I think avatars are pretty subjective.
I also think that most of the risque avatars that are used here can be viewed by kids anyway, in other media outlets.
Simply put, kids can and do see this stuff everyday. Seriously, have you guys checked out a magazine rack lately? And I dont' mean the ### rack, either. Have any of you guys looked at your wifes fashion magazine lately? It's full of half aked pictures of chicks in lingerie. How about MAXIM style mags? They are readily viewable by kids. :wink:
DO you think that 10 year old kids don't lok at those magazines?
Frankly, if a kid is old enough to post on a gun forum, then he/she has proabbly seen it all before...
*your* wife may say "That avatar is offensive!' But my GF says "wow, she's got a great ass." And I'm not kidding, either..
Others find avatars like Pops offensive. There is a pic of a guy pointing a gun at me. Bad safety practice etc. Others say "it's a picture, who cares?"
People also complain that some avatars are not suitable for viewing at work. SO what? Go back to work! 8)
What is and is not offensive is highly subjective, and there is no clear cut line, unless we change the rules to highly regulated avatar guidelines, which may exclude SC's Frankenstien (too scary for kids..Promotes the use of cadavars for undead experiments

) or My avatar (fish have feelings to, we shoudln't promote cruelty to salmon

) etc etc.
:mrgreen: