The only IQs that slip are the ones that use invalidation to make a point. You can make your point without name calling. And check the threads. There have been scores of posts complaining about "girls in brass bikinis in temples" or women with large endowments. A thread not 2 days back was locked cause someone didn't post a nudity flag showing off a female character who was not exposing genetilia but was nude. Lots of petty complaints and special hurt feelings to go around. Also, about objectifaction of women, I have seen lots of "stud" pics posted to the galleries as well. Pics of leather derby wearing muscle guys with huge sexual organs and long 70s mustaches or semi nude and nude muscle guys out in the woods enjoying each other's company. So I'm curious if that is also objectification? Or is that definition a one way street and when peoples of alternate sexual persasions take an interest in someone sexually that's not objectification? Again, a sexy woman on the cover of Playboy is objectification. A sexy woman on the cover of Cosmo is harmless even if both women are dressed the same. Perhaps I and others SHOULD complain about how those big muscle guys are presented as nothing more than sex objects for certain peoples' sexual gratification and how those men are being exploited. Or is it only women that can be exploited? But you're right. Nobody complains about that now do they? Don't homosexual men also deserve protection from sexual exploitation and objectification? Or can the guys on the cover of Men's magazine be oggled at since men can't be exploited. But I do agree with one of your points. There are far worse things posted in the gallery than two average guys and a kid being a family.