First of many content related Backgrounds

It looks a bit like objectification.

 

I do like the new lay out nice and easy to find everything

 

as I can only see a big toe of one foot, I don't mind it.

 

As far as the profile page goes, it's very clunky to operate, and it kills the lovely image I had in the first place.

I only want one image on my profile - why do I need to have 2 of different sizes, shapes, etc. Complexity for it's own sake?

 

Leg shots are good, actually excellent

 

I agree with Verity; a second photo on the profile page is redundant. I'm not aware that anyone requested this, so I'm wondering why it was even done in the first place. My vote would be to return the page to the way it was.

As for the background image, there seems to be some sort of fixation on women's legs; it's been tried before and not well-received. Why not just a woman's arm/hand dangling a key on a ribbon instead? No objectification, and a clear statement about the aims of the site.

 

I'm using Red Mansion, and dont have the option of 2 images, I just have 2 images.
Nice to have as an option though, I grant you.

I'm kind of with Billus and Amanda on the objectification thing. I think we need to be very careful not to have any sexualised imagery in the body of the forum architecture. Why not? Well, appreciation of sexualised imagery is SO subjective, we each have our own favourite styles of erotic imagery and to use any one flavour is to put off those who have an abhorrence of that flavour.
Jens, you've repeatedly said that your wish is for this place to be welcoming to the vanilla female - I can tell you truthfully that my vanilla female partner would be put off by those legs, as she would be any other sexualised imagery in the background. So what kind of vanilla female are you thinking of? The ones that are ok with soft-porn representations of themselves?

I would suggest that if there is any imagery in the background then it should be completely neutral and not include any human bodyparts.
Once you have a depiction of a human bodypart you are heavily into style and taste and a whole world of implied meaning.

 

Bit of a difference having stuff on ones personal profile though. You're talking about images that show on every single page of the forum.
A forum that you want to be as welcoming to all as possible, women especially.

 

Why are you assuming it is a women's legs ... are you sure it is not a Sissy that the KH dressed up and even hung the Key on to complete the Role Playing game ...

My point is that you can manipulate it into anything you want ... but to automatically place a "negative spin" on it does not seem constructive in its criticism. Which as you read below the intention is to give each "area" it own feel ... and at the moment it is being worked through in an open forum on a live site for all to see and participate in. Which in it self is a bold and VERY open decision that is to be applauded ... it could very easily be done in the background for no one to see then be released

I think this is a great idea and goes above and beyond what most forums would do. If it is done right it can very easily open up a path to those new to the life style and let them feel comfortable as they grow without being bombarded with the extremes (that many including myself may enjoy). I personally know that in it's present state CM may be a bit much (from many perspectives) for my KH but I'm anxiously following the changes in hopes that I suggest she become a member.

 

Dang it I should have tried the "new" comment feature.

 

Trust me @danleft1, I know Jens well enough to know they're not a man's legs.

Mnehhhh - YOU might see all this as some worship of the female beauty etc., but there are many out there who don't link the 'male gaze' and/or the male appreciation of the female form with chastity. At the utmost, it is not about worshipping her shape or any other body part of her, it is about worshipping her as a person, a fellow human being, not some alien thing to be served up in easy-to-view portions.

As to the challenge to come up with images we might prefer - c'mon, you have more imagination than that.

 

So....what part of her entirety and individual personality are you engaging with when you view those legs then?

Yeah, right. The part of her that reflects your own porny fetish. If She DOES honestly embody and reflect your own interests and pleasures than that is great, but it doesnt work that way for everyone, or even most, and that is a large part of the reason that I urge caution when using such imagery in this way.

Ateotd, I dont care either way about a couple of legs, but I do care that you may inadvertently put off some of the people you wish to attract.

 

Look, Jens, our leader despite being cute and intelligent is a bit misogy, very Alpha male and slightly sexist and not submissive at all.
He likes to see a bit of leg as many members do so he thought it might be a nice idea to show some. Obviously the owner of the legs is on her back and she's be shackled with the key of a penis worshipping device bestowed on her by a man who has more than likely pressed his chastity fetish on her. The feet are en pointe in a display of objectification/ fetish.
That at least was my initial reaction when I saw the picture.
With regard to objectification. When I post pictures of my own legs on my profile page is that the same thing?
Or am I perhaps teasing the visitor by flaunting my assets and fulfilling my narcissistic needs?

It's all very complicated and touchy feely which is a very good reason not to use that image on a public page.
I think, in all honesty if I was a visitor here or new member I would view that image as objectification of women on yet another male dominated site.

 

I actually am in agreement with you about the image not being on ALL pages and only in the section that it would be appropriate ...

But now you (@SubVerity @Mascara^Snake ) both have me VERY intrigued ... I'm very interested to see an image that in some way shows Sexuality (because like it or not Chastity and FLR are sexual) but in no way objectifies someone / some group / some fetish / some interest ... It just seems that you are picking at something for the sake of picking at it ... Really I did a Google Search for "Sexual images" and the 1st 50 are a problem, and the next 50 are not right for a forum ????

 

Funny enough on my phone I get no extra images . Which keeps it neat and tidy.

As to the sex of the legs most leg shots used in stockings shorts trousers tights leggins and the like are boys legs as they don't have cellulite . Lol sorry but it's true .
Xx Wendy

Xx

 

We are yes.

 

I have joined the 2 photos on my profile page together to create 1 giant photo of quazimodo.
https://www.chastitymansion.com/forums/index.php?members/richard.10881/

And the legs background image is a little cheesy really tbh.
Keep it clean and simple - no background image or let us choose our own. And I'll have none thanks.

 

Stop kidding yourselves.
It is objectification and that is ok, after all this is and always has been a adult forum, for chastity and sex chat, one of the most taboo elements of the adult sex scene. It is not a shining example of purity and vanilla content, that now with its new and intellectually sound buffering and firewalls will lead such people of pure heart and mind down a spiral of debauchery to want to chastise and keep men... or women, I guess, locked into, for lack of better term, torture devices. If such a person actually makes their way to this site and says 'OH! how rude!! not for me' SO BE IT.

 

I'm not picking, I'm making a very valid point. The fact that you won't even debate it speaks volumes, about you.

And that's ok, but don't be surprised if people take you to task over your motives or scrutinise your actions, or your personality. I'd not go as far as laying misogyny at you, but I'm guessing you've not read much feminist theory.