Sweet Marissa said:
More and more women are playing pool.
Here are just a few that post here.
Thus, the forums should cater to both genders and stop allowing the guys to use offensive avatars. Otherwise, we should be able to use the same kind images, male versions, of course.
Marissa:
Points you make are very valid; what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Methinks there's a fine line here. The person that wrote that avatars are reflective of the person, not the forum, is right on. Also, the discussion of "what you wear when you enter a forum" also applies, IMHO. (Kudos to cleary on that point.) However, I don't think some of the folks that have some of the avatars they do, will say they'd walk into a pool hall wearing a T-shirt with that avatar plastered on it. Most pool halls I go to, have a prominently-displayed dress code; it's not so much of a dress code per se, but contains a list of things that you cannot wear in the establishment. For example: flip-flops, hats or bandanas that unquestionably display gang colors, shirts or pants with extremely suggestive, sexual, violent/militant graphics or pictures, etc. These places will more than likely either ask you to leave, or sometimes if they know you, they'll reach under the counter, hand you one of that establishment's custom T-shirts, tell you to put this on over what you're wearing while you're in there, and return it when you leave. (Ah, I can just see it now -- the rebellious ones are going to read into that, editing their avator picture in GIMP / PhotoShop / other graphics editor, and make it look like they "hung a sheet" over the picture. ;-) )
Anyway, there's always that option in one's profile configuration settings to not display avatars or signatures to begin with.
Personally, when I *did* have avatars displayed in my profile settings, I just ignored the ones that were off-color or in questionable taste (I call mine "calloused eyes"). Don't get me wrong, Marissa, I'm a red-blooded guy and appreciate tasteful avatars of females, but I also know that women have the right to do the same -- as long as it wasn't pictures of [concealed or unconcealed] genitalia. I'll bet if a guy had a questionable avatar (e.g. picturing women's genitalia -- concealed or unconcealed), the mods would quickly intervene -- especially if complaints were lodged against it. As I think about this, I say to myself, "gosh, this *really* is a very fine line -- what determines 'questionable'?" Perhaps that which causes complaints to be lodged? I wish I had the answer to that one...
Hope this is helpful?
-Sean