Shared publicly  - 
What goes on in this site as normal, and it is not.

Censorship and puritanism, against the female gender to be specific, the classic religious way; a women showing sexuality is evil, the root of sin, and humanity needs to be preserved from this "evil creatures".

Only thing being censured here, is naked women, not man, not politics, is WOMEN!... making an issue out of something that should be accepted as natural (sex), by creating a taboo that only promotes abuse, and blaming women.

People post bOObs, naked women, and so forth, because they think they are transgressing a rule/norm, being rebels and "cool", they are not, this is idiotic, censorship creates stupidity; people approach by so sexuality and women as a taboo.

I find it sad so many accept/consent this situation.

USA society have accepted this as normal (it happens in most of thier media: press, TV, cinema...), IT IS NOT NORMAL. In EU and abroad happens too, but at least some are still able to detect the manipulation, and react (that's what I'm doing now: I wont post any content untill they change this censure norms).

This is only a different approach to indoctrinating the same concepts as radical Islam does with the chador, it's sick. Many see evil in that (as you are told to do by media), while make a distinction with this censorship, you should not.

Only way not to participate in this indoctrination, is to STOP POSTING, no one is forced to do so, that is the only option not to promote demonization of the female gender.

Rugger Ducky's profile photoRafa Él's profile photoreine toutou's profile photoRodrigo Mass's profile photo
Nunca he pretendido ser polémico, es la inquisición de google quienes han creado una polémica donde no debiera haberla, al censura el cuerpo de una mujer, en reiteradas ocasiones... es la norma del lugar.

Este tipo de censura atenta contra los principios básicos de igualdad de genero, y demoniza a la mujer, ya que es solo a esta que se la censura, lo cual demostré posteando el culo desnudo de un hombre, lo que no supuso problema alguno para estos fanáticos religiosos puritanos, mientras que el de una mujer es prohibido al instante.

Esta censura solo promociona tabúes, y abusos de todo tipo, como lo que sucede aquí, donde tantos pretenden saltarse la norma y esta plagado de imágenes con alto contenido sexual, con el único objeto de exponer una pretendida rebeldía, con algo que no demuestra tal cosa: ser abierto sexualmente no es ser rebelde, es ser normal.

El cuerpo desnudo de una mujer no es malo, la sexualidad es algo normal, y los hombres somos iguales a las mujeres.
La única forma de no participar en el adoctrinamiento, es NO POSTEAR, así pues, dejo de participar para no agredir a las mujeres.

Quizás comente si lo creo oportuno, pero añadir contenidos como hasta hoy, no lo voy a hacer más si no rectifican esté proceder al mas puro estilo de la Inquisición.

Por favor sabotear este adoctrinamiento, no seáis parte de él: NO POSTEAR
I agree but i don't think that stop posting is the solution .
+Fred Ledruide If I post I have to accept being censured by this rules that demonize women. They manipulate who I am, I like sex I think is part of the human condition, and natural, I’m open with it, I have no issues with any sexual orientation, and I don’t want anyone modeling my public opinion regarding this.

Maybe there is other ways to react against this manipulation, I’m open to best propositions, but as far as I can think of, my only way to fight back, is NOT TO POST CONTENT.

I might go on commenting, and probably it will be based in attacking this puritan religious concepts
Aren't pics of naked male bodies censored too? 
+Pontus Proteus Nope, they are not.
When first censured by posting a naked ass of a woman, I posted a more evident one of a male... that, was never censured.
Only naked women, and females showing sexuality, are censured.
You can go on and post a neked male chest, not boobs, and male ass, not a female one....
this is nonsense. If you can't find naked women here you aren't really trying that hard.
+Cliff Roth It only depends on you being faster than Google+ inquisition.
ASAP they detect so, they censure all sexual female exposition, based on: Female nudity => evil.
Plus the abuse of people posting naked women in this site, as I have already mention, is a perverted aproach to something that should not be a big deal, and turns out to be so, by people being idiotized by censureship (facebook does not censure, and you wont see this obsesion about nudity as in this site)
well you can always just go to snatchly.
+Cliff Roth The issue is not regarding your access to porn or sex.
Is about google manipulation and reinforcement of religious puritanism.
Of course you are able to acces sex and porn, by just a click away from google: other reason not to censure female nudity, is no sense, they are not preventing anything at all, only manipulating your posted opinion, and forcing on who/how you present your persona in a public media.
Why dont you post lots of pics of male bodies then? See if they get censored. 
The crap about religious puritanism. It is utter nonsense.
+Pontus Proteus I did that already, and fact is they did not censored male nudity, (they might only do so, if genitals are exposed).

