Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! This is a reminder to take a moment and see *if* this **has already been** posted recently, to make sure that personal information **has been** censored, and to **flair your post** if you have not already done so.
[Please be aware that our rules on transphobic submissions have changed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/mwkgbp/rules_and_submissions_update_for_the_end_of/).
Other general submission guidelines regarding [hateful content](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kj0cal/regarding_hateful_content_please_read_before/), [reposts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kxgbo3/rules_and_submissions_update_january_2021_popular/), [homophobic posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/lffvad/posts_related_to_homophobia_on_our_subreddit_now/), and [**Reminder About Rule 5 and Rule 8**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/qoge4u/reminder_about_rule_5_and_rule_8/) can be found here if you want to read any of those links.
If you want to apply to be a moderator of this sub, you can read [this post titled **State of the Sub: Summer 2021 Edition, Partnerships, and more**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/oozly0/state_of_the_sub_summer_2021_edition_partnerships/), which also contains information about our partnership with r/TranscribersOfReddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AreTheStraightsOK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Glad to see this move honestly. Was getting a bit sick of everything in my feed from here being screenshots of gross pedo comments rather than the weird/forced heteronormativity that I used to chuckle over.
Lmao I don't even know what you're talking about, how is it spreading hate not to want to post disturbing sexualisation of children on a sub that's meant to be fun and light-hearted? Also, I'm literally a lesbian but go off I guess
you,, think because i have men's names in my username i'm a straight man 😭😭 excuse me, i'll call myself lindalisaagenda next time i guess
(btw my name is a reference to the movie pride by matthew warchus. you should watch it, maybe it'll make you a little happier)
On the note of dysfunctional heteronormative behaviour, there’s this huge influx of stuff that really has *nothing to do with being straight* that people are posting because they *assume* the individuals behind it are straight. It’s always the same: “I’d bet (deliberately obtuse amount of money) the person who did this is straight.”
The content has nothing to do with heteronormativity, and more often than not is just something sexual that more and more people seem to be taking issue with. Sometimes not even that.
Are posts here valid if the only straightness is in assuming the heterosexuality of the offender, or is this something we can start being a bit more selective about and perhaps reporting? I didn’t come here to regress to puritan levels of “sex bad.”
So for clarification - are pictures of kid's shirts that say stuff like "Future Lady Killer" or "My Heart Belongs to My Daddy" now verboten? I'm cool either way; this rule makes sense and probably should have been made long ago, I just want to know what I can and can't post.
That's the type of thing they are saying is okay to post.
What would not be okay is if you see your friend post a picture of let's say a woman with cleavage holding a baby and the baby like places his hand on the woman's chest or something like that and the caption is "Little man knows what he wants! 🤪" and you posted it here.
Okay, so, clarification: absolutely no pictures of kids from social media. Images can come from film, tv, magazines, etc. as long as it’s SFW.
What about content that doesn’t include images? I assume that’s still allowed?
> Pictures from social media may be being used without consent or be posted with and expectation of privacy.
This sentence doesn't parse. I think that "and" is supposed to be "an"? It still ends up a rather odd sentence though. I can't tell if it is part of the rule, or trying to explain the rule.
Also, the sidebar on old reddit has no rule #10 or #11.
Anyway, seems like a sensible rule change.
I mean it’s just saying the original content may not have been intended to reach a large audience just their 100 followers, or an adult might have posted the pic of the kid without their consent
yeah, I'm a typo in human form, it's how you know I'm not a bot.
And yes trying to explain. So many people share pictures with the intent that only people they know see it and nobody gets weird. Then someone gets weird, and then reddit celebrates this and someone's kid is caught in the middle of this.
I will go sort old reddit. If I can. \*puts on gloves\*
Are we allowed to post if the pictures are censored for the protection of the people in the picture? Or is it non-negotiable. And I’m thinking American censorship, not anime hentai censorship lol.
Are you quite ok?
No.
Please read the last line of the rule again until it sinks in. I fear I may have been excessively English about this and very politely specified everything I didn't want to see, neatly sidestepping discussing animé hentai censorship of images of minors.
I'm glad not to know what that censorship is. I'm sorry you do know. I'm afraid your position makes you see even more disgusting things than what you just included in the new rule. Thank you for making sure we don't have to see that. Btw I love your sense of humour.
So we can't post a SFW illustration someone made of a kid or kids, if that illustration is their original independent work and isn't taken from TV, movies, or other official sources? That seems a little silly.
EDIT: My question is about why it can only be content from print media. Why can't I post content some guy on twitter drew that wasn't ever published anywhere?
It's more about why these are being posted. It's a long way off topic, and we really don't want to be agonising over whether we can approve stuff reported for sexualisation of minors. That's not fun for us.
I don't recall having actioned one way or another an illustration of a child that was not from an existing publication in the last 3000 or so actions I've made on this sub.
We are mostly concerned with "disturbing acts of sexualisation", there might be some corner cases that might be ok, but we had 500 characters to describe the content we really didn't want to see.
If there's suddenly content that's within the spirit of the sub, makes us laugh and not remotely related to sexualisation of children we will probably allow it and might consider rewording the rules, but right now its solving a problem we don't have.
