Pornographic photo???

Do Goths go sailing?

  • No. Seawater and sunlight are toxic!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes. It's just a phase...

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Sorry to disagree, definitely not in the least pornographic by any meaningful defintion.

Also, if you work at a place where that pic would cause offense and problems, you probably will have the same problems with looking at a boaty site. So if in any doubt, keep your head down in the Excel spreadsheet!
 
Who cares what a sexually repressed American thinks? The fools on this side of the pond claim to be religious for the most part but think that to display "gods creation" naked is a sin. IDIOTS
 
[ QUOTE ]
Guess who is the biggest producer of porn in the world? The good old God fearing USA!

[/ QUOTE ]

No wonder .. the country's led by a tosser!
 
I think the picture of the bust is unfortunate. I would get into trouble if found innocently opening this post at work.

What troubles me more is that two Olympic level sailors representing GBR think that their range of boat names are suitable. Whatever happened to the pastoral bit of coaching?
Their Mothers must be very proud of them.
 
I'm comletely unfazed by the picture, in fact she looks lovely to me, but Mr Dietz real point was the threat it might represent to an employee of a financial institution who logs on in his/her lunchbreak for a bit of boaty stuff, and unwittingly finds they have breached company policy on viewing what the corporate juggernaut consider inappropriate images.

This may well be symptomatic of a corporate environment gone mad, but I don't think any of us would really want to see an individual disciplined or even dismissed for his innoccuous actions. Even an investigation that clears you can adversly affect a career. If you have ever had the misfortune to work in such an environment you would know what i am getting at.

We should be firm on one point though. It is not Elaine who is at fault. Corporate policy makers worldwide should 'get a life' IMHO.


Tim
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would get into trouble if found innocently opening this post at work.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's sad that so many seem to have employers who are stupid enough to see it as a problem. Or maybe people just think that their employers are stupid?

The good news is that if an employer really was that stupid and gave you hassle over opening a web page like that, you could just sue their socks off and retire /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
 
It is inappropriate for all the reasons said before.

I also would say it's pornographic for the very simple reason that the young lady's face is not shown in the photo. This is demeaning to her as a person - whether she was happy to be so photographed or not. And photos that demean another person's humanity have no place on the YW group's websites or on an unsuspecting person's computer screen.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It is inappropriate

[/ QUOTE ]

No. In your opinion it is inappropriate. Nothing wrong with you expressing your opinion.
Don't tell me it should be mine.
 
Don't be such a prude Claysie. As it happens I know both of their mothers (and their fathers) and they are all extremely proud of them.

What a storm in a tea cup.
 
Exactly. I just sent that link to my boss and I am sure we will have a good laugh at it tomorrow. I would rather be sitting unemployed on my boat wondering how to afford a new coat of antifouling than working for any employer I could not send that link to!!!
 
Dictionary definitions are one thing ... what is appropriate to the story line is another.

The two yachtsmen are IMHO toeing a line that is indefensible ... it is the rule for example in Registering a boat name SSR / Part 1 ... VHF Station licence etc - that name should not be offensive or otherwise immoral etc. As represntatives of GBR - I would prefer a more senisble name - not what they tried on.

Second to use a full frontal Page 3 job to go with the story is making the story more daft than already is. The photo is not taken for any artistic reason or anatomy class etc. It is a soft porn photo - so OK it can be seen on newsstands / Sun newspaper every day etc. - still doesn't make it right ...

I'm an Employer ... a Boss ... and I would be not happy if my employees spent time oggling t**s instead of working ... I have no objection to general surfing - I do it myself .. I realise that this photo would come up on a screen by virtue of the author placing it in the text - not the viewer intentionally wanting t**s ....
But imagine an office ... boss walking around .. and he sees that .. without any knowledge of boaty blog etc.

I'm not a prude .. I'm not against having a good leer at a good pair etc. But I would want to choose when and where.

As to good 'ol USA ... they have a very strong Minority of Do-Gooders ... who impose moral standards on the rest ... most of the recent Presidents have been pro Moral Majority (strange word to use for a minority !!) and catered for their twisted views ... so no wonder someone complained. BUT it is also fair to say that the other post actually printing the objection shows that the person was not actually being too far over bthat side of the line .. he put a fair case against having such picture on such site. He also started by saying a warning should have been posted ... fair again.

Elaine - IMHO failed to put both sides in the original post - so we assumed USA gent was a prude ... in fact probably unfairly judged given later info.

That's my tuppence worth anyway !!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I would be not happy if my employees spent time oggling t**s instead of working ... I have no objection to general surfing

[/ QUOTE ]

or
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a prude .. I'm not against having a good leer at a good pair etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top