Acceptable photo policy

[AMM]

In some of the forums here, we've started to get some photos that I think go beyond what is relevant to "exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men."

In a word (well, two words), some of these photos amount to (intentional) indecent exposure.

I don't think that this sort of thing contributes to making skirts and kilts more acceptable to the public at large. And I think it will, in the long run, attract people who get their kicks by showing themselves in undress and/or looking at such people, and will drive out those of us who want kilts and skirts to be seen as just as normal as, say, Dockers(tm) (casual canvas trousers, but less casual than jeans, for the non-USA-ers)

I would like to suggest that we figure out a reasonable criterion for what sort of photos are acceptable, just as we have rules such as no men posting as women.

To start the ball rolling, I'd like to suggest that photos should show people clothed in a way that would be acceptable at the local public library, or if not, then (to allow for beach photos) shown in a public context where their clothing would be appropriate (or at least acceptable.)

-- AMM

[Departed Member]

In a word (well, two words), some of these photos amount to (intentional) indecent exposure.

I don't think that this sort of thing contributes to making skirts and kilts more acceptable to the public at large.

I would like to suggest that we figure out a reasonable criterion for what sort of photos are acceptable, just as we have rules such as no men posting as women.

To start the ball rolling, I'd like to suggest that photos should show people clothed in a way that would be acceptable at the local public library, or if not, then (to allow for beach photos) shown in a public context where their clothing would be appropriate (or at least acceptable.)

-- AMM

Whilst making the point that exposing one's underwear is NOT indecent exposure in law, I too, would also prefer NOT to see pictures of anyone's underwear on this forum. Potential problems with accidentally exposing such garments can, and has been, discussed quite sensibly without needing to resort to actual illustration.

As for what photos are displayed, then as long as they are 'in context', & by that I mean skirted or Kilted relevant to their surroundings, then surely this is adequate? Obviously, that excludes wearing ripped-apart shorts in what appears to be an un-occupied gym!

[hiker]

I agree.

[ChristopherJ]

I agree with what you have both said. I have had the same feelings regarding some recent photos that have been posted. To be honest, my heart sank when I saw them - and I just thought "Oh no".

Yet, in my opinion, it would be difficult to formulate an adequate forum policy about photos. To say that clothing should be such as would be acceptable in a library or something is all very well - and I agree with that - but if a poster persisted in posting "upskirt" photos or photos involving some sort of unseemly pose - then the clothing worn in those photos is irrelevant.

It's difficult, isn't it? It would be awful if there were some form of "Skirt Police" patrolling the forum - making sure everyone behaves. Yet that may be what is required. My take on this is that it is ultimately down to the forum "owner" to decide what images are suitable and what are not. I'd like to hear what Bob has to say.

[crfriend]

[...] In my opinion, it would be difficult to formulate an adequate forum policy about photos.

In my opinion, photographs here should celebrate the entire context of where the bloke in question is. If this happens to be Trafalgar Square, the local library, or even the relative peace of one's backyard (as some of mine have been), then so be it -- but, I believe the images put forward should reflect well on the entire notion of men wearing skirted garments. Pictures should, again, in my opinion, be of a quality that you'd not be ashamed to have your co-workers (or even bosses) see; they should be looks that you're proud of, not something that would make the average "man on the street" cross to the other side (or offer combat).

"Upskirt" shots are tacky -- nothing more, nothing less -- and prove precisely nothing that narrative can't convey. We've got a wonderfully evolved and rich language; let's use it. "Beefcake" shots fall into the same category. We're trying to alter history here, and that's not easy. Not only isn't it easy, it's also fraught with pitfalls that will bite us when we least expect. We don't need to make the path more tortuous.

I'm not even remotely interested in setting up "nanny filters"; they're inane at best, and pernicious at worst, and serve no point. I'd just like to see some level of taste and, dare I say it, dignity.

