So, in other words, you have capitulated to mob role. The Walter Conkrite quotation is disingenuous: this isn't just 'the way it is'. You have actively imposed these rules for squalid purposes. Well, I hope you white knights are happy. This is how it starts. I won't tell you how it ends.

You don't need to "tell me how it ends." This isn't our first rodeo. Here's how it ends: people who dislike this rule - a rule, by the way, that eliminates content that has only relatively recently arrived on these boards and the chat rooms - will leave in a huff, declaring that their loss will spell the impending doom of the site and/or chat. I'll toss another pop culture quote at it: "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again."

And if you feel that listening to the reactions of the site's users is "capitulating to mob role (sic)," then I suppose that any forum or business that genuinely considers feedback from its base also "capitulates to mob role (sic)." Network cancels a tv show because of low ratings or complaints? "Capitulates to mob role (sic)." Network renews a show with high ratings? "Capitulates to mob role (sic)." The Coca-Cola company brings back Coke Classic after the disastrous launch of New Coke? "Capitulates to mob role (sic)." I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point (and will willingly ignore or misinterpret it).

At the end of the day, the bulk of our users found the type of content that you would seem to prefer to be disturbing. And the mods agreed.

So quoting Cronkite was hardly disingenuous, it was spot on. As of now, that is the way it is. If you or one of those who enjoys such content (and is still around the site/chat) could provide a strong case as to why the majority of users on the site who don't enjoy such disturbing chat (or at least don't participate in it) should be made to feel uncomfortable (at least) or threatened (at worst) for the dubious enjoyment of a vocal minority, perhaps our stance will be reconsidered. In the meantime, pop culture quote time again: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one."

Since apparently we can all be a bunch of crybabies and say what we don't like about this site - what about the threads about "dropping your drawers" at urinals? Or even worse - "looking at urinals"? That kind of shit creeps me out, but it hasn't made me quit coming to the site. Those are just two of the things I see around here that make my skin crawl but I don't act like a bitch about it. Oh wait, was that "degrading"?

Frankly, at the end of the day, all of this falls into the categories of "So What" and "Who Cares". It's their site, and therefore, it's their rules. It's not a democracy here. There is no voting on the subject of what is allowed and what is not. If the admins/owners want to ban a certain type of discussion, then so be it. "So What" and "Who Cares". If it is SJW tactics, again - "So What" and "Who Cares". By all means, debate (professionally and with ethics) any SJWs you may see, but doing so on jack-off sites might be a bit silly. It's a jack-off site, plain and simple.

I find a lot of things on this site personally disgusting, on the boards and in the chat room, but I just simply ignore it and move on. To each his own.

[quote=Rod]You don't need to "tell me how it ends." This isn't our first rodeo. Here's how it ends: people who dislike this rule - a rule, by the way, that eliminates content that has only relatively recently arrived on these boards and the chat rooms - will leave in a huff, declaring that their loss will spell the impending doom of the site and/or chat. I'll toss another pop culture quote at it: "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." (continues ad infinitum)...

You know how to use an arcane Latin grammatical rule. You must be very proud. Or 'prood' (sic).

Still, you have yet to provide a cogent argument in favour of instituting this rather dubious rule. You say this was in response to a groundswell of complaints.Really? From whom? Aside from a few pious cranks, was there really that much opposition? If so, please supply the evidence. Indeed you actually go further: you maintain that 'the bulk' - i.e. 'the majority' - of users complained. Really? More people complained than did not? Over 50% of the people who frequent this site made this specific complaint? If this is untrue - and it almost certainly is - then the rule has been implemented on a false prospectus and should be immediately revoked.

The particular thread that has been cited as evidence contains Gifs from mainstream porn films - that is to say, depictions of sex acts committed by consenting adults for consenting adults. This was the context of the thread. Apparently, this is impermissible, yet threads involving celebrity 'fakes' or cum tributes - far more degrading, arguably, and where consent has not been obtained - are fine. So yes, this is an arbitrary and pernicious decision prompted by the pious whining of the mob.

The misogynists who blight this forum will steadfastly refuse to understand or accept how or why they are wrong. Attempting to reason with these people is always unproductive. They have their carefully rehearsed responses. At least Ryisco (aka Vlad the Impaler) adorns the various thought-terminating cliches he wheels out with a bit more detail and some occasional wordplay. His remarks are characterised by ostentation, but at least he is more interesting than most of his type.

I'm not sure who this Vladimir chap is, maybe you should see a therapist to discern the provenance of this phantom poster. Still, it is interesting that not a single person - least of all, you, Robot (i.e. Pedro) - has been able to answer my objections, preferring, instead to launch personal attacks against me.

You say we refuse to accept "why (we) are wrong." Well, maybe you should try telling us why we are wrong. You haven't because you can't. We haven't done anything wrong.

