If dick pics aren't allowed in the "For Her" forum, are pussy and titty pics still OK in the "For Him" forum? Seems like a double standard here.

I agree. Seemed to me that Ben's comment that the (quote) "'for her' section is not appropriate for these kinds of posts" represented a misplaced male-centric attitude to protect the Jackinchat females from dick pics and the nasty males on the site. Seems sexist to me, and an example of a moderator making up rules as he goes along.

Ideally, they would be in the "Jackin Material" section. (Seems pretty self-explanatory, yes?)

As for restrictions in the "For Her" section, it's pretty simple. When I comes to message boards and chat rooms like ours, the typical reaction to the presence of a woman is a flood of unsolicited come-ons, which can have the opposite effect of driving them away. The restrictions are designed not to "protect" the women of the board, per se, but to at least provide an area where they can participate without those come-ons. There are plenty of other areas of the site that they can participate in with such an atmosphere if they're so inclined. You'll also notice, for example, that multiple sections have a sticky instructing to keep personals-style posts to the "Personals" section for much that same reason.

Rod, you and Ben can run the board on any ad hoc basis you want to. No one is questionoing your authority. The point I would make is that your very reasonable rationale for Ben's comment does not explain away the fact that such comments show up on the "For Him" forum and no one says a word. (Even women at times in the past have posted pussy comments in the male forum, and no one closed the thread or said a word about it.) But you and Ben seem to feel that the ladies require special treatment.

Such a double standard might have seemed entirely appropriate....even thoughtful.....a couple of decades ago. But the women I know today would be offended by it as essentially sexist in character. Modern women can deal with those "come-ons" you worry about for them as a protective male.

If there are actually any women around here for you to protect, perhaps they'd care to comment about gender neutrality and double standards. Unless the thread gets closed before they have a chance to reply. (Which happens a lot these days.)

I posted quite a bit on this website a few years ago, but have only lurked here recently. However, I’d like to comment. I agree that the decision to close the thread for being “not appropriate” was obviously sexist, and Rod’s attempt to justify Ben’s action was weakened by his own admission that it was about turning away “unsolicited come-ons” from males in the female forum. He compounded his error by suggesting that females can go to other areas of the board if they’re “so inclined.”

Are you guys really that clueless about today’s females, and the idea that men and women are to be treated equally these days? This isn't your daddy's America anymore. Rod seems to suggest that the more aggressively sexual females can go elsewhere on the board, while the male protective types want to maintain some sort of safe zone for the more demure among us. Well my two cents is that I can handle the “come-ons” just fine thank you, and would tell you that your macho male protective attitude, however well intentioned, is unwelcome and offensive.

BTW, "ad hoc" is the very point. There's not a word in the JC TOS, or in the title or description of the female forum, that indicates any special restrictions on content or participation there, compared with the general male forum. So I think this is indeed a matter of the mods making it up as they go along, to conform to their personal likes and dislikes, and an attitude toward gender issues that's at least a couple of decades out of date, IMHO.

The feedback's appreciated, Linda.

Are we "clueless about today’s females?" No. However, we're also not clueless as to the feedback received over time from the women of the site who don't/didn't want the "For Her" section to be nothing but come-ons, leaving a fine line to walk. Some have even stated, on their way out the proverbial door, that that was the reason they were leaving...they'd come here to engage in fun, sexual talk, but that crossed the line to them being treated rudely (to put it mildly) because they weren't kowtowing to the men of the site. In light of that, should we say, "OK...free for all," or continue to try to keep some degree of sub-forum-appropriate direction to it? Both answers are wrong and right at the same time.

I'd say that any uneven application of maintaining sub-forum direction is a simple matter of logistics. Plain, simple truth: the "For Him" section gets more traffic than the "For Her" section. As a result, it's easier to quickly spot a post that's strayed from its ideal "home" in the latter much more so than in the former. For better or for worse, when a board (of any subject matter) has decent traffic (like we're fortunate to have), it's impossible to check each and every thread or post, so, yes...it's sometimes going to appear that an uneven standard is being applied. That's not by design, that's an unfortunate side effect of the nature of message boards and - more specifically - the volunteer nature of this one.

With the thread in question, I think that some folks are confusing two different statements Ben made. There's one saying that the pic link doesn't work, and another saying that the post isn't appropriate for the "For Her" section. My read on that is that, as stated in a thread stickied from 2007 at http://jackinchat.com/viewthread.php?tID=3605#1

"Please do not post "Hey wanna cam/phone/cyber, here's my yahoo/MSN ID" posts in here. That's what the Personals section is for."

To me, doesn't read that Ben was saying the pic was inappropriate, just that the link to it didn't work, but at the same time, saying that the post being solely about soliciting chat was out of place in "For Her." I could be wrong in my interpretation, but that's how I read it.

Whether I'm wrong in that interpretation or not, it's good to get the proverbial pulse of the board when it comes to something like this. I'm not saying that a tighter rein on, say, the "For Him" section will necessarily be applied, nor that guidelines for the "For Her" section (or any other) will change, but you've definitely given us something to think about.

