DE, I know you're Spanish. ;-)

I don't have issues with "no child nudity" when it's sensible. Prohibiting boys on the beach and babies in diapers was just plain overkill, however. If someone is going to get some perverted thrill from the ugly Millenium Baby as a cupid, well, there's nothing to be done about it. Some people get sexually aroused by pictures of shoes, too, but we don't ban those. ;-)

I DO think that the American extreme sensitivity to nudity is bizarre, and I've thought it for a long time (since long before I left the United States; must have been that the years I lived in Europe as a kid corrupted my mind, hehe). That, however, has nothing to do with my objection to the too-strenously worded ToS revision.

If they actually do change it so that it permits the 100% totally innocent depictions of babies in diapers with bare chests and little boys playing in swimming holes or at the beach, I'm okay with it. I don't care if they allow nude children or not, to be perfectly honest. Policing such a thing is a big headache, and they do have better things to do with their time.

Everyone who thought I was some sort of "Naked Children Free for All" person can now pick up their jaws from the floor. I don't post pictures of nude children (well, other than the scandalous topless baby who has since been removed), and I do believe in following the ToS. I just also believe that a ToS should be reasonable, and banning babies in diapers isn't reasonable (banning nude children is a reasonable thing, though, IMHO, although it does bar many perfectly innocent images; it's the balance they've had to strike and I can live with it).

bonni

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 00:20

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis