Opinion of texarkana

[fhtagn]

putting a. .. sleazy photo in your sig?

OMG. #SlutShaming

Here's to hoping she doesn't call herself a feminist.

[fhtagn]

Needs to change signature ASAP.

This, definitely.

I was told by a mod that it's fine, after I cropped it to remove the name of the porn site.

Im always fine with tits.

#FreeTheTits
#Feminism

[fhtagn]

putting a. .. sleazy photo in your sig?

OMG. #SlutShaming

Here's to hoping she doesn't call herself a feminist.

To me, feminism means that a woman is free to do whatever she wants. So I don't see why a porn star can't also be a feminist.

I was talking about omegascarlet saying the photo was sleazy

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[fhtagn]

The signature area on a political forum is not where you are supposed to put pictures that give you erections.

This is true, but again, they're not pornographic and they're not against any rules. and I have them in my signature to go along with this persona, which I'll likely change within a month at the most.

I feel like you're digging a hole for yourself here, and you're being kinda stubborn about it. The blowback from your comment in the unpopular opinions thread was certainly going to be swift, but then you started this porn signature thing right after as an obvious response to it and it's kind of strange. I don't get why you don't just drop all of this. It's like you are trying to get people here to either hate you or think you are really weird.

But whatever, you do what you need to do.

Per fhtagn's advice, I changed it to a classier picture. Which he made for me.

*she


And to be fair, I still think most folks are making a bigger deal out of it than it really is.

[fhtagn]

The guy is so edgy he’s defended child porn and Daesh beheading videos. I think that about sums it up

I defended neither. I merely defended what I perceive as your right to view such content, as despicable as it is.

how are Daesh beheading videos any different than what you'd see on gore sites? a lot of which is perfectly legal?

(not saying either is okay, nor is it even remotely something I'm interested in, just asking a general question).