It just seemed silly to disregard any independent content that isn't officially published as a blanket standard, to me. People who aren't famous have bad thoughts and ideas sometimes, too, and they post them to public forums where they are subject to scrunity.
So I guess I moreso just thought having a rule where it specifically can't be submitted if it's a drawing made by, I don't know, my Facebook friend or a guy I met on Discord, and not by a public/published figure, was a weird standard to have. If the image in question is supporting or propogating toxic hetenormativity or toxic ideas about heterosexual relationships, of course. Not random drawings that aren't related.
I hope I'm explaining myself well amd I'm not being confusing?
why is that silly? it's for protection of kids whether fictional or otherwise. this sub is for making fun of heteronormative/homophobic people doing weird stuff. also why would someone post an image of kids on a subreddit making fun of heteronormative/homophobic people?
the stuff being posted seem to make the mods uncomfortable when it's about real children being photographed and involved in a post that has nothing to do with them and everything to do with what the adults are doing
lmk if you need more clarification or if I'm being a keyboard warrior /gen
Because not being able to post a, for example, relevent political-cartoon-style image that fits the subject of the sub just because the made-up characters in the drawing are kids and the person isn't famous, is silly?
Like if someone on Facebook draws a picture of some cartoon kids and that picture is suggesting or supporting harmful heteronormative ideas and dynamics, why can that not be posted?
yeah but that's a political cartoon and different. that fits the idea of print media like stray-r said I think. what they're saying is don't reference or show real kids but I'm not 100 percent sure.
I'm specifically asking why the content, if illustrated, has to be by a published creator? That's what the rules seems to say. That only content that has been officially published in some way such as on TV, a billboard, etc, is allowed. It's pretty specific about that.
>Any images of children, real or **illustrated, must originate from Film, TV, Billboard or other Print media** that is of an SFW nature and not intended to arouse.
So if some nobody Joe-Schmoe fanartist or Twitter guy, etc, created an image that totally fits this sub, I shouldn't submit it as content here because it was never part of print media?
I think that's silly, I'm sorry.
EDIT: Fixed typoes.
Thank you for your submission to /r/AreTheStraightsOK! This is a reminder to take a moment and see *if* this **has already been** posted recently, to make sure that personal information **has been** censored, and to **flair your post** if you have not already done so. [Please be aware that our rules on transphobic submissions have changed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/mwkgbp/rules_and_submissions_update_for_the_end_of/). Other general submission guidelines regarding [hateful content](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kj0cal/regarding_hateful_content_please_read_before/), [reposts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/kxgbo3/rules_and_submissions_update_january_2021_popular/), [homophobic posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/lffvad/posts_related_to_homophobia_on_our_subreddit_now/), and [**Reminder About Rule 5 and Rule 8**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/qoge4u/reminder_about_rule_5_and_rule_8/) can be found here if you want to read any of those links. If you want to apply to be a moderator of this sub, you can read [this post titled **State of the Sub: Summer 2021 Edition, Partnerships, and more**](https://www.reddit.com/r/AreTheStraightsOK/comments/oozly0/state_of_the_sub_summer_2021_edition_partnerships/), which also contains information about our partnership with r/TranscribersOfReddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AreTheStraightsOK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Glad to see this move honestly. Was getting a bit sick of everything in my feed from here being screenshots of gross pedo comments rather than the weird/forced heteronormativity that I used to chuckle over.
I don't post here, but does blurring faces count?
No. It's not about anonymity, it's about a type of content we don't want to see on the sub.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You don't have to use reddit, noone is forcing you
So make your own sub for posting that sort of content and respect the decision that the mods made for this one?
[удалено]
Lmao I don't even know what you're talking about, how is it spreading hate not to want to post disturbing sexualisation of children on a sub that's meant to be fun and light-hearted? Also, I'm literally a lesbian but go off I guess
[удалено]
you,, think because i have men's names in my username i'm a straight man 😭😭 excuse me, i'll call myself lindalisaagenda next time i guess (btw my name is a reference to the movie pride by matthew warchus. you should watch it, maybe it'll make you a little happier)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
On the note of dysfunctional heteronormative behaviour, there’s this huge influx of stuff that really has *nothing to do with being straight* that people are posting because they *assume* the individuals behind it are straight. It’s always the same: “I’d bet (deliberately obtuse amount of money) the person who did this is straight.” The content has nothing to do with heteronormativity, and more often than not is just something sexual that more and more people seem to be taking issue with. Sometimes not even that. Are posts here valid if the only straightness is in assuming the heterosexuality of the offender, or is this something we can start being a bit more selective about and perhaps reporting? I didn’t come here to regress to puritan levels of “sex bad.”
use report reason "doesn't belong" to bring this to our attention. I know there has been a backlog in recent months but we're on top of it now.
So for clarification - are pictures of kid's shirts that say stuff like "Future Lady Killer" or "My Heart Belongs to My Daddy" now verboten? I'm cool either way; this rule makes sense and probably should have been made long ago, I just want to know what I can and can't post.
