Talk:Beyond Dreams (Star Trek: TOS zine)

Dear MPH,

There is a beautiful piece of art of Kirk in all of his glory that needs to be minimized (the art piece, not the glory) and I don't have a clue as to how to do it. The caption - "inside page from issue #2, Marianne Mueller ("Midnight Bath") for And On the Sixth Day"

thanks

bobdog

You mean because of the nudity? I don't consider it needing to minimized. I think the piece is just fine all glorious like that as it doesn't show any actual sexual activity, or an erection. It's just a simple nude. What do others think? --MPH (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I love learning new things. I wasn't sure if it was any hint of manly splendor.

Thanks for the prompt response.

bobdog

His manly splendor is just fine here. Manly splendors together need more evaluation. :) --MPH (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I love that phrase: "manly splendor". The general rule that I use is (1) genitalia (note: breast do not count as genitalia. There is an amusing back story on that topic which I shall skip) that are (2) engaged in sexual activity. Hopefully said genitalia are connected to a person when "engaging" but that is not a requirement. :-) So David's Michelangelo = not sexually explicit. A picture of people having sex where you can only see breasts and buttocks = not sexually explicit. Tentacle penises are harder to assess - are they erect or are they just waving hello? We'd have to consult a xeno-biologist--MeeDee (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I came for the tentacle penises, stayed for manly splendor and then went to... erm... assess (yes, that's a good word) whether or not it really needed minimizing. For reasons. Science reasons. It's not really explicit, but it's not exactly safe for work either, so I see whee bobdog is coming from... --Alex (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)