As far as ass, thats what I did post to test the reaction: male ass is not considered sexual, so no issue.
I also did so with a Sisley publicity campaign of a male being punish by a female by hiting his ass with a shoe... in that case, I was censured, since it was a female sexual trangresion, not doe to male nudity (although that was the excuse), since the masculine ass was less exposed than in my other post to prove this criteria, that was never censured.

BTW a male torso is not considered nudity by puritans, while a female one is: Why?

Go on and post pectorals and 6 packs, as much as you want, noone is going to question that, post boobs and you will be censured... WTF is different between those two images, I have many amigos who would rather masturbate with the male option.
I am not sure how I got on this thread, but I will say these things:

I like boobs. I have boobs. I will not put pictures of MY boobs on the webz, but if there are pictures of boobs, I will not complain or report.

Also, I haven't seen a single case where breastfeeding photos were taken down, unlike Facebook, where you cannot even show the edge of a breast covered by a baby's mouth.
+Rugger Ducky All censored pictures in my google+ stream, were taken from Facebook albums that are, and have been online for the past 2 years....
Never the less, the issue is reinforcing censureship and religious puritanism, not just if facebook is or is not doing equal.
There is no other social media site as this one, where female nudity is such an issue.
This site follows religious thought ideals.
I don't object to the sight of naked people at all. I saw a picture that was censored today which didn't even feature nudity, but you could see nipples through the woman's sweater. That was all it took for some prude to complain and get it censored.

What I object to is any organization that treats adults as if they were children, and unable to handle the sight of nudity in any form.
+Sheila Nagig "you are evil, you are a women, and your body is something to be censured, is your fault, your sexuality is the devil temptation, you should repent and be ashamed of your persona, women commited the original sin, you are evil inferior creatures"... this is the criteria, and being reiforced by Google+ :(

