"Your thread has been deleted for..... bestiality??!!"

[vervain]

Just wanted to clear this up for future reference:

Yesterday I posted a gallery of scans from a 1930s-1940s Tijuana Bible-style comic I own. A couple hours thereafter the thread was gone and I'd received a message from a mod saying simply: "Your TJ comic post has been removed due to forum rules violation. posting bestiality".

The plot of this comic is "Country girl get a job in the big city". A single panel depicts a woman pleasuring herself in a barn. There happens to be a cow poking his head into the scene too, with what I'd describe as an expression of idiotic astonishment at what he's witnessing. There's nothing in the text or picture to indicate sexual activity between person & animal in past present or future tense - it's simply to set the scene on a farm and for comic relief. That's it, no other animals save for the single ridiculous looking cow.

I guess it's not really a big deal and overall I *really* appreciate the excellent job the mods do here, but I took exception to that accusation. First off - it was my first attempt at contributing "original" material here (I've got quite a bit), took the time out of my day to make high-quality scans & then size them properly, organize them & write up a little intro, etc, only to see it immediately yanked.

Second - as someone who just started participating, the idea of a strike mark already for prohibited content is not an auspicious start. Third - I'm a big animal rights guy (and a vegetarian for christ's sake) and probably find bestiality more morally repugnant that most, I'd never post anything of the sort.

I'd post a text link to the gallery in question to back up my claim, but that'd probably get this thread erased too. My main question is - are 100% nonsexualized animals anywhere in images here considered "bestiality"? If I search thru the forum, will I discover that all other images/video clips that might have an incidental animal in them have been consistently deleted too for a "rules violation" - or was my post singled out?

Appreciate any insight, I'm just trying to figure out the expectations & dynamics here before I post anything else...

[luddite]

Any thread with "Tijuana" in the title is going to get a post of a girl and a donkey. Everyone knows that.

[rotobott]

I know you can't post even fully clothed pics of celebrities with children, but bestiality for a non sexual image of a cartoon animal seems extreme. I got a lifetime warning for posting a couple of images by mistake, so I know how worrying this can be.

[40plus]

You really need to discuss it with the mod(s) concerned - I doubt querying their decisions in the open forum is likely to increase your rep somehow.

Regards

40+

[pharoahegypt]

Agreed.... Seek out the mod who deleted your post.

But as has also been said, the rules is the rules; and although we don't all agree with them all all of the time, they make for a nicer forum overall. I too find the removal of fully clothed kids with celebs a little over the top, but happy to go with the rules just so we don't have posters pushing the boundaries and something less tasteful creeps in sooner or later....

[vervain]

Yep 40plus, I wrote the mod immediately upon getting the notice but haven't heard anything back as of yet. Didn't know where else to direct the question privately, and thought even other longer-tenured members could fill me in about how things work here.

As rotobott indicates, it might just be that the rules are really stringent in that regard. In which case it might be helpful to note that in the forum rules/FAQ.

[brk549]

Was the cow naked.

[buttsie]

Its all about the context

Your not going to have any issues posting humans with their favourite dogs
until sex is implied

Its far easier to moderate when its black & white than any grey areas



The under 18 area is another where people fall foul because they assume if their fully clothed theres nothing sexual so its OK.

Common sense says if that were OK then teenage boys should be able to walk into strip clubs and buy lap dances no questions asked.

The only time this rule seems to bend is playboy pictorial pull outs with childhood pictures
Kind of blurs the line but i'm sure theres some sort of explanation behind it that means its not a issue that could get the forum closed

[Jenny48549]

Well, from actually examining the post itself, I can see your side. However, if someone was to take a quick look at it without actually taking the time to read the text and really look at it, there could be a possibility of someone taking it the wrong way and reporting it for "banned content".

So I am pretty sure this was one of those cases where the mod decided that it was better to be safe than sorry and the post was removed along with sending the PM with a reason.

FYI, there is no reason for you to worry about any sort of strike mark against you. This was simply a remove post/send PM action and there is no record of it in your profile.

[botogames]

Originally Posted by jenny48549

Well, from actually examining the post itself, I can see your side. However, if someone was to take a quick look at it without actually taking the time to read the text and really look at it, there could be a possibility of someone taking it the wrong way and reporting it for "banned content".

So I am pretty sure this was one of those cases where the mod decided that it was better to be safe than sorry and the post was removed along with sending the PM with a reason.

FYI, there is no reason for you to worry about any sort of strike mark against you. This was simply a remove post/send PM action and there is no record of it in your profile.

Correct.

I didn't mark the member with a warning or infraction.

I felt that they didn't understand the forum rules. The content was very suggestive and was in the grey area.

So a deletion was done and a friendly PM was issued.