“Cheeky” not-really-nude calendars for charity seem to practically be a British institution these days. There appear to be a plethora of college groups, senior groups, etc. that have done similar things. The US is wildly puritanical compared to England.
3 Likes
Sure sure… just funny how the pearls continue to be clutched and the criticism continues to be hurled, even while the news feeds continue to flow and the faces continue to be tagged.
Now that there is a picture that’s just asking to be photo bubbled
1 Like
Added fun: The photo doesn’t seem to actually violate their standards at all.
3 Likes
sigh
Can we all just agree to stop using Facebook now?
9 Likes
so it is like a Where’s Waldo Calendar
1 Like
I believe this removal has been reversed and the profile has been reinstated
Were you operating under the impression that a for-profit corporation was subject to the same non-criticism rules as, for example Kim Jong Un? Facebook is entitled to delete whatever it wants – just as we are entitled to complain about it.
1 Like
…without explanation.
1 Like
I believe the explanation is “our dickishness has been exposed and is hurting our brand, therefore we’ll reverse it without explanation. If we get asked about it, we’ll throw some underling under the proverbial bus.”.
5 Likes
Oh I know, and I was so self conscious when I was 20 years old and my nipples were always trying to poke a hole right through my shirt even when it wasn’t cold - oh wait, that never happened because I’m a guy.
3 Likes
I’d have been grateful for that when I was a teenager- mine were inverted. But hey, I’m a guy too, so it clearly never bothered me either.
A few years back my mother (who was in her 80’s at the time) posed for a swimsuit calendar as part of a fundraiser her water aerobics group was doing to help fund the community pool, which had fallen on hard economic times.
Fortunately it wasn’t too cheeky…
1 Like
1 Like
I understand (but don’t condone) what facebook is doing here. I don’t think their objection is puritanical, they simply don’t want to become a porn site. If they didn’t vigorously enforce rules about sexually explicit content they would become a porn site within days. I don’t know how many sex-selling accounts they close down but I would imagine it’s a large number per hour rather than a large number per month.
The whole this is still crazy sexist and heterosexist. If the female picture risks becoming a porn sight for straight men, why doesn’t the male picture risk becoming a porn site for straight women or gay men. Straight women don’t like porn and gay men don’t exist would be the only reasons I could come up with. Or, alternatively, any sane person can see that the male image isn’t really on the slippery slope to porn - but then you’d have to admit that the female image also isn’t. I just wanted to add my two cents that I think their underlying motivation is to avoid being flooded with pornography even if they go about that in an asinine and unthinking way.
If your penis is named Waldo.
I’m near positive an Etsy store for hand knitted clothing just opened.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