BTW; any male nipple being censure as far as you know? O.o!
And that's where G+ and I differ. I think I'm a person, as good as any other and maybe even better than some. Just a person, and an adult with all of the same rights that any other adult can expect.
Bet money on FB the photos are of limited view, how did you publish them here? Public? Certain circles? 
+Rugger Ducky I insist, is not just a matter of who is worst, issue is Google+ reinforces religious puritanism, demonizing women (as no other IMO, and as per I can prove by the BIG issue nudity and censure has become in here, where even some are specialized in it: +Moan Lisa would be one)...
Does it not censure based on religious puritanism? If so, we are being indoctrinated by the Google Big Brother, and I wont collaborate
Bad politics to show naked woman for voyeurism, it touches porn!, You really needs that to get a hard on?, most men have no imagination!. Don't mix freedom of being and women more or less objects, used for commercial purpose...or fame on G+! (lot of blokes check your posts, nice way to get laid!...I'm not far from the core, there!
+Moan Lisa Thanks for your insight, and opinion.
Maybe I went too far per calling you a specialist in this censureship, as it would best fit to point you as a prominent victim of it.
I've noticed you do have a Diaspora account only is rarely active (I follow you there)
That's the thing. Simple nudity does not = porn. At the very least, to be considered pornography, masturbation or sex should be depicted. If you're just looking at a naked person, it's only a naked person, not porn. That's what bugs the hell out of me. It's gotten to the point where they're censoring the appearance of nipples through a sweater, for fuck's sake.
And now, on top of all this, you have to "respect" (bow, bow!) ISLAM, that great anti-sexist/humanist religion!.
+reine toutou that abuse of sexuality (and women), is being promoted by the censureship.
If censure did not exist, people would not be pushed to pretend to be rebels by doing opposite.
+reine toutou I don't see much difference between Islam and Christianity, it only differs on the way followers accept or no what the church tells them to do.
Women are as much evil in Christian dogma, as they are in Islam, if we did follow the Pope of Rome preachings, women would be as opressed in occident, as they are in Islamic regions.
Animals don't watch others fuck, but a lot of human mammals takes a pleasure to watch others fuck, when this apens, it denotes a least an inbalance in their life (euphemism!!!).
Animals do too watch other animals fuck. I've seen it. Sometimes they even try to butt in.
^^Î sometimes do too ;D LOL
+Rafa Él standard answer: there is no difference bla bla bla, as a woman go to saudy, egypt, afghanistan etc...there is no difference!, Islam now is like Catholicism in the Middle Ages, not to compare for to day!.
+reine toutou Islam followers are.
Is not a matter of christian church having adapted best to the 20th century, is christian followers who have, and do not follow the teaching as preached (not all have adapted, this goole+ inquisition, is a clear example).
Most Islamists, do follow literaly what their church tells them to do.
Don't remember the number of that Sourate (in the coran!), saying "If you doubt of your woman, beat her hard", and it's a litterate arabe man who can read the classic arabic who translated it to me. BTW what about the sexual mutilations of boys in Islam and by the Jews?....dooonnn't speak about it...shhhh!, don't touch religions, they'll touch you..hard!.
Most of the muslims I've ever known were doing lots of stuff on the sly that they weren't supposed to be doing, like eating bacon or fucking the neighbor's wife. Sometimes they make up ways to get around the law, like in Iran where there are mullahs who marry people and then divorce them an hour or two later. The biggest difference as far as I can see is to do with appearances. Muslims are more concerned with what they are seen to be doing than Catholics, for example.
+reine toutou You only need to read the first chapter of the bible.
Eve is only an extension of Adam (made out of his rib), and the temptation that condemned us and punished humanity not to live in the paradise => Women are inferior and guilty..
Adam had sex with his trans clone.
I just keep thinking to myself that as an adult, G+ should leave it to me to decide if something offends me or whether I should be looking at it. If I don't like it, I shouldn't look at it. I can turn off my own tv, or mute the post or whatever else I need to do. Treating me as if I can't be trusted to decide that for myself is the worst kind of patronizing bullshit. I'm not a child. I don't need to be protected from things like a naked body or even porn itself.
+Sheila Nagig is not trust or free will, is being indoctrinated: you have not a say OBEY!!!
The Bible is not a good example for sexuality for anyone.

That aside, I think this post is thought out wrong, I am pretty sure they are not just censoring unless a post is reported by another user who doesn't like seeing in their stream. If your photos are being removed, try limiting who you share them with to those that aren't uptight about it. 
+Rugger Ducky If Google+ accepts the claim is valid, they consent to the puritan religious criteria, and reinforce them.
I might report your picture because it offends me, based in who knows whatever personal criteria, and google will not accept it.
There should be an appeal process before things are removed, I agree with that. But again, it is the users reporting your content as offensive that cause this. If you're posting photos to the public stream, you have to be careful what you put out there.

I've reported quite a few child pornographers and their photos, and will continue to do so as I find them. Adults are one thing (and again, I do very much like nice boobs), kids are something entirely different. 
+Rugger Ducky Kids need to be protected, because there is no way they can do so by their own means, plus child pornography is a crime: not so the human body and/or adult sex
(BTW those posting child porn are retarded bastards, in my country you can and will be persecuted for doing so, and your IP localized and face criminal charges, and probably a jail sentence.. idiots think internet is anonimous).

I agree on that an appeal to flags should be done, but that is what google does not even pretend to reinforce, and as mentioned, if no nudity, falgs dont work... please report any of my profile pictures, they wont be censured.
What if you posted a photo of Hitler and put something on it like "Had the right idea about the Jewish problem"? That would offend most people, even though there would be no nudity, and get the banstick on it.

