The Maggie’s Farm Smut Guide

 
(This was originally posted on Maggie's just for a day, so everyone could see it, then moved over here.  Maggie doesn't mind a little skin here and there, but having it collected is a bit much.)
 


 
Dear fellow and fellowess Maggie's bloggers:

One of the problems with having multiple bloggers on a site such as this is that everyone has a different idea of what's "not quite too sexy" for what is, ostensibly, a refined, cultured site that tries to present a wide range of topics in at least a semi-dignified manner.  Nobody here is a 'prude'.  We all admire the human body in its God-given form.  But, by the same token, using gratuitous sensationalism merely for sensationalism's sake doesn't seem to jibe well with a penetrating look at the national economy or the growth of the psyche in a young child's brain.

So, a line must be drawn, rules must be written.

The problem, of course, is one of getting bogged down in the minutiæ.  The rule clearly states "no frontal nudity" — so does that mean 95% frontal nudity is okay?  It clearly states "no bare nipples" — so does that mean covering them with the thinnest gauze in the known universe gets a pass?

Wet gauze, no less?

That's the point I was at in my thought process when suddenly, in an incredible one-in-ten-billion happenstance, two of my brain synapses lined up correctly and I had a revelation:

The rules don't have to be written!

Because Maggie, herself, has already shown us the way.  Below, fellow bloggers, you will find a wide variety of examples of posts which have already been approved by the governing board and are, indeed, on the site this very day.  Merely right-click on one of them and open 'Properties' or 'View Image Info' and you'll see the direct link to Maggie's.  So if the picture in your post looks just like one of these, you're good to go.

As a quick example of what we're up against with the governing board, here's what appears at first glance to be a revoltingly rude picture that's obviously pushed the bounds of decorum way too far:

Despite the sordid events that took place that day, the above shamelessly revealing photograph was deemed 'okay' by the governing board because of its obvious authenticity.  Hence the confusion among us bloggers.  We figure if that kind of raunchy material is okay, then it's pretty much "anything goes" around this joint, and that's when we get into trouble.

So show us what's permissible to post, dear Maggie.  Let history be our guiding light.
 


 
The procedure is very straightforward and easy.  Simply use the officially-sanctioned picture as your guide for each area and emulate it as closely as possible.  Use the Windows Magnification Tool if necessary.  When you feel your picture is "in sync" with the online guide picture, you'll be ready to post with no fear of repercussion.
 

RULE #1: NO BARE NIPPLES

Exceptions:

A: Unless covered by the thinnest gauze in the known universe:

B: They're painted:

C: On a wall mural:

D: Covered in sludge:

E: Or it's Christmas:

 
RULE #2: NO BARE BOTTOMS

Exceptions:

A: Except…

B: when viewed…

C: from the…

D: side:

E: Or covered with a bathing suit:

 
RULE #3: NO BARE CROTCHES

Exceptions:

A: Unless covered in sludge:

B: Covered by the darkest shadows of the netherworld:

C: Or it's too far away to see anything, dammit!

 
RULE #4: NO PENISES

Exceptions:

A: Unless it's "art":

B: Or at least somebody's idea of it.


RULE #5: NO FEMALE FRONTAL NUDITY

Exceptions: 

A: Unless it's painted: 

B: Is a video that starts off with "NSFW": 

C: Or is back behind the barn:

SPECIAL RULES

This is the traditional 'gray area' that's a little hard to define, but let me give you some examples and you'll catch on.

1. This picture would have been soundly rejected if the two photoshopped faces had been reversed:

Seeing Hillary with deep cleavage would have been deemed far too risky for our readership's delicate sensibilities, and some of the younger ones might have snapped.  We all have our breaking point.
 

2. If a male had posted this: 

He would have, correctly, been soundly condemned for perpetrating the frustrating, almost-impossible-to-achieve ideal that the 'perfect woman' has the hips of an 18-year-old boy. 

But since a female posted it, it's perfectly okay.

 
3. If a female had posted this:

 

She would have, correctly, been soundly condemned for perpetrating the frustrating, almost-impossible-to-achieve ideal that the 'perfect woman' has the hips of an 18-year-old boy. 

But since a male posted it, he's just considered a big dumb ape who doesn't know any better. 

That's why this "gray area" stuff is confusing. 

 
SURVEY RESULTS

As a guide to what type of pictures your readers might enjoy, we've extensively surveyed the Maggie's Farm readership and these are the categories they most prefer: 

A.  Pictures they can have on the screen when you-know-who suddenly walks into the room: 

"What are you doing, dear?"

"Oh, uh, picking out new bedsheets for your birthday, honey-bunch!"

"How sweet!"

B.  More stacked, knock-kneed girls in heels and short skirts holding lollipops:

C.  Bigger cans: 

D. Fewer beads: 

E.  More tractor mechanics: 

F.  More water sports: 

G.  More genetic mutants: 

H.  More real farm porn!

Nice axles, baby!  Show 'em!