|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I enjoy porn. I like it, I enjoy the fantasy of being one of the participants. I have a regular set of sites for the kind of gentleman I enjoy: lithe, sleek, youthful, lawful (why I should have to say that I have no idea). So imagine my surprise when many of the thumbnails that lead to the amusing treasures within have turned into pictures of blokes having a crap.
Why can't the regular porn thumbnail sites stick to good, honest porn? Poo fanatics have their own sites, surely?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saphir
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: Germany
Registered: April 2013
Messages: 1
|
|
|
What is sleek, lawful, honest porn anyway?
If those thumbnails show up in categories where they are not supposed to be (due to the category name) then I could understand that... but if it's just a random page with random porn then I don't see the point. I'm totally not into poo, but it seems to sell, doesn't it? And in case: that's what pages with categories are for.
Don't have heteros their own sites? Don't have gays their own sites? Don't have people who like something weird own sites? Sorry, but what is good, honest porn? This sounds judgmental to me.
Sorry if my reaction seems somewhat... direct... I just think that porn is porn. Either you like it or you move on, if need be to another site/host. But I'd never have the idea of judging anyone's likes or wanting them to get their own sites.
And once again: what is true, honest porn? As in the way some people might consider it "pure", "clean", "appropriate"? Who would be the judge of saying that butt sex fits those terms and poo porn doesn't? That sounds like a hetero telling my I'm gross because I do butt sex.
Or as in honest and good in the way it was produced? I don't really think there is much porn out there that is produced under conditions that I would consider "fair" and "good" and "honest"... and if there is poo porn can be produced that way just like any other porn.
Just my personal opinion/reaction^^
The question about good and honest is an interesting one though...^^
Saphir
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Well, what I mean is porn that has to do with purely sexual acts. Displaying faeces in a bowl is many things, but sex is not one of them.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... that displaying poop in a bowl would not be classified as porn; but, then again I'm not at all enamoured of "Scat"; nor "Golden Showers" or "Rubber", "Vinyl" or a cast of literally hundreds, if not more, other what would be rightly classified as fetishes.
SAPHIR does make a valid point though in his assertion that "... porn is porn. Either you like it or you move on, if need be to another site/host."
On the other hand, I have noticed a recent trend, and not just amongst the gay-themed sites, but the straight ones too; this being the frequent mislabeling/categorizing of content, especially within the various tube vidéo-server sites which deliver up the bulk of free content for viewing. I have several dozen or thereabouts of these bookmarked which have proven the test of time and their reliability to deliver content that is in large part neither watermarked nor incorrectly stated - sites which serve up the requested page usually on the first right-click, and definitely within three. Unfortunately these honest tubes are rapidly becoming dinosaurs in the industry and my list shrinks by one or two each month and has been doing so for the better part of a year. The aforementioned "three-click" test I have used for over a decade to circumvent those awful tubes (and there are thousands of them, straight and gay, with more each and every day) that exist solely on serving up page-views to their advertisers and seldom if ever at all any intention of delivering on the requested page.
Also going the way of the dinosaur it would seem are the myriad number of "Vanilla" web-sites serving up that old-fashioned good old reliable orgasm in the tried and true fashions. It would appear that today's youngsters routinely desire "Different", "Unusual" and even downright "Bizarre"; content that traditionally could only be found by the interested amongst our aging population under the counter of those old-style video-arcades and adult bookstores; content that appealed to only those that knew precisely how to locate it; content whilst certainly "Fetish" in nature, would in all likelihood have included in good part most of what would be considered kiddie-porn today.
"Vanilla" is boring to our youth; the "been there, done that" creed applying to all things sexual as it has to most others within their grasp. While I find it unappealing having to navigate the many "Fetish" sites that have cropped up everywhere, I find it most distasteful to have been sent to one of these through improperly/incorrectly labeled links. Whilst us older consumers may realize that this not need be this way, our youth just think it's part of the landscape, and something they have to live with because they have never known anything else and endure it because that is the way it is.
Warren C. E. Austin
The Gay Deceiver
Toronto, Canada
[Updated on: Sun, 07 April 2013 15:20] |
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