Hitler has been and is posted constantly, with no issue what so ever.
Equal goes on in Youtube (Google), with white supremacist, facists, nazis, and all kind of radical extremists... only sex and females are the issue => puritanism.
Well I take your point Rafa. I'm not sure it's worth such passion in this instance. It might be better to just ask for clarification on which G+ individuals are given responsibility for deciding what is or isn't acceptable here. Search into the process involved to see where the inherent gender stigma eminates from. Perhaps ask for them to choose between a zero-ass or all-ass policy?
Ok, how about we test this theory by posting all the moobs we can find? 
+Rugger Ducky I'll be glad to help on that, I usually do so already in Youtube with little success, although what I really believe in, is freedom of speech: so neither thing should be prohibited.
What pisses me of, is the double standard, and bias of the criteria used... that is based in puritanism with roots in religious extremist thought
Big saggy moobs offend everyone, surely it is a valid test of censorship, right?

On this, I am the right woman. When this first started and we were testing the public stream filter, I found quickly you could not post the word cock and have it show up in the public stream. But, if you posted a photo of a chicken you could include the word cock. 
+Rugger Ducky Dont get me started with words and the being PC USA paranoya.
I have posted an extense explanation to that, and USA use of censure, in post bellow (in Spanish)
Cock fuck cunt bitch nigger god fag ... I now feel like correcting some authors to match this criteria, I might start by Mark Twain, and who knows if Cervantes was not PC at his time. BS!
Just in case someone in this stream feels like reading in Spanish, and wishes to add a local US opinion regarding the issue. I prevent you I'm being highly critic on USA use of freedom of speech, as I think you are not what you pretend to stand for, at all (google translate might help):

En USA están más que acostumbrados/adoctrinados a aceptar la censura como algo tan habitual, que pocos ya la cuestionan.
Cualquier programa de TV en abierto de allí, lo frien a "beeeps", sobre el audio, para censurar palabrotas... si, si, hasta las palabras son censurables allí O.o!! FLIPANTE

Este un video que hasta postean en internet, INDIGANDOS por no haber sido censuradas las palabras negrata y joder
Second CNN Reporter Says N-Word And F-Word On Air Uncensored..
(se quejan de no ser censurados: el no va más)

Sus propias campañas de publicidad, hacen broma del tema:
Holy [BLEEP]! LogMeIn Ignition TV commercial
La palabra aquí censurada de forma cómica pero reflejando una realidad, no es otra que mierda (o lo que pudiera ser nuestro ostia puta, ya que holy es literalmente "sagradao" e identica referencia a nuestro Ostia, que es un juego de palabras entre tortazo y el cuerpo de cristo), ese es el "nivelazo", graciosisimo .... NOPE!

Los de South Park, hablando de los problemas que les supone la censura de USA:
Family Guy - Censored Jokes (Paley Center)
Censura de arte.. tocatela
Smithsonian Censored Crucifix Art!?

Si entras en Youtube y miras videos de raperos (que suelen tener letras muy explicitas) en la mayoría de ocasiones, les ponen también un "beep"... si si, beep en medio de una canción: máximo nivel de retraso mental
Aquí la famosísima canción de Eminem, que de hecho habla de como la MTV lo pretendía censurar y no pueden por lo famoso que es
Eminem - Without Me
(si te fijas en el minuto 1:40, la palabra FUCK/JODER, no se menciona, como si sucede en la version original de la canción... no estoy seguro si es él que ya se ha autocensurado para que no lo jodan, añadiendo un logo sobre su dedo que dice lo mismo con un gesto, para enfatizar lo ridículo de la censura, o que lo han hecho así los de Vimeo, que es lo que hacen con todas las palabras que no són PC: todo video con la palabra FUCK/JODER esta cubierto por un "beep")

Después del suceso del pezón de Latoya Jackson en la superbowl (que es como la final de la champions league para nosotros), impusieron un obligatorio retardo en la emisión de imágenes en TV, para poder así censurar lo que no consideren apropiado. no existe el directo, todo es en diferido

Han creado un sublenguaje que ellos llaman PC (politicamente correcto), donde el uso de ciertos vocabulos no esta permitido... de eso a quemar libros, hay un paso muy pequño, de hecho yo creo que es peor.