Thank you Rod for the thoughtful response to my postings. I do appreciate your attention to this. Let me be clear that I certainly noted the dual reference in Ben’s closing comment. Namely the fact that the hot linked pictures didn’t work, but then his word “also” followed by a clear comment that can only be interpreted as referring to the nature of the post itself....with his use of the terms “kinds of posts” and “not appropriate.” Your spin on this is ingenious but unconvincing. In particular, the sticky post you referenced does not at all refer to the specific “kind of post” which Ben closed. Then, your explanation for the unequal application of whatever principle is actually being applied is that....oh well....there are just too many posts in the male forum to always catch this kind of thing. This is seriously your justification for unequal treatment of men and women? Really? Then would it be too much to ask you to start moderating the two forums with the same degree of sloppiness and inattention? That would perhaps impose a rough form of gender equality, which I’m now convinced you don’t in fact personally believe in. Personal attitudes which you seem intent on imposing on the board by ad hoc means of this sort. The boys run the board, but they’ll allow the ladies to participate on male terms.

I’m sorry if this has sounded truculent, but you did ask for the “pulse of the board.” I doubt that it’s possible for you to imagine the female frustration with arrogant “protective” male attitudes of the sort that you’re apparently just fine with. So I have to give you a failing grade in understanding 21st century attitudes about gender equality, but you get a resounding “A” for ingenuity in after-the-fact rationalization. While I can appreciate that women will have differing opinions, I do wonder how accurately you think you have gauged current female attitudes based on anecdotal accounts of unspecified female comments made to you at unspecified times in the past. It would make more sense to me if you could refer to actual female postings on the subject. In any event, you’re willing to accommodate females who ask for special treatment, at the expense of the rest of us who demand equal treatment. I would suggest that this says more about you than it does about the attitudes of women, and about your willingness to moderate the matter based on your personal opinions, rather than in conformance with anything specified in the Terms of Service, or in any description or specification of the female forum.

Hey Linda, it’s great to hear from you again. It’s been a long time. Let me cut to the chase and say I agree with everything you’ve said. I can’t add anything of value to the gender issue you so brilliantly raised, but I can perhaps add a personal insight into what you referred to as the adhoc nature of the moderating on Jackinchat.

It’s ironic that this started with a thread that Ben closed, since he doesn’t close very many, and when he does, he usually references a specific Terms of Service issue. Frequently, he just issues a warning while leaving the thread open. On the other hand Rod closes a lot of threads, and it’s mostly based on his personal opinions. He seldom references a TOS issue, or explains himself at all. My own experience with this some months ago was a thread discussion Rod closed that I and many others were posting on, about a similarly “serious” topic, in which some obvious trolls were attacking the Jackinchat TOS and the moderators. At a certain point, Rod arbitrarily closed the thread with a dismissive post about “time to end the gun battle” that threw me and the others who were defending JC and the mods into the same category as the trolls. This was utterly humiliating and inexplicable, since it was a slap in the face to me and others from one of the very people we were trying to defend. It was also contrary to what had always been Ben's approach to moderating serious discussion threads of this sort. So, I took down my personal information and withdrew from regular active participation on the board, since it now appears that no good deed goes unpunished here. Another member did the same thing as I recall.

The similarity of this thread with the one I’ve just described, is the serious nature of the discussion. I once thought that a little sliver of this jackoff site could be dedicated to serious discussions, but the thread closings indicate otherwise. While Ben had always been supportive of long lively debates in the Coffee Shop in accordance with the Terms of Service, Rod clearly has no such feelings. So if a moderator can’t imagine his role in any more serious context than keeping peace among quarreling people on a jackoff site, then serious matters involving divergent opinions can never be discussed. Even more to the point is the moderation of the board based primarily on the personal opinions of a moderator. No one could possibly object to moderators applying defined Terms of Service, but males applying their personal opinions to the female forum in the adhoc way you describe is problematic. You said it best as “allow(ing) the ladies to participate on male terms.”

Thought long and hard before responding again. Many different iterations passed through my mind...melodramatic, logical, snarky, and everything in between. But, at the end of the day, Linda and Kent, you've already decided what you think anything I have to say is worth, and that you'll choose to interpret it in such a way to foster your opinion of me. Sorry for that. But, inevitably, "punching bag" is part of the job description of every mod on every board, covering every subject matter.

Hopefully, you can still enjoy your time here at JC.

I genuinely appreciate the sentiment, and would like to say that I've always felt (and said many times) that Ben and Rod do a great job of moderating a lively and active website, which by its very nature is not an easy job. My one private communication with Rod was friendly and courteous, and involved a thoughtful exchange of views.

I'm sorry when a disagreement over an issue is viewed as a personal attack. On the thread closure matter I cited, both Ben and Rod had posted their own pertinent and thoughtful messages on the thread addressing the substance of the issue. Then after having his own say on the merits, Rod closed the thread. How can that be right as a matter of simple fairness? Surely if the subject was worth comments from Staff in the first place, then it was worth a full discussion from all involved. In support of that viewpoint, I referenced some long and lively political debates in the Coffee Shop going back many years. In the course of my years of participation on the board, and more than 1300 posts to my credit, I engaged in a number of lively and heated Coffee Shop debates which Ben not only allowed to continue, but often contributed to with his own posts.

So I've had my say on the larger issue. Perhaps Linda or others will wish to comment further on the female forum matter in particular. I do think that gender issues are inherently controversial, and they deserve a maximum of free discussion, and a minimum of arbitrary male moderator restrictions. That's quite simply an opinion, and not a personal "punch" at a moderator.