[Bob]

Thank you all for bringing this issue to my attention. I was also not too thrilled about the picture on the "Short Skirts & Comfort" thread. However, I was not aware of the other pictures that people have mentioned; could anyone maybe please send me URLs? Really, I don't read every post in every thread and I count on the community to build consensus on standards. I wish to hear others' opinions on these issues. Thanks to all who have posted so far, and I'll be checking for more opinions.

In the meantime, I will share some of my own. I believe this board is about FASHION --- the fashion of skirts for men in particular, and more generally things that might be worn by men with skirts. Skirts are public fashion, not bedroom fashion.

I have no wish to discuss underwear, and have not been comfortable with some recent underwear threads. Nor am I comfortable with discussions on flashing underwear. I would personally prefer that one primary goal of our FASHIONABLE outfits would be to cover our undergarments. Clearly, not everyone agrees with me; but I'd rather that discussion went on elsewhere. Incidentally, I'd also like to avoid the "what do you wear under your kilt" discussions so prevalant at manly-Kilt-only-no-freestylers-allowed message boards. It does nothing to promote skirts for men as a viable fashion alternative for ordinary guys who wish to be treated like ordinary guys on the street.

Maybe a useful guideline would be --- if you wouldn't be comfortable with your teenage daugther wearing it out and and about, then it's not appropriate to discuss at Skirt Cafe. Do you REALLY want your daughter showing her panties to the world?

As I've said before, Skirt Cafe is a family friendly web site, and that includes pictures. If you wouldn't show the picture to your son or daughter or neighbor's child --- then I think it shouldn't be on Skirt Cafe.

Anyway, it's clear we need to develop decency guidelines for photos at SkirtCafe. The ability to easily post photos is new in the last month, and so it's an issue we didn't really have to address before. I'm open to comments and suggestions as to what those guidelines should be and how we might go about seeing that they are followed.

In any case, whatever policy and guidelines we adopt, I will be the final judge of decency on a case by case basis.

[MtnBiker]

I've been meaning to post something about 'those' photos too ....

To me, that whole notion will undermine what I am attempting to do, which is to make skirt wearing a socially acceptable fashion statement.

My 2 words worth -- stop it.

[mk3]

This site being "G" rated and about fashion is good, but seeing up some guy's skirt isn't what I would look for when I come to it. If I want to do that, I'll simply go to a porn site or similar.

However, if "Bob" is watching this. Since I can't find any way to contact him rather than posting a public thread (which I prefer not to do) I don't think that discussing what type of underwear/panties/knickers you chose to wear and why, where purchased, amount paid and color is anything "bedroom chat" related. Maybe changing the title to suit a more G audience like underwear/panties/knickers chosen for X reason or something.

[knickerless]

I don't know why the photo of the man revealing his knickers was posted twice. I know it is a risk every skirt and kilt wearer runs. But it is normally something you keep quiet about rather than publish it (twice). But having said that the photo did not bother me. After all we saw no more than if the person in question was in his trunks on the beach or in the swimnming pool.
What does bother me are the pictures of the man in the ripped shorts in some deserted gym. Has he got access to some vast cellar full of equipment or does he skulk about in some 24hr gym in the dead of night?
However I do see the relevance of Knickers. Skirts and Knickers go together. Some even go further and wear suspenders, tights, slips and petticotes. They are all relevant to skirt wearing.
Over the past few years I have trawled through many a post about religion and wondered - what has this to do with skirt wearing? But the person posting it must see a relevance.
Perhaps everything should be censored, then we can all look at a blank site. I have noticed that the numer of posts seems to have dropped since the site was altered. I wonder why?

[ChristopherJ]

I believe this board is about FASHION --- the fashion of skirts for men in particular, and more generally things that might be worn by men with skirts. Skirts are public fashion, not bedroom fashion.

I like that statement.

How about if there was a similar statement on the website - either on the front page or where people upload photos. It could stress that photographs of men in skirts uploaded here should simply aim to illustrate the fashion concept of men in skirts - and should not be indecent, tittillating or otherwise pervy (excuse my language here).

I guess it should also be made clear that the final decision is for Bob - and that photos deemed inappropriate will be removed.

