Sex on the new forum

[Hermit]

Getting back on topic

There's a thread on RS called "Why are breasts bad?", they already got a "Mode note"
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/socio ... t1919.html

*** MOD NOTE ***
Some post were binned because they were in breach of the user agreement or off-topic.

Please stay on topic (see the OP), and keep in mind what the User Agreement says about Sex and Nudity.

As I said earlier elsewhere, the only difference between the RDF and the RSF is that at the RDF Mark II there is no knighthood at stake.

Shit, I didn't realise the Prinsmeister was on staff there!

Great source of science info, the old RPrins, but a prude to the core...

As an experiment I have reported this post on the grounds that in line with that forum's rules ("No discussions of personal sexual issues, desires, or problems" are allowed). The 'offending' part of it is the bit I bolded and underlined. In case it does get deleted I quoted it below:

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, so I don't know what consensus has been reached. I have often wondered the same thing, and have recently come to the conclusion that I have a fetish for boobs. I just love the things. Going by how much is on show these days, I figure that most people mustn't share this fetish. What is the consensus so far? Are guys turned on by boobs or not?

Copy of report:

"I have a fetish for boobs. I just love the things"

This post needs binning on the grounds of it contravening the FUA, namely, it contains an expression of a personal sexual desire.

[JimC]

Getting back on topic

There's a thread on RS called "Why are breasts bad?", they already got a "Mode note"
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/socio ... t1919.html

*** MOD NOTE ***
Some post were binned because they were in breach of the user agreement or off-topic.

Please stay on topic (see the OP), and keep in mind what the User Agreement says about Sex and Nudity.

As I said earlier elsewhere, the only difference between the RDF and the RSF is that at the RDF Mark II there is no knighthood at stake.

Shit, I didn't realise the Prinsmeister was on staff there!

Great source of science info, the old RPrins, but a prude to the core...

I realise that a lot of the Oct 08 schism-affected individuals did not like the post-schism RDF. There were a lot of RDF members who did like the post-schism RDF (me included). Please understand that when you say RSK is just RDF Mark II, I actually take that as a compliment.

I have mixed feelings about RP. I genuinely appreciated the magnificent array of science info he presented, but I disagreed deeply with his stance on other matters. Just as I have mixed feelings about an RDF Mark II (mind you, it was Seraph that made the original point, not me...) It could show all of the virtues of scientific exchange that was the beauty of RDF, and yet still puzzle me with a peculiar slant in dealing with sexuality. As many have pointed out, the old RDF at least had some pragmatic reasons about RD's position, and the Charity commission...

Anyway, all I am is puzzled, and with my own opinions on Prins and moderation styles, but it is certainly up to you folk at RS to decide on these issues - I rather think I'll be staying in this neck of the woods...

[starr]

Anyway, all I am is puzzled, and with my own opinions on Prins and moderation styles, but it is certainly up to you folk at RS to decide on these issues - I rather think I'll be staying in this neck of the woods...

Freedom of choice.... it's grand isn't it.

Some people much prefer Rationalia-style while others much prefer RatSkep-style. Yet others like both styles and some like neither style. Diversity is the spice of life.

[charlou]

I realise that a lot of the Oct 08 schism-affected individuals did not like the post-schism RDF. There were a lot of RDF members who did like the post-schism RDF (me included). Please understand that when you say RSK is just RDF Mark II, I actually take that as a compliment.

A compliment? Good to see you're objective.


I don't see and never have seen this particular issue in terms of history, starr, but of current policies of a forum that, in this case, calls itself rational skepticism, and how ludicrous and out of touch I think a couple of those policies are. I know your position so, though you're free to, repeating it won't be necessary.

[charlou]

Why is sex not allowed to be discussed at RatSkep, again? I didn't quite catch the reason for that.

Why are threads asking politely and wanting to discuss why sex is not allowed to be discussed, locked? Didn't catch that one either.

[starr]

I think issues with the way another forum is run or it's policies would be best addressed to the management of the other forum. Discussing them here isn't going to accomplish anything other than raise the ire of people.

[charlou]

I think issues with the way another forum is run or it's policies would be best addressed to the management of the other forum. Discussing them here isn't going to accomplish anything other than raise the ire of people.

I don't feel free to discuss them at RatSkep. I was considering registering then changed my mind after finding that discussion threads are arbitrarily locked there.

[starr]

I think issues with the way another forum is run or it's policies would be best addressed to the management of the other forum. Discussing them here isn't going to accomplish anything other than raise the ire of people.

I don't feel free to discuss them at RatSkep. I was considering registering then changed my mind after finding that discussion threads are arbitrarily locked there.

Fair enough. I'll just say I disagree with the word 'arbitrarily' in your statement but I guess you would expect me to disagree with that.

You know, there have been a couple of times here when I've really thought thread locking would be a good thing. I even requested the locking of a particular thread here once and then I found out that it was against your policies. I would have preferred that the thread be locked but I accepted that it is your house and your rules.

