The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Anyone else heard that hardcore porn could be on tv by october. Their relaxing the laws apparently. Yay!
Page:
Hedfix wrote:
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> Heh, and soap downgrades it self further to compete, resulting in:
>
> PAT BUTCHER IN A SAUNA.
>
> *Vomits*
>
> Blank wrote:
>
> Cool, I thought I was the only one into butcher porn.
>
> I was joking, and you are a sick SICK puppy!
I knew that was coming.
(No pun intended, to prevent further misadventures)
> Hedfix wrote:
>
> Heh, and soap downgrades it self further to compete, resulting in:
>
> PAT BUTCHER IN A SAUNA.
>
> *Vomits*
>
> Blank wrote:
>
> Cool, I thought I was the only one into butcher porn.
>
> I was joking, and you are a sick SICK puppy!
I knew that was coming.
(No pun intended, to prevent further misadventures)
To whoever asked the question about blurring: it's illegal to show a annuhrection (a human one) on TV, even for educational purposes.
Hmm, I'm not at all convinced.
Black Glove wrote:
> I don't think sex is about humilation either, but I'm fairly
> convinced porn is. Surely no-one truly wants to view happy porn -
> that is really perverse.
What do you define as 'happy porn'?
I'd have thought that'd be your average decent porno (if that's not a contradiction) really.
The girl's having a good time, the guy's drawing as little attention to himself as possible.
Sure, you don't want cheesey smiles and stuff, but you don't get that in sex either.
> I think what most viewers of porn want is to see floozies getting put
> through the mill, so to speak; being taken to the edge of humilation
> at the very least. Let's be honest about this.
Being honest, yes, that sometimes seems to be a factor. But I'm still of the opinion that it's not a majority factor.
To semi-quote (from memory) the forum's favourite stand-up:
"I don't think porn is degrading to women - look at her, she's bouncing around looking great, with a huge smile on her face.. and we know she's not that good an actress.
If anything it's degrading to the man. I couldn't make a face like that if a car ran over my foot"
I think he has a point. It offers women another option at financial stability, for a few years at least. Potentially they're taking money off idiot men for doing something they enjoy doing anyway.
Then again, you could see them as being manipulated by the (probably usually) men running the operation, who use them and take most of the money - but that's true of anything, the corporates get rich of the artists' efforts.
And meanwhile whose really degraded? The lonely guy sitting at home w***ing because he can't get a woman. (Ie, me :^D )
Black Glove wrote:
> I don't think sex is about humilation either, but I'm fairly
> convinced porn is. Surely no-one truly wants to view happy porn -
> that is really perverse.
What do you define as 'happy porn'?
I'd have thought that'd be your average decent porno (if that's not a contradiction) really.
The girl's having a good time, the guy's drawing as little attention to himself as possible.
Sure, you don't want cheesey smiles and stuff, but you don't get that in sex either.
> I think what most viewers of porn want is to see floozies getting put
> through the mill, so to speak; being taken to the edge of humilation
> at the very least. Let's be honest about this.
Being honest, yes, that sometimes seems to be a factor. But I'm still of the opinion that it's not a majority factor.
To semi-quote (from memory) the forum's favourite stand-up:
"I don't think porn is degrading to women - look at her, she's bouncing around looking great, with a huge smile on her face.. and we know she's not that good an actress.
If anything it's degrading to the man. I couldn't make a face like that if a car ran over my foot"
I think he has a point. It offers women another option at financial stability, for a few years at least. Potentially they're taking money off idiot men for doing something they enjoy doing anyway.
Then again, you could see them as being manipulated by the (probably usually) men running the operation, who use them and take most of the money - but that's true of anything, the corporates get rich of the artists' efforts.
And meanwhile whose really degraded? The lonely guy sitting at home w***ing because he can't get a woman. (Ie, me :^D )
Paradox: wrote:
> On pay-per-view channels only.
>
> Currently "porn" chanels like The Adult Chanel, Television
> X, etc are only allowed to show softcore stuff - the law will allow
> them to show pay per view hardcore too - and im pretty sure the free
> ten minutes at midnight will remain softcore.
Heh.
We get it for free.
God bless piracy.
> On pay-per-view channels only.
>
> Currently "porn" chanels like The Adult Chanel, Television
> X, etc are only allowed to show softcore stuff - the law will allow
> them to show pay per view hardcore too - and im pretty sure the free
> ten minutes at midnight will remain softcore.
Heh.
We get it for free.
God bless piracy.
Hedfix wrote:
>
> Heh, and soap downgrades it self further to compete, resulting in:
>
> PAT BUTCHER IN A SAUNA.
>
> *Vomits*
Blank wrote:
>
> Cool, I thought I was the only one into butcher porn.
I was joking, and you are a sick SICK puppy!
>
> Heh, and soap downgrades it self further to compete, resulting in:
>
> PAT BUTCHER IN A SAUNA.
>
> *Vomits*
Blank wrote:
>
> Cool, I thought I was the only one into butcher porn.