I know that is not a particularly novel approach to this issue - but it's all that I can think of.

BTW - I would defend that "upskirt" photo that was posted here somewhere - as it was posted for a valid reason - i.e. to illustrate a point. The photo helped me to understand better the difficulties around posture etc. in short skirts.

[mk3]

Perhaps everything should be censored, then we can all look at a blank site. I have noticed that the numer of posts seems to have dropped since the site was altered. I wonder why?

Some educational stuff is graphic but we still look at it or watch it.

Rant (if you don't want to read it, just click the back button, or the X):



Don't say you haven't been warned.....














This site seems like since it was redone, it has become even more strict and intolerant of people expressing themselves and having honest/relevant questions that are either being censored or otherwise locked and erased. phpBB isn't a difficult piece of software to keep running and whoever says it is has to be very lazy when it comes to its administration. I haven't been here for long, but the very thought of any threads being locked because someone can't handle a bit of under the skirt talk (even about something worn under them) then they might want to find a new line of non moderator work. If I want everything to be censored, I'll go to north vietnam, russia, or parts of china.

So, if a mod reads this and doesn't like it, lock my account do whatever you want to it, just proves my point even further.

[Sasquatch]

With much respect for your efforts at moderating and operating this site, Bob, I think maybe you went a little hypersensitive over the underwear thread. It's one thing to drop photos that were in poor taste or bordered on pornographic - I and probably most other members don't particularly want to look at some dude in his skivvies - but to close a simple discussion of underwear styles that was not obscene or sexual in nature struck me as a questionable and hasty judgement.

If this was a women's fashion site, do you suppose that a discussion of the style, price and fit of bras would be terminated?

If the prime mission of the site was to "sell" our skirted-male culture to the general public, then I suppose harsh editing would be in order. But, to my eye, the site doesn't appear to be set up that way. It appears to be a free-flow exchange of ideas in respectful and largely supportive terms among a group of diverse individuals who share a common interest area.

I doubt that the site really gets visited by many who don't already have an interest in wearing skirts. I doubt that anyone stumbles into the site and then becomes transfixed by the depth of our dialogue (no offense, fellas). I think most people already have a firmly-fixed point of view concerning gender and clothing. Therefore, IMHO, the idea that viewing this site will produce converts to male skirt acceptance stands somewhere between naivete and narcissism on our part; so, it thus follows, is the idea that a discussion of underpants will send would-be converts fleeing the site and decrying our wickedness!

We are a diverse, yet unique group. We've had the discussion many times about intellectual honesty and inclusiveness. I'm glad you've been a fairly tolerant moderator, Bob, otherwise the site would become a dreadful bore and a divider rather than a uniter of potential brothers. I guess that's why I saw your reaction to the underwear thread as surprising and a bit out-of-character.

Thanks for all your work on the site.

Sasq

[Departed Member]

Never mind all the verbiage! Why not just move the "Underwear" thread to "Other stuff" - which is more appropriate location anyway? Are folk too lazy to post in the clearly defined areas, I ask myself?

[AMM]

... This site seems like since it was redone, it has become even more strict and intolerant of people expressing themselves and having honest/relevant questions that are either being censored or otherwise locked and erased. ... I haven't been here for long[italics mine], but the very thought of any threads being locked because someone can't handle a bit of under the skirt talk (even about something worn under them) then they might want to find a new line of non moderator work ...

The short response:

The problem is not (primarily) that the topics are not arguably related to men in skirts and kilts.
The problem is that, unless you have a vigilant and active moderator (who is willing to get some people mad at him), the bad very quickly drives out the good.

The long response:

There is, as far as I found, only one active site on the Internet primarily for discussion of skirts as a serious clothing alternative for men -- this one. And there are millions of people out there who have some fetish or obsession and loads of spare time to post enormous amounts on the subject. Without vigilant moderation -- based on a well-defined and reasonably limited idea of what is and is not appropriate -- this site would quickly become dominated by postings on clothing fetishes of all sorts and descriptions, or filled with flame wars about religion, politics, feminism, etc.

