Matthew dixon british diver

Posts Attachments
Sort by date Most Liked Posts
qazedctgb said:
View attachment 137097301
So you mean it would be totally fine to look at this picture at your place of work?
Click to expand...
No, of course that's not what I mean. You are taking the literal meaning of SFW as opposed to the use in which it is usually meant in relation to people who have some link to photos of themselves being published. The meaning in that case is that the content, although perhaps a little risque, is NOT risque enough to cause them any issued with their employers. Which in Matthews case are Team GB Diving. Please remember that in the past Chris Mears had videos and photos of him not just naked, but jerking off released onto the internet, and that was while he was still part of Team GB. Fellow Diver Freddie Woodward also had very full on photos of his erect penis hit the internet, again, while he was still a member of Team GB. Naturally neither of those guys would have wanted such things going public. But I think it shows that Team GB are quite flexible as to what the Divers might get up to before the lads really do have an issue with their employers.
I appreciate that the photo above leaves little to the imagination. But it's NOT in any way pornographic in the true sense. And, getting back to the point, the SFW meaning in this sense is that it's something that'll not cause an issue with employers.
 
kingkong6269 said:
No, of course that's not what I mean. You are taking the literal meaning of SFW as opposed to the use in which it is usually meant in relation to people who have some link to photos of themselves being published. The meaning in that case is that the content, although perhaps a little risque, is NOT risque enough to cause them any issued with their employers. Which in Matthews case are Team GB Diving. Please remember that in the past Chris Mears had videos and photos of him not just naked, but jerking off released onto the internet, and that was while he was still part of Team GB. Fellow Diver Freddie Woodward also had very full on photos of his erect penis hit the internet, again, while he was still a member of Team GB. Naturally neither of those guys would have wanted such things going public. But I think it shows that Team GB are quite flexible as to what the Divers might get up to before the lads really do have an issue with their employers.
I appreciate that the photo above leaves little to the imagination. But it's NOT in any way pornographic in the true sense. And, getting back to the point, the SFW meaning in this sense is that it's something that'll not cause an issue with employers.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but you are just wrong with that definition. I don't know where you found that but the definition I gave is the one that is supported on things like urban dictionary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJS65647 and Hephaestion47
kingkong6269 said:
No, of course that's not what I mean. You are taking the literal meaning of SFW as opposed to the use in which it is usually meant in relation to people who have some link to photos of themselves being published. The meaning in that case is that the content, although perhaps a little risque, is NOT risque enough to cause them any issued with their employers. Which in Matthews case are Team GB Diving. Please remember that in the past Chris Mears had videos and photos of him not just naked, but jerking off released onto the internet, and that was while he was still part of Team GB. Fellow Diver Freddie Woodward also had very full on photos of his erect penis hit the internet, again, while he was still a member of Team GB. Naturally neither of those guys would have wanted such things going public. But I think it shows that Team GB are quite flexible as to what the Divers might get up to before the lads really do have an issue with their employers.
I appreciate that the photo above leaves little to the imagination. But it's NOT in any way pornographic in the true sense. And, getting back to the point, the SFW meaning in this sense is that it's something that'll not cause an issue with employers.
Click to expand...

Not Safe for Work has one definition, and it's not NOT what you're giving.

It means if I accessed it at work would I get in trouble with my Boss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: qazedctgb and littlebritoflove
qazedctgb said:
I'm sorry but you are just wrong with that definition. I don't know where you found that but the definition I gave is the one that is supported on things like urban dictionary.
Click to expand...
This is not something that's going to stop the world going round. So let's just agree to disagree and move on....
 
Hephaestion47 said:
Not Safe for Work has one definition, and it's not NOT what you're giving.

It means if I accessed it at work would I get in trouble with my Boss.
Click to expand...
This is not something that's going to stop the world going round. So let's just agree to disagree and move on....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hephaestion47
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cookiesNcream5
Matteo Santoro
Replies
1
Views
591
Models and Celebrities
DiverBoy
DiverBoy
A
Francesco casaIini Italian diver
Replies
5
Views
746
Models and Celebrities
jackoff73
J
V
Photo Kurts Adams
Replies
51
Views
26K
Models and Celebrities
Sense8
S
L
Photos & Videos Matthew Needham
Replies
0
Views
480
Models and Celebrities
lycanthrope
L
J
Who is this?
Replies
5
Views
438
Models and Celebrities
joshb19
J
Remove Ads
Top Bottom