Forums / Discussion / General

Riff-Raff would be that way.

Pooch, my buddy ol' pal

you sure you didn't mean to put this in Riff-Raff?

Poochyena just wants to see tits, move along.

"NC (not cool) content

Images, Videos, Forum Posts and Comments that should be removed from the site:

Almost any form of pornography or nudity, photographed or illustrated, even if it is cropped or censored, in a sexual or porny nature."

Tits are considered partial nudity. They are most often viewed sexually. This most often does not apply to men's nipples or breasts (moobs). KYM is subject to US federal law. KYM is not an 18+ site.

>Its not against advertiser's rules

Advertisers can and have already flagged whole entries on KYM for less than tits.

Its not against advertiser's rules.

you got a source for that?

I have a petition too

Actually yes they are. What now?

source?

"In the United States, however, exposure of female nipples is a criminal offense in many states and not usually allowed in public (see indecent exposure)". Guess what is hella public?

Wikipedia on Nudity, cannot link because it shows nudity which Poochyena wants.

What does that have to do with the internet? Thats not internet rules.

KYM obeys federal law.

thats not federal law. Its a state by state and even city by city thing.
Some cities ban the sale of alcohol, but websites still sell it, for example. A few states or cities banning something doesn't make it illegal for a website to do it. As long as that site isn't based in that city/state.

We don't sell tits tho

Look poochy, for once I completely agree with you
but yes, it is against advertiser rules
this is something that needs to be changed on a cultural level

you know he actually did get suspended for two days not too long ago

@JC1985
As long as its not sexual, its not against advertiser rules

I'm gonna try and teach you again. Female toplessness is inherently sexual to advertisers. It is. It is. Advertisers have flagged entries on KYM for less. They have flagged entries on KYM for less. Less than tits. Tits will flag entries. Advertisers do not want tits, because they are almost always used sexually. All it takes is them being there. Just having tits being there will flag entries. Entries are at the mercy of advertisers. There is no way around this except not having tits.

Disagreeing is having internalized misandry /s

>Female toplessness is inherently sexual to advertisers.

What are you basing this off of? You say "Advertisers have flagged entries on KYM for less." but that doesn't mean anything unless they were flagged specifically for an image of a non-sexual topless woman.

>What are you basing this off of?

Off of them being flagged

>You say "Advertisers have flagged entries on KYM for less." but that doesn't mean anything unless they were flagged specifically for an image of a non-sexual topless woman

It means exactly that.

boi

and yes, as Freak explained, the US considers female nipples nudity, whether you like it or not.

Doesn't really change anything though, its still not against adsense rules. There are an endless amount of advertisers. A few not wanting to advertise isn't going to hurt anyone.

Now that I know you are not listening to me and just want to view tits, KYM be damned, would you find something else to occupy your time, such as going to a porn site to satisfy your tit craving?

@Some Buddy
A topless woman is not "porn, adult or mature content" any more than a topless man is.
And if you respond with "but they consider it to be", then show me where they say that.

>and yes, as Freak explained, the US considers female nipples nudity, whether you like it or not.

The US does not have a unified definition of nudity/public exposure.

I am listening, I just don't believe you. Give me evidence of your claims.

>A topless woman is not "porn, adult or mature content" any more than a topless man is.

Give me evidence of your claims.

>The US does not have a unified definition of nudity/public exposure.

Give me evidence of your claims.

>I am listening, I just don't believe you. Give me evidence of your claims.

Any entry that you attempt to upload an image to, but automatically checkmarks the "NSFW" filter before you upload it, is evidence that the entry was flagged.

>Give me evidence of your claims.

It fits none of the definitions of those words
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/porn

>Give me evidence of your claims.

The federal laws against topless women:

>Any entry that you attempt to upload an image to, but automatically checkmarks the "NSFW" filter before you upload it, is evidence that the entry was flagged.

so there are currently entries that are flagged, so, in other words, having flagged entries aren't a serious enough problem that they are removed. So whats the issue with topless women?

Nice job using a dictionary website for an ethical issue not the definition of the word itself.

