Women's only rally

Moderator edit: Please note that some of the content at the following link may be considered NSFW.

Ignore the safety concerns you Safety Sam's and enjoy the scenery.

Picture nine is especially funny.

How convenient - these bikes come with makeup mirrors!

I didn't notice anything unsafe....

Absolutely_No_Desire... Just sayin'.

Absolutely_No_Desire... Just sayin'.

I'd appreciate the occasional (read always) NSFW.

Absolutely_No_Desire... Just sayin'.

 

I'd appreciate the occasional (read always) NSFW.

Not. Happenin'.

I'm not seeing anything there I don't see on broadcast TV any night of the week. Places I've worked, this entire site is NSFW, because we were not involved in anything motorcycle related.

Work more, browse less.

I'm not seeing anything there I don't see on broadcast TV any night of the week. Places I've worked, this entire site is NSFW, because we were not involved in anything motorcycle related.

 

Work more, browse less.

Preach less, work more.... just saying.

I'm not seeing anything there I don't see on broadcast TV any night of the week.

I don't know that I've ever seen anything like picture #9 on broadcast TV.

Even so, there is plenty of stuff on broadcast TV that could get you in hot water with HR if uttered or displayed in the workplace, so maybe broadcast TV isn't the best standard to use when judging what is or is not SFW.

To everyone here: Please be considerate of your fellow members, and recognize that many of us browse here during our breaks at work. If you want to post a link to text or images that might cause problems for someone if it appears on their office computer's display, please indicate that it is NSFW. We'll still click the link, but it might be from our phones or our home computers instead of our work computers.

I'm sorry, it's a news link, reuters, it's not xnxx, porndude, xtube, redtube or any myriad of other sites,...it's a link to a news site. I followed the link from a conservative newssite, so, not wanting to link a conservative news site, I linked the original news site,...reuters.

If we're gonna get that fuddy about a product that any age person can see, pick up the box and actually read about the product in the health and beauty aisle at a CVS or Rite Aid pharmacy, well, I just don't know what to think.

Had I thought for a moment that it was not safe for work, I would have posted as such. Geesh, it's not a demonstration of the various uses of the item. Lastly, I linked all this while at my work.

I'm sorry, it's a news link, reuters, it's not xnxx, porndude, xtube, redtube or . . . . .

OK. A couple of things. First, don't take such Admin actions personally. It's not about YOU. Really. It isn't. It's about the content. And why is such modestly racy content need a warning? Because in trying to maintain decorum on this board, the Admin Team functions under one overarching guideline, and has since its earliest days. And it's actually a pretty broad one. And that is, "is the content something you'd be proud to let your 13-y/o daughter see, or let her see you looking at it." OK, so, one person's 13-y/o isn't the same as another's. And that leaves a bit of room for interpretation. And maybe 13 these days isn't what 13 was 18 years ago when this site was launched. But I think we all get the idea.

It's always difficult for Admins to step in and post a warning or in some cases go so far as to remove content. We don't like to do it because people get upset, as if we're pointing THEM out as if THEY did a bad thing. We're not. We're issuing a warning as a method of reigning in content so that it sort of falls under the rule we established a long time ago. We'd rather let things flow smoothly without interruption. But then somewhere down the road someone posts a foldout of Miss August, and then points to all the lesser precedents and gets angry. We're just better off to not have precedents.

So thank you for the link. Truly an interesting event. It does have one or two shots that are NSFW (as we define NSFW here at BMWST.com). We didn't block the images. We just want people to know that there's something there that is below the bar that we try to hold this place to. But we're all adults and, suitably notified, each is able to make their own decision about it.

I'll put in my two cents. I don't see anything there that any "reasonable" person should get upset about. I've seen plenty of tattoos like that out in public, and on tv... If you do get in trouble with that one at work, then you're prolly destined to get in trouble for simply browsing. Break or no break.

I don't browse anything at work anymore because it's impractical. But it is nice to not have to worry about big brother.

 

OK. A couple of things. First, don't take such Admin actions personally. It's not about YOU. Really. It isn't. It's about the content. And why is such modestly racy content need a warning? Because in trying to maintain decorum on this board, the Admin Team functions under one overarching guideline, and has since its earliest days. And it's actually a pretty broad one. And that is, "is the content something you'd be proud to let your 13-y/o daughter see, or let her see you looking at it." OK, so, one person's 13-y/o isn't the same as another's. And that leaves a bit of room for interpretation. And maybe 13 these days isn't what 13 was 18 years ago when this site was launched. But I think we all get the idea.

 

It's always difficult for Admins to step in and post a warning or in some cases go so far as to remove content. We don't like to do it because people get upset, as if we're pointing THEM out as if THEY did a bad thing. We're not. We're issuing a warning as a method of reigning in content so that it sort of falls under the rule we established a long time ago. We'd rather let things flow smoothly without interruption. But then somewhere down the road someone posts a foldout of Miss August, and then points to all the lesser precedents and gets angry. We're just better off to not have precedents.

 

So thank you for the link. Truly an interesting event. It does have one or two shots that are NSFW (as we define NSFW here at BMWST.com). We didn't block the images. We just want people to know that there's something there that is below the bar that we try to hold this place to. But we're all adults and, suitably notified, each is able to make their own decision about it.

Nothing's personal. I've found interesting articles in the past not from news sites that would have been nice to share but they did have NSFW content. I made the decision on this article, since it is a news site, that the content about personal massagers being raced was fine for work. If anyone understands anything about work filters/content, than they'd know that reuters is likely not blocked by their work filters and would likely know that the site is on the safe to view list.

It seems that this "definition" is subjective at best. My guess is that since this post was up for eight days before any notification was put that at least one admin had seen it before and did not think it was harmful enough to put a warning.

Thanks FB for the explanation.

I've been asked not to post a picture during an online birthday celebration. I ceased.

Here is the bottom line for me: I'm a guest of this forum. Those who own it get to decide. They do so w/o out needing any approval from the members/guests.

I appreciate the tone and tenor of this forum and gladly support it financially once a year.

If a poster is offended about administrative action, they are always free to find another sandbox in which to play.