La novela de Tom Sawyer (clasico de la literatura americana), la pretendían rectificar para no incluir la palabra nigger y/o esclavo (que es como el protagonista se refiere al coprotagonista, que es un esclavo negro que se ha escapado), ya que las consideran ofensivas y denigrantes para la raza negra... acojonate, esto es como si me dá por reescrivir a Cervantes porque me pasa por los huevos juzgar sus escritos en funcion de mi criterio actual: están locos
En la época en la que sucenden los hecho narrados en la novela, la gente llamaba a los negros niggers, ya que eran una sociedad racista y esclavistas, cambiar las palabras del protagonista es una barbaridad de nivel apoteósico, es pretender que la realidad de esa época fuera la que no era, a parte de que corregir a un autor es el summum de la manipulación.

Yo trabajaba en cine, lo creas o no, hasta de las películas mas populares y conocidas de hollywood, existen 2 versiones de edición, se hace una para USA, y otra para el resto del mundo.

Asi de fácil es depués engañar/dirigir a la opinon publica americana a lo que sea (la guerra habitualmente), ya que están atontados por sus medios de comunicación.

USA => expertos en adoctrinamiento mediante censura y manipulación de la opinion publica.
Relaciones Publicas (marketing), es un término que no és más que maquillar el concepto de Propaganda, tras su uso/abuso por parte del nacismo.
Esto no lo digo yo, lo explica aqui el precursor de ello, Eduard Bernays, es el sobrino de Sigmund Freud, y uno de los más importantes expertos en la materia (junto al infamoso Goebbels del partido Nazi)
:: Edward Bernays : on Propaganda and Public Relations ::
el ABC de: aprenda usted a manipular massas, y la opinion publica

El puritanismo esta enraizado en el extremismo religioso muy presente allí: uno de los temas más candentes en la actualidad es el creacionismo, lo creas o no, más de la mitad de la gente en USA, niega que descendamos del mono, si no que creen que somos desdendientes de Adan y Eva, la tierra existe a penas desde hace unos 1000s de años, y la evolucion de las especies es una falacia para ellos.
(sin ir más lejos, Santorum, que ha estado cerca de ser el candidato del partido republicano a las elecciones, nuestro Rajoy y el PP, abiertamente defiende esta teoría, de que somos todos hijos de Adan y Eva y Darwin es poco más que un hereje... y la gente lo apoya)


Y no confundir esto con medidas para evitar el racismo o demás, en tales ocasiones es cuando si hacen uso de su vanaglorida libertad de expresión: para defender cosas como la libertad del KuKluxKlan de exhibir parafelnalia racista y abogar por la supremacia aria.

Que una palabra prohibida es Fuck, es de uso común referirse a ella como F word, para evitar pronunciarla... es JODER, simplemente JODER

Estas, otros ejemplos: cunt (coño, que se usa para referirse a las mujeres de forma despectiva) shit (mierda) usar Gosh en vez de God (para no pronunciar el nombre de Dios en vano) fuck (joder), nigger (negrata, aunque aquí encajaría mejor con nuestro término sudaca)... la lista es larguisima, y ahora pretenden reforzar una aun más larga, de todas las palabras que no deben ser usadas: ni Torquemada en sus mejores tiempos de la Inquisición, logró algo igual.

Se quedan tan tontos, que los negros se ofenden si se refieren a ellos como lo que són: NEGROS (como si su color fuera algo malo o motivo de verguenza), haciendo que se refieran a ellos, como AfroAmericanos... y no se dan cuenta de lo racista que es el uso de este término para evitar el logico y evidente, que si a una cosa le dices blanco a la otra negro, y no debiera pasar NADA, de lo contrario, si crees que pasa algo, es que si tienes problemas con un color determinado.

