'A suggestive picture of a lady in her underwear is probably NSFW even though there is no nudity'
(,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:15,
archived)
fair enough, If you consider that a sexual image, I shall link itpersonally a large porcelain doll face is far from sexual if glanced at across an office, but horses for courses eh.
(
HappyToast Groat froth,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:21,
archived)
In a more mature society people wouldn't care.
FeralCatMan Unusual disease collector.,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:30,
archived)
IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT'S SEXUAL THEN YOU'RE A BETTER ADJUSTED PERSON THAN Iphwooar, i say
(
boris the spider,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:32,
archived)
I work in a doll factoryI nearly got sacked. Apparently "masturbation" is against company policy
(
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:37,
archived)
you should take that to the unionsa tug at work is a human right
( boris the spider,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:42,
archived)
what about a huge "tug-o-war" on the factory floor?
(
discomeats This canoe,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:59,
archived)
if by that you mean a circle-jerk then that should be protected by your union tooi'm less sure if you're meaning two teams squaring off on either end of a rope - have a chat with your union rep. you can call him rudy.
( boris the spider,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 23:04,
archived)
Key word there is 'suggestive', surely.If you find that picture suggestive of sexual activity then, well, yeah.
(
mofaha ┐( ˘_˘)┌ ʅ(́◡◝)ʃ,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:26,
archived)
it's always hotter when a chick wears a GIGANTIC CRACKED PORCELAIN HEAD or something...
O_o?
(O_o?
discomeats This canoe,
Wed 28 Aug 2013, 22:28,
archived)