please delete

I'm still trying to figure what "inappropriate" means if not nude pictures.

This thread or the sort of inappropriate dvd copy gif?

Well here it is:

Sorta NSFW



it appears on the feed above the forums.

I noticed that one too. The previous threads about the subject of explicit photos like the one above were met with a response that they're pulled from Amazon, and therefore are acceptable. I'd agree with you though...definitely NSFW.

Since you can't see any naughty bits, i.e. anything that a bikini would cover, seems like it should be OK.

It's art, or it would be if there were another guy behind the one in the picture.

That cover is pretty bad for a site that tells it's members they can't post a picture of a scantily clad woman.

ad revenue

I saw that cover last week...at work. I don't think it's inappropriate. I think the fact that it's titled "Debauchery" just makes it look more inappropriate than it really is.

I don't think it's inappropriate. I also don't think pics of women in bikinis are inappropriate either.

<s>Looks like it's come down.</s> Scratch that, just popped up again.

I didn't have a problem with it, my problem stems from:

And I'm not even someone who posts those pics/gifs.

I agree, but since the last thread went so well, I'm expecting them not to care.....

$$ > NSFW

The GUMS box cover looks NSFW to me...don't have an objection to the mermaid on the cover, but it appears to have an inset photo of two guys having sex with a blow up doll? At least that's the best I can make out...really trying not to look TOO close.

So the theory is threads in a sub forum with scantily clad women will drive eyes away from the site. But those same eyes won't be driven away by soft-core porn DVD covers in ads on the entire site?

Of course not! Also, families and work places love that the words "Adult DVD Reviews" is top center and bolded on every single page of the site.

I'm assuming that was part of the deal when "G" sold the site.