No way to contact BGA to complain about inappropriate ad?

[Suoivax]

Slightly translucent shirt is not the same as "nude person."

It isn't even that; it is (and was--it hasn't changed) completely opaque. But that's beside the point. From the OP's perspective, it was "a completely see-through top." So you can understand why they'd have an issue with that if it were true, even if you personally wouldn't have an issue with it?

I can acknowledge that someone would have an issue with that. What I do not understand is why.

The OP feels strongly about this, obviously. I feel equally strongly that the OP's opinion makes no sense, and is in fact discriminatory and anti-woman.

So, the OP has one opinion, I have a different one. And if I think an opinion is absurd and poorly justified (or not justified at all), yes, I will call it out as such.

so what's the line then? Fishnet shirt? completely transparent? fully topless?

[FrankJones]

It isn't even that; it is (and was--it hasn't changed) completely opaque. But that's beside the point. From the OP's perspective, it was "a completely see-through top." So you can understand why they'd have an issue with that if it were true, even if you personally wouldn't have an issue with it?

I can acknowledge that someone would have an issue with that. What I do not understand is why.

The OP feels strongly about this, obviously. I feel equally strongly that the OP's opinion makes no sense, and is in fact discriminatory and anti-woman.

So, the OP has one opinion, I have a different one. And if I think an opinion is absurd and poorly justified (or not justified at all), yes, I will call it out as such.

so what's the line then? Fishnet shirt? completely transparent? fully topless?

Well, being that there seems to be no issue with men being fully topless, I would argue that the latter in your list should be the "line". Otherwise, we have a clear double-standard that seems discriminatory.

Biologically, men and women are very similar from the waist up, with the notable exception that women's nipples, unlike men's', serve a biological function of nursing their young. How did this somehow become contrary to "Family values", whatever that even means?

I find it objectionable to say to a woman, "displaying your body from the waist up means you are doing something wrong, something against family values, something impure, but it's perfectly fine for that man over there to do the same thing." Even more bizarre is, it's not the actual female body from the waist up that causes people to get upset, but specifically the nipple, a body part with the biological function of nursing the young after birth. So, a bikini top where 95% of the female body from the waist up is visible? Consistent with family values? But, 95% of the upper body covered, but the nipples visible? That's somehow a problem, something shameful, something contrary to family values? How? Why?

If we want to talk about some hazy question of "where do we draw the line," I can do that too:

Some people and cultures find it objectionable and against family values for a woman to show her face at all. In some cases, women can be subjected to acts of violence for doing so. Is that acceptable? Should we tolerate and indulge this just because a subset of people believe this to be true? I would hope not. To me, such a belief is inherently discriminatory and anti-woman. I do not believe women should be relegated to second-class citizens or subjugated in some way.

[Jellby]

Anyone who thinks a bare breast (even if it was there) to be inappropriate for young children, please consider if a dragon burning villages, or men in full armor and combat apparel, or ghosts are any more appropriate. Personally, I'd flag the mere existence of war games more harmful than the sight of a nipple.

... and of course, there's the joke that few things are more family-friendly than a breast, countless families have been raised thanks to them!

[BarnardsStar]

I’m in agreement with FrankJones on most of this, though I do think it fair to ask whether a particular image is intended to make the woman a sex object. *That*, I think, falls short of “family-friendly”, but is a too-common trope especially in fantasy-themed illustrations.

Whether that is the case for this particular image is sufficiently ambiguous that I cannot definitively conclude that that was the intent, though I suspect a subconscious drive may have been at play in its creation.

[dralkyr]

The question is not and should not be reduced to "This image is offensive" because then people debate and attack THAT claim, as we can see throughut this thread.

The question is "HOW do I contact BGA about an inappropriate ad?" Whether or not a given user believes that a particular ad is inappropriate is not the topic and is not relevant – if one believes an ad is inappropriate, what is the path to report that?

