More groan-inducing news from Facebook: new reports suggest the social media megacorp banned a charity calendar for violating its prohibitions against sexual activity. The catch? The calendar actually didn’t violate said standards.
The Naked Rugby Players posed for a calendar to sell for charity. The UK-based sports group intends the proceeds to go to Balls to Cancer, a charity dedicated to treatment and prevention of testicular cancer. Additional proceeds would go toward making rugby more LGBTQ inclusive. Facebook, however, banned mention of the calendar, claiming it violated its prohibitions against images containing nudity or sexual activity. The Naked Rugby Players Facebook page underwent a 24 hour ban in accordance with the policies.
Related: Russell Tovey just got engaged to this super hot rugby player
Oddly though, the calendar does not contain images of nudity. Rather, it depicts members of several rugby teams wearing socks to conceal their genitals. “We take a huge amount of time on photo shoot days to ensure that everybody is comfortable and making absolutely 100 percent sure that nobody’s genitals are on show,” said Jake Hook, the creative mind behind the calendar. “In fact, it is in our agreement with the clubs that take part that we make sure that no one’s genitals will be visible.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The Naked Rugby Players ban comes as just the latest in a series of LGBTQ bans on Facebook. Beginning in October, a number of LGBTQ-themed posts and advertisements have been blocked on the social media giant. That includes political posts promoting causes like transgender rights. Facebook, for its part, claims all such bans are simply accidental.
Despite the issues with Facebook, the Naked Rugby Player calendar remains available for sale on the group’s website.
iamru2
Lol queerty is so full of outrage all the time not sure how they get through life!
CMarks
And yet you continue to read it. Obviously they are doing something right.
Rob Moore
I’ve seen some of your posts on other articles. Who are you? Other than being a noxious prat, who are you really? You seem always to express outrage about others being outraged on LGBTQ issues or just acting like an evil little troll who hates everything it reads on Queerty, yet, returns over and over. Are you just a self-hating gay person?
Kieran
Male homoeroticism is disturbing to a lot of people.
VaJohn
Str8 eroticism is disturbing to me, but what’s that got to do with Facebook setting standards, which they, themselves, then proceed to violate? BTW, Sir, there’s now a growing sentiment to have equality between male and female nudity in public, i.e., why should it be ok for males to take off shirts in public, but not females? After all, male homoeroticism is disturbing to a lot of people, right?
djmcgamester
Another case of nudity = sex. So stupid. Plus, the money goes to charity. I think they should use that angle against FB that the unfairly banned them and are displaying homophobic behavior. Again.
RIGay
Hey! I ordered my calendar! It arrived a few weeks ago!
tameron1
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have no problem allowing the Russians to infiltrate the network and to subvert our Democracy to elect an illegal criminal to the presidency, but are upset by a few naked men who have their genitals “covered up” and its all for charity. Their misplaced outrage and stupid censorship are misguided. I am very damned close to ending my Facebook account.
Abraxas020
7 pounds shipping for a 10 pound calender?