, into his dick and balls to get them grotesquely large were just fine, but this…this was over the line!

[GRoca]

RE:

 

Would you believe I just spent over a half hour searching for that grossed-out nipple pic again? In a way, I'm glad it's gone....but, I had the urge to see it again ...like a bad accident...so I can get grossed out again! I was describing the pic to a friend of mine earlier today... just the thought of it made my hair stand and gave me the chills.

[bluenix]

RE:

 

>Besides the fact that it just plain

>looked artificial and completely masked the actual nipple,

>logic would tell you that NO ONE would just allow something

>like to grow on their breast. Do you know anyone who wouldn’t

>freak out at the very first eruption? “No…I’ll just let these

>things grow and see what they turn out to be.” Puh-lease.

 

 

Meanwhile, truth is stranger than fiction.

 

"The fully-grown flies, as doctors described the parasites, have been emerging out of Chandan Goswami's genitals and flying off for more than two weeks now."

 

http://in.news.yahoo.com/030624/43/25eim.html

 

 

Then, it turns out, they aren't flies. They're beetles.

 

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_beetle_boy.htm