As the OP wrote:
"The contact page, frustratingly, doesn't actually give you a way to contact anyone about any issue that doesn't fit into the pre-approved categories."

So debate the ad in question, I suppose, but the particular ad is not actually relevant to the question.

[FrankJones]

The question is not and should not be reduced to "This image is offensive" because then people debate and attack THAT claim, as we can see throughut this thread.

The question is "HOW do I contact BGA about an inappropriate ad?" Whether or not a given user believes that a particular ad is inappropriate is not the topic and is not relevant – if one believes an ad is inappropriate, what is the path to report that?

As the OP wrote:
"The contact page, frustratingly, doesn't actually give you a way to contact anyone about any issue that doesn't fit into the pre-approved categories."

So debate the ad in question, I suppose, but the particular ad is not actually relevant to the question.

Yes, but, the question of how to contact BGA has been addressed. The other question is still worth discussing.

[dralkyr]

The question is not and should not be reduced to "This image is offensive" because then people debate and attack THAT claim, as we can see throughut this thread.

The question is "HOW do I contact BGA about an inappropriate ad?" Whether or not a given user believes that a particular ad is inappropriate is not the topic and is not relevant – if one believes an ad is inappropriate, what is the path to report that?

As the OP wrote:
"The contact page, frustratingly, doesn't actually give you a way to contact anyone about any issue that doesn't fit into the pre-approved categories."

So debate the ad in question, I suppose, but the particular ad is not actually relevant to the question.

Yes, but, the question of how to contact BGA has been addressed. The other question is still worth discussing.

Has it? BalGAmor wrote "You can always contact us using the /support page" and then you and others noted that the support page actually DOESN'T provide a good path for someone with the original question. BalGAmor has not replied to anything else, nor do I see a consensus about how FredegarB should go about reporting this issue, or how anyone else with a similar issue should report it.

[FrankJones]

True. I guess what I meant was, "the question of how to contact BGA for some specific things has been addressed to the extent that it will be." This is not a new issue, and it seems BGA is content to leave things as is.

[FrankJones]

I’m in agreement with FrankJones on most of this, though I do think it fair to ask whether a particular image is intended to make the woman a sex object.

It's fair to ask. My answer would be, "Why is a female nipple sometimes viewed as a tacky sexualization compared to a completely shirtless man, which is just viewed as "normal" and "not a problem" and "not a sexualization?"

The artwork in question depicts a female character in a colorful outfit, conveying a sense of strength and power and perhaps beauty. These strike me as good qualities. Good family values. Moving away from the outdated notion of female characters as weak, meek, or needing to be rescued by the male character (as in many or most classic video games and perhaps some board games too). Showing young women, "Hey, you too can be the strong heroine saving the world. You do not need to take on a secondary role in society." Etc.

There are a lot of potentially good things about the artwork in question. To reduce the art to something cheap and tacky and shameful because some people associate female nipples with "sexualization" is a problem, in my opinion, but not the problem seemingly expressed by the OP. The problem, to me, is, "Why is the anatomical part of a woman's body that served to feed and nurse their children viewed in a sexual manner?"

I believe this bizarre attitude toward female anatomy is causing more harm than the (non)-issue itself.

[Ze Monstah]

It's fair to ask. My answer would be, "Why is a female nipple sometimes viewed as a tacky sexualization compared to a completely shirtless man, which is just viewed as "normal" and "not a problem" and "not a sexualization?"

Unlike Men, Women's breasts are medically considered SECONDARY/ACCESSORY SEXUAL ORGANS!!!!!
If there are other medical drs. around here, I am sure they can back me up.
Also... historical preconceptions!
You being from the USA should know how your ancestors used to hang Women around for being considered inappropriate (Salem); in Europe we preferred burning at the stake (men, women, etc.)
I dislike sexism in general and have no issues against neither male- nor woman-nudity, but that's the medical difference of how breasts are seen, gender-wise.

there seems to be no issue with men being fully topless

Yes.