Nice job just saying "federal laws" instead of providing the federal laws.

>so there are currently entries that are flagged, so, in other words, having flagged entries aren't a serious enough problem that they are removed. So whats the issue with topless women?

Because, once again, advertisers. You're going in circles with this.

You do realize that there are plenty of sites that will gladly provide you with exposed nipples?

It is unequal, but then again women usually do not get aroused by a sight of a male nipple as far as I know. It is a weird behavioral thing that happened to humanity over couple hundred years and unless you got an idea on how to reverse this, you don't really bring anything new to the table.

Frankly amount of lewd pictures on this site is staggering anyway considering that this is allegedly a meme wikipedia. If it was up to me I would just ban any lewd pictures not relating directly to the entries ie. sexy fanart. But hey, you don't see me complaining about that.

>Nice job using a dictionary website for an ethical issue not the definition of the word itself.

??

>Nice job just saying "federal laws" instead of providing the federal laws.

There are no federal laws regarding it

>Because, once again, advertisers.

you say they flag the entry. Ok, then what happens? How does that stop content from being uploaded? You just said there are already flagged entries on the site, so whats the big deal about one more flagged entry? Also, advertisers aren't one big group. I've paid for advertisements on websites, so i'm included under the umbrella term "advertisers".

Nice job still not posting the stance on federal laws regarding nudity.

>you say they flag the entry. Ok, then what happens? How does that stop content from being uploaded? You just said there are already flagged entries on the site, so whats the big deal about one more flagged entry? Also, advertisers aren't one big group. I've paid for advertisements on websites, so i'm included under the umbrella term "advertisers".

Do you not understand what happens to a website without ads? Do you want KYM to die?

What else is escaping you?

@Ozzzim
>but then again women usually do not get aroused by a sight of a male nipple as far as I know.

Just google "romance novel cover" and you'll see hundreds of bare chested men. Or watch the Twilight saga or magic mike or whatever other movie is targeted towards women. Men's chests are just as sexualized as women's.

>Frankly amount of lewd pictures

topless male or female picture =/= lewd.

>Men's chests are just as sexualized as women's.
>topless male or female picture =/= lewd.

Sorry, you drove yourself into a corner. You're flat wrong, end of story.

>Do you not understand what happens to a website without ads? Do you want KYM to die?

I'm telling you I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe that the site would die if topless women pictures were allowed. Topless women aren't universally hated by advertisers, especially if its not sexual.

ok, yea, sure, literally anything can be lewd to someone. There are people with knee fetishes out there.
Welp, guess women should just dress in a burka, otherwise its lewd. very progressive.

> hundreds of bare chested men.

I would say its more about exposed body not the nipple in general. Counterpart of that would be for example Playboy covers. No nipples, just body. Both sexes can get turned on by that.

Also this

Since this is going to keep going I thought I’d post this
despite the fact that I don’t agree with Cascadia either
he summed this whole thing up very well
“Playing dumb is literally your entire arguing method, feigning ignorance to current events and pepper people with questions and when you get an answer ignore it and just throw more questions at the person. Every argument with you is just a loop of you playing dumb and asking questions.”

@Ozzzim
>I would say its more about exposed body not the nipple in general.

Well yea, same for both sexes.

@JC1985

How am I playing dumb? I'm not "pretending" to think bare chested women are more or less sexual than bare chested men, I actually think that. No one has given me reason to think otherwise.

This thread is an excellent example of Circular Logic a.k.a grade school level rhetoric.

This is the first thing you're taught to stop doing in debate club because it's inane, weightless conversational filler that doesn't add to, or challenge the idea that is presented.

It's just used to fall back on the (speakers) original statement/point of view as a means to avoid or devalue an opposing statement because the speaker either can't, or won't, provided anything substantial to the conversation if it will devalue their own statement/point of view.

Pooch tends to heavily favor this approach to pretty much every conversation they have on this site.

how am I doing any of that? I'm responding to exactly what everyone is saying and backing it up with evidence.
Freakenstein keeps saying it can't happen because advertisers will leave, but isn't backing that statement up.