You are proud of Rationalia and the way your team of staff do things here. That is a good thing. This is a great forum. I like it here. I just don't see the need to criticise others on other forums who may prefer a different style.

[Mr.Samsa]

Getting back on topic

There's a thread on RS called "Why are breasts bad?", they already got a "Mode note"
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/socio ... t1919.html

*** MOD NOTE ***
Some post were binned because they were in breach of the user agreement or off-topic.

Please stay on topic (see the OP), and keep in mind what the User Agreement says about Sex and Nudity.

As I said earlier elsewhere, the only difference between the RDF and the RSF is that at the RDF Mark II there is no knighthood at stake.

Did you read the posts he binned though? Namely two pages worth of a couple of guys talking about playing with their nipples and getting aroused. Whilst I personally don't have anything against enjoying hairy vestigial milk dispensers, I fail to see how it's relevant to a sociological discussion on the cultural sexualisation of breasts..

I think that massive pointless derail is a great example of why discussions of sex aren't heartily endorsed by the people over at RS. It should also be noted that Life is highly restricted by his national laws as to what content he can host - even posting legally consenting adults in semi-erotic situations can be punished as child pornography if it's deemed that someone in the image looks underage. And there's also the fact that NSFW keywords that are caught by search bots will limit our visibility on the internet and reduce the amount of people that can find us.

So whilst in a perfect world it would be great if people could mention personal anecdotes relating to sex that were pertinent to the topic, and then continue with the relevant discussion - it never works like that. Maybe when we get around to reviewing the less important details like whether personal sex stories should be allowed or not we might be able to find a way to allow them and prevent it from derailing the actual topic - but as Starr says, it's not a major issue for now.

Can't we just play nice? Rationalia gives me my daily dose of smut mixed into a bit of intelligent discussion, and RS gives me my intelligent discussion devoid of frustrating derailments about men getting aroused by twirling the hair on their nipples.

P.S I like it when boobies jiggle.

[Hermit]

Getting back on topic

There's a thread on RS called "Why are breasts bad?", they already got a "Mode note"
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/socio ... t1919.html

*** MOD NOTE ***
Some post were binned because they were in breach of the user agreement or off-topic.

Please stay on topic (see the OP), and keep in mind what the User Agreement says about Sex and Nudity.

As I said earlier elsewhere, the only difference between the RDF and the RSF is that at the RDF Mark II there is no knighthood at stake.

Did you read the posts he binned though? Namely two pages worth of a couple of guys talking about playing with their nipples and getting aroused. Whilst I personally don't have anything against enjoying hairy vestigial milk dispensers, I fail to see how it's relevant to a sociological discussion on the cultural sexualisation of breasts..

This topic is not about derails*, Mr.Samsa. It is about the rule at the RSF pertaining to the discussion of sex, Thanks for the red herring anyway, but no, thanks.

*Here at Rationalia moderators and administrators are quite skilled at separating posts that seriously derail a discussion and placing them in a new one. I believe you are aware of that technique, seeing you have posted in one (Kuhn) yourself. There is no need for binning.

[charlou]

I just don't see the need to criticise others on other forums who may prefer a different style.

Me, I'm criticising policies not people. I'd call the policies prudish, out of touch and arbitrary, but the people who implement them have their reasons. I just happen to disagree with the reasons and want to say so and hope to persuade reconsideration, even change.

[charlou]

P.S I like it when boobies jiggle.

[starr]

I just don't see the need to criticise others on other forums who may prefer a different style.

Me, I'm criticising policies not people. I'd call the policies prudish, out of touch and arbitrary, but the people who implement them have their reasons. I just happen to disagree with the reasons and want to say so and hope to persuade reconsideration, even change.

Fair enough.

[CJ]

I enjoyed the domestic, can we have a thread called "Gawd and Sci, the bickering years!" I'm sure it would provide hours of shits and giggles

[Mr.Samsa]

This topic is not about derails*, Mr.Samsa. It is about the rule at the RSF pertaining to the discussion of sex, Thanks for the red herring anyway, but no, thanks.

Yeah, I understand what the thread is about but I was pointing out that I thought the example you raised was a little unfair to Richard. The posts in that thread were removed because they were off-topic, and then users were reminded that discussions of personal sexual details weren't permitted. In other words, even if sexual anecdotes and preferences were allowed, those posts would still have been binned (as off-topic posts always are).

*Here at Rationalia moderators and administrators are quite skilled at separating posts that seriously derail a discussion and placing them in a new one. I believe you are aware of that technique, seeing you have posted in one (Kuhn) yourself. There is no need for binning.

And yes, whilst this is true, I imagine people will still get angry at posts being split because they think their discussions of sex are relevant and/or the General Discussion area will be full of sex discussions that don't make any sense any more after being split from the context. By this, I mean that the derails that occur through sex talk aren't usually the result of a serious discussion about the nature of sex - the majority of the time people are just making jokes or just engaging in general banter (although this obviously isn't always the case). So splitting them off is as good as binning them really.

But obviously, nothing is set in stone yet.

P.S I like it when boobies jiggle.