Contradict me, hate me, or whatever... this is what I think about censure and manipulation, and I consider USA to be the experts.
Creo que no. La mejor de Americanos son normales. Es la minoridad que decir y crear las leyes por todos.
+Sheila Nagig I refer to US as a globality, as a country and society. Not at a particular/individual level.
Sorry to say, but the puritanism I'm pointing out (and google+ is reinforcing), has much to do with religious thought, and it is a majoritarian issue in USA.
Religious extremisim in USA is not minoritarian.
As far as I know/think, creationism is a clear sign of religious fanatism and indoctrination maleability level of a society.
What I know best of USA is CT; OK I'll accept CT or maybe most of NewEngland, is not so, but as a nation, this fanatism is much present and in big numbers.
Our government is no longer that of the people, it belongs to the corporations. They are trying to push us all back to the 1950s, or at least what they think the 50s was. Did you hear the congressman screaming about communists? Ahaha, these fuckers are crazy. Don't think Americans are stupid, think that most of us are just too goddamn complacent. 
+Rugger Ducky I dont think americans are stupid either, to the contrary... that pisses me off even more.
I only agree in your observation of being too much complacent, and how that has lead you to accept a minupulation that is being reinforced on public opinion as a mass, leading you to agree on whatever those corporations wish you to: that means normally war, or exporting the mass manipulation criteria, and that influences me much, and my concern.
Top-freedom is about equality. Female breasts are exploited (and over-sexualized) because inequality exists. Equality is the answer, so that female breasts cease to cause a stir, a taboo. We need to stop censoring female breasts; or the alternative is for male breasts (chests) to be likewise censored and criminalized.
Hmm, I couldn't find any nudity through the search, of any gender. Some bare male chests, but whilst females shouldn't need to consider breasts as genitalia, most do.

Whilst I'd agree that no-nudity is a dumb puritanical policy, that's a result of society at large, so G+ is pandering to what they assume is the majority. There are alternatives to G+, I'd suggest its better to rage at the problems that create the society which G+ adapts its rules to. Whilst also asking G+ to reconsider.

Most ppl just don't respond to being raved at.
+Pontus Proteus JFYI the majority, might be Islam.
And in this puritan aspect, matches with Christians ideals.

I agree to some degree with you, is not just a google by society issue. Never the less, goole is accepting puritasim as the criteria to be reiforced.

You are flagged by users, but is google who accepts the flag or not, and they do so always if female nudity is exposed and/or male toguether with women sexuality, male ass and chest alone are not banned; I have tested this.

If I flag someone based in my personal criterai that does not correspond with this, posts do not get ban (I might be ofended by a pictures of the Pope, as he stands for something I consider creates much harm to the world, but that would be just my criteria, not shared by Google).

The criteria is that of religious blame on women and portrait of females as the temptation we all need to be preserved from.
Males are not treated equaly.

+Rugger Ducky has mentioned before an appeal process, that could be a solution, I dont know, maybe they could manage a way not to have to accept this religious puritan criterias being reinfored on all of us.
I would point out to those who did not know of my stream, and what I used to publish (now deleted by myself, not to cooperate with the Spanish Inquisition... excuse me, I mean USA):

I've never abuse sexual content, nor have I tried to exhibit nude photos as an object, beyond what I consider my normal sexuality: I began to be censured for using a nude woman whose nudity was the least important thing of the message in the picture, since the important thing was how she was looking to herself in a mirror, It was not a pornographic image, photo has been displayed in museums in half of the world.

My posts were based in Barcelona Culture, Spanish Heritage, Cinema, and critics to religion and puritanism... then, once the first ban happen, I started to get ban on repeated ocasion, allways for same reason: bOOb, and/or female ass.

BTW: I did post images, that I would personaly consider much more controversial, but since nudity was not exposed, no problemo.
Well, let's see how long the Dali painting stays up. That's pretty nekkid, as they'd say in the deep south. 
I'm going to post one only for your eyes, try resharing that one, and lets see if you get away from the Spanish Inquisition...
Add a comment...