Not sure about that.
Princess is excellent with the rules. Also, she rarely removes anyone without good reason. I know her well. She's a good girl. We've spoken on the phone before. She's a beautiful woman.
That said, the rules are as follows as stated by Ron:
In other words, no porn (neither straight or gay). Porn and nudity are slightly different. Hard to have porn without nudity, but certainly can have nudity without porn, you know? Also, Arnold in that picture displays nudity in a sense of beauty and asthetics.
Ron knows I am a lover of penises.
"1"
Well, you got me. I honestly don't remember whether the photo I posted could have been viewed as being pornographic or not. I am a person who believes in following the rules. What I can say with certainty is that if I had any idea it was pornographic, I would not have posted it.
On another occasion, I posted a bunch of photos of people, both male and female who were professionally photographed naked except that they completely covered in body paint and these were all taken down, plus I was given a warning. I thought they were art or I would not have posted them.
You are a moderator here. It is entirely possible that because of this you are given more leeway than other folks.
FYI, I don't think there is anything wrong with the photo you posted of Arnold. Pretty much every man has a penis and balls. Why it's such a big deal to keep it covered, eludes me. That some people see nudity as pornographic is just such uptight Victorian thinking.
I'm with you. I am a lover of good looking naked men. Most men have penises. So I guess it would be accurate to say I am also a lover of penises, including my own, even though there are no muscles in them and most guys cannot lift weights (other than the occasional towel) with them.
