Blatant sexual objectification not allowed on Jigidi
Find erotic puzzles elsewhere online
Jigidi is not a platform open to all content. We cannot be with the purpose we insist on adding value to: growing the common ground.
If the lack of erotic puzzles and the low bar for sexual objectification is a deal breaker for you, you should try out other online jigsaw puzzles sites that do not share aim and moderation philosophy with Jigidi. There are many puzzles sites out there with categories for erotica. Try googling erotic online jigsaw puzzle yourself.
If it is, in fact, not a deal breaker for you, but you’re just confused about why and how we moderate sexual objectification, then please read on.
First, the WHY’S.
Does Jigidi suffer from a severe case of political correctness? Do we need to call someone?
No. Our stand on blatant sexual objectification is that of a bio-technical point of view, not a moral one.
To get the gist of the mechanical point behind excluding blatant sexual objectification on Jigidi imagine yourself for a moment on your couch watching a boxing fight (feel free to add beverage and chips to the situation).
You see the coach yelling at the boxer? The coach is all up in his face. Slapping him forcefully on the chin, chest, and shoulder. Pushing him too. Just your general aggressive input to put the boxer in the state of mind, that to some part ensures he delivers in the ring.
That’s all suitable then and there. But hardly ideal as a farewell and good luck to anybody in any given situation. The coach’s input is designed to put the boxer in a specific state of mind to perform in a certain manner.
Similarly, puzzles we create or come by pushes buttons as far as our state of mind goes.
When we review puzzles, we pause on the ones that seemingly push too hard on buttons that drive behavior that is not adding value to Jigidi.
Values of Jigidi
We all have more in common than what separates us. It’s banal, it’s true, and it’s very powerful.
We all run on the same fuel and fall in and out of love with the world on an everyday basis. We seek connection, safety, growth, and inspiration. And when we communicate new inspiration sets hooks in our memories and understandings - hence they become richer and create a new movement within us.
Communication from within the common ground effectively expands it, and this is something to strive for. But it requires an open line between us, and sexual objectification is not an inclusive lens. It’s not meant to be either.
Erotic desires deal in optimizing erotic desires. Full stop.
And that’s all grand within the erotic zone but being in the zone makes you a lousy fellow Jigidi puzzler.
We’ll give this a few more words.
We know from neuroscience that strong erotic desires create tunnel vision in the mind. When - in the zone - we make choices that seek to optimize the erotic pleasure at the expense of other concerns like for instance empathy, respect, and curiosity in matters outside of the zone of erotica.
That’s for the ones that find the image pleasing and are ready for input from an erotic perspective.
Then there is the group that finds themselves objectified in the puzzle. They may state ‘inappropriate’ lacking a better term. Inappropriate sounds like you’re putting a moral judgment on something. We’re more concerned with the disconcerting emotions that flow with being objectified.
Blatant sexual objectification is something we’ve gotten very used to. We hardly consider it eroticism when glancing at it - but your mind does and responds with emotions that in no small degree drives your focus and behavior.
This was the why’s – here come the HOW’S.
How do we moderate this?
What we look for is whether other things are brought along to the table - so that we're no longer in the company of blatant sexual objectification but have arrived in the zone of art, history, comedy and so forth.
This makes it content that carries potential to inspire the observer beyond the binary state of “could I,” “would I”?
When we review puzzles, we do it through all of the following lenses:
- Does the title of the puzzle substantiate a breach of guidelines?
A sexually objectifying title or description is a tell-tell about the intention and the most common interpretation of the puzzle.
- Does the image bring anything other to the table than blatant sexual objectification? And in a manner so substantial that the puzzle gets another overall focus?
Art, history, comedy or something else?
- What are the reactions from fellow puzzlers? How do they respond to the puzzle?
Are the comments sexually objectifying someone – thus substantiating a breach of guidelines?
- Is the creator uploading many images that are seemingly seeking to test the line? Does the creator beyond that have a profile that seems focused on either political conflict, ridiculing content, sexual objectification or anything of the sorts presenting breach of Jigidi guidelines?
Push back when you find us in the wrong
Reviewing the reported puzzles is done by Jigidi team under the guidelines, as best we can. We are aware that the subjectivity of the process is frustrating, but it is still the best process possible we can see at this point.
The line of blatant objectification is flimsy, though, and we are often in doubt on where to draw the line. And sometimes we may go too far when trying to convey the message of ‘no sexual objectification!’.
So yes, you can push back if you find an image more dominantly expressing an intent and focus than that to entice blatantly. On this very note, if you want to stress a particular framing of an image you can write in your description what angle you take on the image. This greatly affects the interpretation – your fellow puzzlers and ours.