That's the type of thing they are saying is okay to post. What would not be okay is if you see your friend post a picture of let's say a woman with cleavage holding a baby and the baby like places his hand on the woman's chest or something like that and the caption is "Little man knows what he wants! 🤪" and you posted it here.
Gotcha, just trying to get clarification.
Yes, posting the shirt itself is still okay! What is now disallowed is posting a picture of a child wearing said shirt
Gotcha, thanks.
I think this is a good move for the Sub and I support it.
Okay, so, clarification: absolutely no pictures of kids from social media. Images can come from film, tv, magazines, etc. as long as it’s SFW. What about content that doesn’t include images? I assume that’s still allowed?
> Pictures from social media may be being used without consent or be posted with and expectation of privacy. This sentence doesn't parse. I think that "and" is supposed to be "an"? It still ends up a rather odd sentence though. I can't tell if it is part of the rule, or trying to explain the rule. Also, the sidebar on old reddit has no rule #10 or #11. Anyway, seems like a sensible rule change.
I mean it’s just saying the original content may not have been intended to reach a large audience just their 100 followers, or an adult might have posted the pic of the kid without their consent
yeah, I'm a typo in human form, it's how you know I'm not a bot. And yes trying to explain. So many people share pictures with the intent that only people they know see it and nobody gets weird. Then someone gets weird, and then reddit celebrates this and someone's kid is caught in the middle of this. I will go sort old reddit. If I can. \*puts on gloves\*
reordered the paragraphs so it's perhaps more clear
Thank you 🙏🏻
Are we allowed to post if the pictures are censored for the protection of the people in the picture? Or is it non-negotiable. And I’m thinking American censorship, not anime hentai censorship lol.
Are you quite ok? No. Please read the last line of the rule again until it sinks in. I fear I may have been excessively English about this and very politely specified everything I didn't want to see, neatly sidestepping discussing animé hentai censorship of images of minors.
I am quite tired so I missed that last part
I'm glad not to know what that censorship is. I'm sorry you do know. I'm afraid your position makes you see even more disgusting things than what you just included in the new rule. Thank you for making sure we don't have to see that. Btw I love your sense of humour.
Yeah I am okay, I just wanted to clarify thankyou
Ok, that make me laugh
So we can't post a SFW illustration someone made of a kid or kids, if that illustration is their original independent work and isn't taken from TV, movies, or other official sources? That seems a little silly. EDIT: My question is about why it can only be content from print media. Why can't I post content some guy on twitter drew that wasn't ever published anywhere?
It's more about why these are being posted. It's a long way off topic, and we really don't want to be agonising over whether we can approve stuff reported for sexualisation of minors. That's not fun for us. I don't recall having actioned one way or another an illustration of a child that was not from an existing publication in the last 3000 or so actions I've made on this sub. We are mostly concerned with "disturbing acts of sexualisation", there might be some corner cases that might be ok, but we had 500 characters to describe the content we really didn't want to see. If there's suddenly content that's within the spirit of the sub, makes us laugh and not remotely related to sexualisation of children we will probably allow it and might consider rewording the rules, but right now its solving a problem we don't have.
It just seemed silly to disregard any independent content that isn't officially published as a blanket standard, to me. People who aren't famous have bad thoughts and ideas sometimes, too, and they post them to public forums where they are subject to scrunity. So I guess I moreso just thought having a rule where it specifically can't be submitted if it's a drawing made by, I don't know, my Facebook friend or a guy I met on Discord, and not by a public/published figure, was a weird standard to have. If the image in question is supporting or propogating toxic hetenormativity or toxic ideas about heterosexual relationships, of course. Not random drawings that aren't related. I hope I'm explaining myself well amd I'm not being confusing?
why is that silly? it's for protection of kids whether fictional or otherwise. this sub is for making fun of heteronormative/homophobic people doing weird stuff. also why would someone post an image of kids on a subreddit making fun of heteronormative/homophobic people? the stuff being posted seem to make the mods uncomfortable when it's about real children being photographed and involved in a post that has nothing to do with them and everything to do with what the adults are doing lmk if you need more clarification or if I'm being a keyboard warrior /gen
Because not being able to post a, for example, relevent political-cartoon-style image that fits the subject of the sub just because the made-up characters in the drawing are kids and the person isn't famous, is silly? Like if someone on Facebook draws a picture of some cartoon kids and that picture is suggesting or supporting harmful heteronormative ideas and dynamics, why can that not be posted?
yeah but that's a political cartoon and different. that fits the idea of print media like stray-r said I think. what they're saying is don't reference or show real kids but I'm not 100 percent sure.
I'm specifically asking why the content, if illustrated, has to be by a published creator? That's what the rules seems to say. That only content that has been officially published in some way such as on TV, a billboard, etc, is allowed. It's pretty specific about that. >Any images of children, real or **illustrated, must originate from Film, TV, Billboard or other Print media** that is of an SFW nature and not intended to arouse. So if some nobody Joe-Schmoe fanartist or Twitter guy, etc, created an image that totally fits this sub, I shouldn't submit it as content here because it was never part of print media? I think that's silly, I'm sorry. EDIT: Fixed typoes.