This is not hypothetical.

I remember the days when Usenet (all the soc.*, comp.*, etc., newsgroups) was a place where there was serious discussion of topics such as feminism, crossdressing, chinese culture, etc. But as more and more people got Internet access, and then for-profit companies discovered they could use Usenet as a free advertising medium ("Spam"), most Usenet newgroups became useless. Between the ranters, trolls, and spam, it became almost impossible to find anything worth reading. Those interested in serious discussion eventually stopped reading and posting. Meanwhile, anyone who complained got shouted down for "censorship" by the people who were left.

The only Usenet groups that are still worth reading are the moderated ones and the occasional low-traffic group whose topic seems to repel spam -- alt.sewing, rec.folk-dancing, for instance.

My point is that, unless we want this site to end up like alt.sex, someone is going to have to say what is and is not appropriate for this site. And once someone does so, no matter where he draws the line, there are going to be people screaming about censorship and intolerance.

If you look at other good Websites on similar topics -- XMarksTheScot, or Crossdressers.com -- you will see that they do a lot more moderating than Bob does. Both have lots of locked discussions and postings on what is appropriate for which forum.

By the way, saying that a topic is not appropriate for SkirtCafe is not the same as State censorship. If you want to discuss men's underwear choices, there's IMFF and the Atrium. If you want to discuss expressing your feminine nature, there are a number of places, crossdressers.com being probably the best. If you want to post pictures of yourself in your underwear, there are many, many places (which you'll have to research yourself.)

And there's always Usenet .

I think the fact that many of us who come here because of the stated purpose of this site feel uncomfortable with some of these postings is by itself an argument for taking them elsewhere. Once we have said a topic puts us off, I think the burden is on those who want to see it to explain to us why postings on the subject contribute to "exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men" enough to make it worth putting up with some discomfort.

For instance, discussion of religion is banned, not because it isn't arguably relevant to skirts and kilts for men, but because when such discussions were allowed, the tone they invariably developed drove people away and didn't contribute to "exploring, ..."

-- AMM

[crfriend]

This site seems like since it was redone, it has become even more strict and intolerant of people expressing themselves and having honest/relevant questions that are either being censored or otherwise locked and erased.

This isn't about censorship and never has been. It's about what the local community deems acceptable; if things deviate too far from the norm, the community members tend to get rankled by it, and that's normal behaviour for communities (in the broad sense).

Underwear, by its very nature, is supposed to remain "under cover" (despite what some modern "fashions" seem to state). In fact, it used to be colloquially called one's "unmentionables". The new craze of showing it off to the world is from inexperienced girls out to "shock" their parents' generation and the stuff of the so-called "hip-hop" "culture" -- it's not mainstream, it's not particularly fashionable, and it has the power to offend reasonably conservative minds who might not be overly put out by a bloke in a good-looking skirt rig.

The exception to this "rule" about "unmentionables" is legwear -- because by the nature of (most) skirts, it shows. Not only does it show, but it can be an integral part of a larger "look" which doesn't include anything perverse. Because of the fashion slant here, that's an acceptable thread topic, even though it does make some folks a wee bit queasy.

Showing an upskirt shot of a pair of startlingly-white knickers, whilst possibly "educational" (in a sense) does nothing that couldn't have been said in a narrative, and really doesn't say anything that any of us weren't already aware of (at least those of us with some modicum of modesty); what it does say, however, is that flashing one's knickers in public may be acceptable, or at least titillating to others (it's not: even on pretty women it's vulgar).

Bob has done a yeoman's job in running the site since it passed from Noodles' realm, and I, personally, trust his judgment on the matter because he seems to well grasp the prevailling mores of the community at hand. We owe him a debt of gratitude; it's a thankless job, and one that usually makes more enemies than friends. Heck, I've run afoul of moderation in the past, and once I cooled off, actually agreed that some of the things I'd said were out of line. So, I'm not worried that we're going to get nannied to death.