Flagged entries have no ads displayed in the galleries (aka ads have left)
Entries not flagged have ads displayed in galleries
Unsavory content (doesn't even need to be tits, as I've said, it can be less) will cause advertisers to flag entries
No ads means website does not earn money for that entry
Website is displaying entry for free
As more entries get flagged, more entries are displayed for free, draining KYM of money.
If big pages are flagged due to lack of regulation, KYM loses even more money
KYM hemorrhages revenue
KYM dies

Any questions?

How many entries feature topless women? Not many. It wouldn't be a very big change. And again, I challenge the idea that you can't find advertisers that are ok with non-sexual topless women.
If certain pages pages have trouble getting traditional ads, then look for non-traditional ads. I've personally given Furaffinity hundreds of dollars to advertise my etsy shop through their advertisement system, and i'd gladly pay kym hundreds to advertise too if they set up a similar system. I'm sure many others would gladly do the same too, as they do on other sites.

>How many entries feature topless women? Not many. It wouldn't be a very big change.

This is obviously with the hypothetical that if entries with topless women are okay, then future topless women in other entries are okay in a cascading effect with topless women in subculture galleries being okay (not a slippery slope fallacy, this is what will actually happen). Once again, deathflags for KYM.

>If certain pages pages have trouble getting traditional ads, then look for non-traditional ads. I've personally given Furaffinity hundreds of dollars to advertise my etsy shop through their advertisement system, and i'd gladly pay kym hundreds to advertise too if they set up a similar system. I'm sure many others would gladly do the same too, as they do on other sites.

skip!

>This is obviously with the hypothetical that if entries with topless women are okay, then future topless women in other entries are okay in a cascading effect with topless women in subculture galleries being okay

but… there are very few entries featuring topless men, I just can't imagine there being more entries featuring topless women than men.

>skip!
"here is a solution to your problem"
"nah"

Well, what can I say? Just kinda shows it isn't a money issue.

>but… there are very few entries featuring topless men, I just can't imagine there being more entries featuring topless women than men.

You…can't imagine a predominantly-male site having more topless women entries than men…

>skip!
"here is a solution to your problem"
"nah"

Because it's not a solution to the problem? Doy?

Alrighty, well this was fun. Poochyena, good luck with your petition to a nonissue, we will see you again on the next one.

>You…can't imagine a predominantly-male site having more topless women entries than men…

right. How many topless women memes are there? Do you think hundreds of topless women memes are going to be created because this site allows them uncensored now? lol

>Because it's not a solution to the problem?

How is it not a solution?
problem: lack of advertisers
solution: open the door for more advertisers

pooch is correct. Unbanning female nipples wouldn't mean giving free reign to users to spam the site with porn entries, and there's no good reason to censor memes like the one linked in the topic post. I would take a moderate position and say that as long as the image is demonstrably adds to documenting the meme--which would exclude softcore porn dumping--female nipples should be allowed.

Okay, first of all,

Second of all, I know this is pointless, but fuck it, I'll bite the bait even if it slashes my metaphorical cheeks open.
Third, on to your actual points.

Maybe not memes but certainly images, it'd basically full-on turn this site into a porn booru. I can assure you this, knowing some of our users. Hell even I'd probably end in on that.

As to the more advertisers, do you have any idea how NSFW page advertisers even look like or how they are? What people will even sell adds to a full on NSFW website, because all others balk at promoting themselves along with tits and fucking and don't want to stain their image? Best case scenario you get some filthy shit in the sidebars and possibly popups, which would repel a ton of people that'd immediately think this is just some porn site, including those apparently valuable clicks that come from twitter controversies. Worst case scenario this site becomes Malware Central. The ads here are already known to be bad, if that line was crossed there'd be no going back.

>it'd basically full-on turn this site into a porn booru.

If topless men haven't turned the site into a porn booru, why would topless women do so?

>Best case scenario you get some filthy shit in the sidebars and possibly popups

Or you get lots of people like me who don't view female breasts as satanic and advertise normal stuff. Plenty of advertisers have no problem with bare chested women as long as its not sexual content.