Proprietrix
Posts: 756
Joined: 7/15/2005 From: Ohio/West Virginia Status: offline
|
Ok, since Mod 11 opened this door, I'm going to ask some valid (I hope) questions to try to get some direct answers. These are questions I've been wanting to ask for a while now, but never really felt there would be any benefit in putting on the table. Please mods, don't take this as me trying to be argumentative. I really am looking for answers here. The forum guidelines here on collarme say: "Topics which are unacceptable regardless of circumstance include, but are not limited to - minors, bestiality, incest, necrophilia, snuff and criminal activities." I'm very curious on several levels. Why is it stated "minors" instead of "pedophilia"? I've noticed that this particular wording makes it sometimes difficult to have valid, intellectual discussions about parenting, discovering at what point one realized they were lifestyle oriented, and sometimes even age-play and TNG groups. For the most part, I think the mods do a wonderful job differentiating valid discussion and quickly kicking "that which is inappropriate" to the curb. And don't get me wrong. I'm not on a pro-pedo kick here at all! But I have occasionally seen someone open a thread about parenting and because the title had one particular word in it, the thread suddenly vanishes. Is it really necessary for us to have to "code-word" by saying we're the mother of an "unmentionable"? I just never really thought of referring to my son the same way my grandmother referred to her underwear. Should we be code-wording like that at all? And I get confused on locations too. Technically, a "minor" in the USA is probably someone under 18. However, I’ve seen it said many times that in certain places (was it Canada?) that 14 is legal age. I’ve seen threads locked/pulled due to discussions of 17 year olds, even when those 17 year olds lived in vicinities that legally defined them as adults. And why are beastiality, incest, necrophilia, and snuff listed separately? Are they not, in most jurisdictions, already inside the realm of criminal activity anyway? Why were those particular crimes singled out? And when it says "criminal activity"... doesn't that cover a large amount of activities we discuss regularly without ever blinking, and with zero moderation? Isn't flogging, punching, smacking, paddling someone considered assault or battery in most places, consensual or not? Same with sodomy in some places? These "criminal activities" are ones we are allowed to discuss all the time. If I say "I have a teenage son." have I violated TOS by mentioning a minor? Is that statement an equal violation of TOS as bringing up pedophilia? If I change the words to "I have an underage unmentionable." aren’t I still mentioning a minor, just using different words? If I say "I enjoy cutting my submissive with a knife." technically, in my jurisdiction, I’ve just confessed to enjoying committing a 1st degree felony: assault with a deadly weapon, in which consent is not a defense. 25 years in prison for that one. However, if I say I enjoy necrophilia, technically, in my jurisdiction, I’m confessing to enjoying committing a 4th degree misdemeanor. 6 months probation for that one. The second is much less a "criminal activity" than the first. Yet here on CM, where the rule is "No mentioning criminal activity." I can get away with the first on a daily basis and there’s a pretty good chance the second would get moderated. How exactly is it that the moderators decide which things are too "bad" to talk about and which ones are ok to discuss at length and often, even though both topics obviously violate TOS? Does it boil down to what a particular mod thinks is morally ok? I'm not being sarcastic or trying to change the guidelines. I guess I’m more trying to understand them.
_____________________________
IMO, IMHO, YMMV, AFAIK, to me, I see it as, from my perspective, it's been my experience, I only speak for myself, (and all other disclaimers here).
|