So if you can't ban guys looking for teenagers but do for "mean" talk about women? Not into degrading but this is ridiculous and completely the answer i expected from this site lol.

Jeez the people who run this site put in their own time and effort while we can use it for free. If you want a no holds barred community why not set one up and run it yourself

When have I either stated or implied that I want a 'no holds barred community'? Indeed I explicitly lay down the conditions under which a thread/topic should probably be banned. At least do me the courtesy of reading my arguments before launching ad hominem attacks against me.

You don't think I realise that people give up their free time to run this site? What I am asking for is consistency and competence, and for those who run this site to refrain from instituting arbitrary rules. Not really too much to ask, is it? Again, despite my repeated requests, no one has offered a coherent explanation as to why this rule is being put into place. From what I can gather, there are various possible reasons as to why a thread/topic may come under scrutiny and be banned, none of which apply to the current situation

1. An existing rule was broken. No rule was broken in this instance, as attested by the fact that a new rule has been hastily introduced.

2. Something illegal has taken place From what I can gather, this is not the case. Compare this to the "big boobed teen" thread currently open, which depicts girls clearly under the age of 18.

3. Something undeniably morally objectionable has been expressed No one has even come close to making this case, beyond the trite "it's wrong coz it's wrong" tautologies. That is not an argument.

4. A clear majority of people have expressed their displeasure This is the actual claim that has been made to support the introduction of this rule (the BULK - a direct quotation - of users objected to what has been called 'degrading' talk apparently). No evidence has yet been produced in support of this, and I believe it is an outright untruth. Perhaps if a SIGNIFICANT NUMBER of people objected then there would be a case. Again, however, no evidence has been presented of this. Even if a large number of people do object, so what? Many people probably complain about many things. If an issue has been raised, surely it should be openly discussed. There must be an open, official and transparent process that informs any final decision. What we have now is a kangaroo court.

I like the new rule. Good.

Again, apologies if this seems like I'm beating a dead horse, but as I am responding to this, there's a thread at the top of this forum about someone shoving a baseball bat up their ass, so I do question the validity of adding such a rule, when other such things exit... But, how far does this ban on activity go?

I get wanting to ban chat requests that are in tune with the previously posted concern email, something along the lines of. "Hey who wants to violently rape some whores who deserve it cause they're sluts" or whatever, but what about just using the term humiliate or degrade in relation to women?

So for example, "Is anyone interested in chatting about degrading my wife/lover/whatever" something that should be inherently banned just because it has the word degrade in it?

Degradation and humiliation are, for all intents and purposes, a huge part of the sadist and masochist community and as such are a completely normal part of sexual arousal for millions of people. There is nothing inherently misogynist about it. At least not in that context.

So this is where my concern comes in at. Many people who engage in such conversations, couldn't be further from being misogynist and the only reason a particular woman would be involved is because they have attraction to the opposite sex.

I guess my thought is that perhaps a scalpel should be taken to this issue and not a battle axe. Certainly there are people both male and female, who engage in degradation and humiliation of women on a variety of levels that have nothing to do with misogynistic behavior or the over the top examples that have been singled out in the complaints.

Again, more clarification, discussion and thoughts would be beneficial and appreciated.

Well said DomMyInstrument, however a lot of the chat that goes on in the room and at this site aren't about the BDSM lifestyle.

It's "Who want to see pics of my slut ex gf?" and "Let's chat about that whore, Taylor Swift."

As it's been said, these requests should be kept out of the main room. If someone is into it, then a user can make their requests via private chat.

I guess one of my contentions would be, how does one make these requests via a private chat, if they are not able to communicate to others that this is where their interest is?

Perhaps I am simply missing something. But is the suggestion to just randomly message people and then ask them if they are interested in such subject matter?

That seems like more of an opportunity to cause trouble than solve the issue. It seems to me that a big part of the appeal of this site, at least in theory, is that someone posts something which is essentially an invitation to discussion for a particular topic. That draws in similar minds, who engage in discussion about whatever it may be. The same applies to the chat, in a broader sense.

But without that initial "invitation", how is one supposed to find like minded partners for discussion? You see my quandary with this line of thought.

I'm of the thought that it's much easier for me to ignore a particular thread, post in a chat, etc, and focus in on what I'm interested in than to be bothered by people who are looking for something but have no other recourse than to randomly seek out like-minded partners for chat because something has been more broadly banned.

So let me get this straight, we should be coming to a Masterbatin/pornsite to uphold women a and show them dignity. "Hey I'm looking for someone what wants to chat about taking a girl out on a nice date buy her flowers and kiss her by at the door" should be our request.
Just because some mods on here don't like when guys degrade women,I've gotten question for calling a women a sexy bitch before does not mean it should be a rule to appease their personal reference.