I was joking, and you are a sick SICK puppy!
cookie monster wrote:
> Black Glove wrote:
> that's why 90% of men view it: to see young slutz [the likes of
> which
> they are never gonna f**k] get humilated and degraded.
>
> No, i watch to see them get naked and take the beef.
Cool, I thought I was the only one into butcher porn.
> Black Glove wrote:
> that's why 90% of men view it: to see young slutz [the likes of
> which
> they are never gonna f**k] get humilated and degraded.
>
> No, i watch to see them get naked and take the beef.
Cool, I thought I was the only one into butcher porn.
Mumbai Duck wrote:
> Sex isn't about humiliation and degredation, I don't think porn has
> to be either.
>
> Then again, sometimes it does seem to be an aspect to it...
> *ponders*
I don't think sex is about humilation either, but I'm fairly convinced porn is. Surely no-one truly wants to view happy porn - that is really perverse.
I think what most viewers of porn want is to see floozies getting put through the mill, so to speak; being taken to the edge of humilation at the very least. Let's be honest about this.
> Sex isn't about humiliation and degredation, I don't think porn has
> to be either.
>
> Then again, sometimes it does seem to be an aspect to it...
> *ponders*
I don't think sex is about humilation either, but I'm fairly convinced porn is. Surely no-one truly wants to view happy porn - that is really perverse.
I think what most viewers of porn want is to see floozies getting put through the mill, so to speak; being taken to the edge of humilation at the very least. Let's be honest about this.
The Tabloids will be against it simply because if there's free porn noone'll buy their rags for topless pictures anymore, the ads at the back for phone sex and all that crap'll die and The porn merchant who owns the Daily Mail + various specialist magazines will also lose out as will Murdoch who takes a cut of the porn channels on sky.
Does Murdoch own Channel 5 now by the way? Christ I hope not!
Anyway if free porn hurts these individuals pockets who are pandering to the sort of people who find Kelly's home videos at the top of their 'intellectually stimulating' TV lists then so be it.
Hell porn's just gets plain BORING once you're over the initial buzz, if you have a brain then your imagination should be much better anyway.
Let's fill the crap channels up with porn, get bored of it, and then go off and do more interesting things that don't involve watching television.
Does Murdoch own Channel 5 now by the way? Christ I hope not!
Anyway if free porn hurts these individuals pockets who are pandering to the sort of people who find Kelly's home videos at the top of their 'intellectually stimulating' TV lists then so be it.
Hell porn's just gets plain BORING once you're over the initial buzz, if you have a brain then your imagination should be much better anyway.
Let's fill the crap channels up with porn, get bored of it, and then go off and do more interesting things that don't involve watching television.
Goatboy wrote:
> so return to scribbling letters of complain in crayon to Points of View
> and watching Charlie Sheen movies.
LOL!
> so return to scribbling letters of complain in crayon to Points of View
> and watching Charlie Sheen movies.
LOL!
Sex on tv?!?!?!?!
Hardcore?!?!?!?!?
The Daily Mail is straining it's chastity pants just thinking about it.
Who cares?
I can turn on the tv and watch a soap opera at 7:30pm, unrestricted viewing and seen by 17million people a week.
A programme that has had storylines about incest, rape, murder, abortion, blackmail, terminal disease etc etc.
Why is it ok for me to sit and watch a mindless social control exercise that has a basis in deliberately provocative and non-family safe plots
YET
I can't watch two (or six) people engaged in sex?
Especially if you're one of those morons that screams about television/videogames/movies influencing behaviour - like we're some lumpen mass of fleshdough that runs out and emulates what we see on "that thur teevee".
So let's agree with idiot right-wing racist newspapers and say that we know for a fact, without question, that television influences:
Show porn.
What? I'd rather have people committing acts of sex against each other than stoving each others head in with hammers.
"BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE!!!!!" will be the toefaces screaming question. Which is beyond reasonable and intelligent debate, so return to scribbling letters of complain in crayon to Points of View and watching Charlie Sheen movies.
Hardcore?!?!?!?!?
The Daily Mail is straining it's chastity pants just thinking about it.
Who cares?
I can turn on the tv and watch a soap opera at 7:30pm, unrestricted viewing and seen by 17million people a week.
A programme that has had storylines about incest, rape, murder, abortion, blackmail, terminal disease etc etc.
Why is it ok for me to sit and watch a mindless social control exercise that has a basis in deliberately provocative and non-family safe plots
YET
I can't watch two (or six) people engaged in sex?
Especially if you're one of those morons that screams about television/videogames/movies influencing behaviour - like we're some lumpen mass of fleshdough that runs out and emulates what we see on "that thur teevee".
So let's agree with idiot right-wing racist newspapers and say that we know for a fact, without question, that television influences:
Show porn.
What? I'd rather have people committing acts of sex against each other than stoving each others head in with hammers.
"BUT WHAT ABOUT RAPE!!!!!" will be the toefaces screaming question. Which is beyond reasonable and intelligent debate, so return to scribbling letters of complain in crayon to Points of View and watching Charlie Sheen movies.
Page: