I know.  What's also funny is Americans revolted to get away from the British rule.  :p

Seriously though, we all don't act like George Bush (1 or 2).

Apparently a staff which includes many gay British members is really made up of homophobic Americans.

In regards to some of the responses in this thread so far: While I appreciate the feedback from the community, many of you have gone too far. I am seriously contemplating making a run through this thread and banning several people. It's one thing to say you don't approve of the new rule or complain about its implications, but it's another to insult the staff and spam up the thread. 

Maybe I should've put a smiley or something behind that (I wasn't serious of course, but should I've used something like "vgchartz people" instead of it? But then it wouldn't have worked with 1492). I just used it because it's cliché that americans are prude. I'll change it if you want.

@amp316:

I don't mind that since it should be obvious that people aren't serious. Also, Americans are "known" (again: Cliché) doing stupid things.

I'm pretty sure that people all over the world are known for doing stupid things.  Not just Americans.  For instance, Americans don't usually do American bashing...

Wow in germany we can see tits (with nipples) on tv at launch time.

I'm not gonna complain but maan this is a lil harsh.

Edit: Oh and if any Mod has something against my avatar please warn me before banning lol.

Can't see anything too sexual. Besides that weird looking hat ofcourse. (It didn't say "No underwear on head")

I think i should share my opinions here since these rules are still up for debate I'm glad the mod team/site admins are at least discussing this and not jumping the gun. Which i think, if you did implement these proposed rules without any discussion, would be very bad management of the situation.

My opinion on this matter is very similar to what Rol has said previously in the thread...certain users have obviously (and MY GOD WAS IT OBVIOUS!) crossed the line when it came to what was acceptable and what was not. For example, trucks/seece's avatars of the guys from Supernatural were okay...in fact i personally don't even see those pics as being sexual..let alone hyper-sexual. But then some1 had a pic of two almost completely naked guys sitting together in a sexual position that was clearly crossing the line. The same goes for sexual female avatars, Pezus use to have a lot of avatars of a certain model (forgot her name) but this was fine as well, no nudity, just an attractive model. But some people have almost completely naked woman in their avatar like pbroy's this would again be crossing the line.

It should have been up to the mods to draw the line, and let those with the avatars that were clearly inappropriate know that, maybe give them a warning etc. This could have avoided the whole situation imo.

I don't think any new rules should come in to effect, but rather stricter adherence to the rules that are already in place. And if the current rules are not clear enough for interpretation then make them clear.

What the mods also need to take into consideration is that it wasn't as if everybody had soft porn avatars, it was only a few, still is only a few. And now the whole community is paying the consequences. Come on guys surely more thought should have gone into dealing with this...

I am TruckOSaurus and I approve this message. It really sums up what I also think of the situation.

I would. Norwegians are a bunch of morons...

I've changed my profile pic.
If Dr Grass's pic is fine, I reckon this should be acceptable?

I'm one of the people who is in support of the new rules and don't think I could be accused of homophobia...

Honestly it wasnt the sexy pictures of men that were the problem for me anyway, it was avatars like the one asstronaut just changed. Would be awkward if somebody at work saw that pic.