@Kommie

Sorry, that's not a myth, it's the absolute, total, utter truth: women are only interested in chocolate or shoes if they're seriously unsatisfied with their love lives (wait, seriously, let me get it, there is a website somewhere to support this...).

As for the money shots, that's exactly what made me wonder. I mean, you are looking at another guy's money shot/imprinting/territorial demarcation, aren't you? (To be honest, I've always wondered the same about guys visiting prostitutes and not using condoms.) So is the idea that you, any man watching, identifies with the male lead to the point where you think it's yours? Because, other/macho/Darwin-wise, I would think that it should be a serious turn off.

On the other hand, this might be the equivalent of my of Why Women Care About Fashion theory: let's face it, no (heterosexual) guy will ever notice new clothes, shoes, haircut, not to mention obscurities like handbags or a French manicure on your toe nails. But other women will, and thus send the message: this gall is hot and that is what guys respond to.

Wow, from cum shots to French manicures, I sure messed up this thread, didn't I?

Sorry, have to go back to youporn.com asap ;-).

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Allowing this wouldn't even create a slippery slope.


Thats irrelevant. You can argue that "this vid wont encourage more like it" but so what. if we don't allow porn, we don't allow porn singular, not "only disallow the 2nd or 10th porn vid, because tis only a problem on mass"

Its also irrelevant if you feel allowing this vid was a special case, and so didn't set a precedent for allowing more porn, as the rule should still hold. It shouldn't "only has to be applied if more porn would be justified if we didn't". The porn isn't being disallowed because of fear of porn on mass.


>> ^MarineGunrock:
2) The rule is to prevent this place from becoming just another porn dump.



Oh, i'm sorry, i didn't realize you were there at the original meeting when the rules of the FAQ were originally drawn up. I hadn't understood that it was only important that we didn't become a porn ranking system for the universe having to deal with tons of porn a day. </sarcasm>

That may be your interpretation of it, but i'm sure others of us see "no porn" to mean "no porn" rather than "not lots of porn please, we're British and couldn't cope"


3) Ok, maybe this clip is from a real porn, but when sbchapm posted it here, he didn't do it thinking "Oh sweet, maybe someone will rub one out to this." No, it was more like "Holy shit this is hilarious." By posting it with the latter mentality, I think it negates any reasons it was made, and creates a new set of reasons, i.e. comedic value.



My earlier argument was to illustrate exactly why i don't agree. If it is porn, its porn. If it is also * nochannel * porn * comedy * parody * wildwestshow * grindhouse it's still ALSO in porn, and IS porn, and shouldn't be here.



But seriously, how many other porn clips are out there that are REMOTELY like this? I think it's safe to say 1:1,000,000,000. I just don't think we have to worry about this place becoming Youporn just because this clip stays. There's enough warnings to keep people from clicking on it when they shouldn't.


Ah, i misunderstood the "Porn is only allowed in the * NSFW channel and then its ok, oh, but invoke the channel 20 times and run around your house backwards too"

1) That comment was satire.
2) The rule is to prevent this place from becoming just another porn dump.
3) Ok, maybe this clip is from a real porn, but when sbchapm posted it here, he didn't do it thinking "Oh sweet, maybe someone will rub one out to this." No, it was more like "Holy shit this is hilarious." By posting it with the latter mentality, I think it negates any reasons it was made, and creates a new set of reasons, i.e. comedic value.

But seriously, how many other porn clips are out there that are REMOTELY like this? I think it's safe to say 1:1,000,000,000. I just don't think we have to worry about this place becoming Youporn just because this clip stays. There's enough warnings to keep people from clicking on it when they shouldn't.

Is it really? What film? Was it meant to be a porno or a spoof? Even if it was made to arouse (I doubt it was) there have been two instances that I can recall where nudity has been an issue. This and that awesome magic trick. And that other one clearly was not porn, but still - How many times can you think of where something like this will be posted? The numbers are so infinitesimal that I think we can easily deal with it on a case by case basis. The only two people to downvote this haven't said it's porn, and there's 17 people that obviously think it's not.

I don't think there needs to be a line drawn. If you (generalization) really can't tell what porn is and isn't, maybe you should head on over to Youporn and compare this to anything over there.

i don't even care if the IP is different, the tags here, resemble the ones on you tube enough, this kids prolly 13, sad fact of the matter is, creativity and intellect levels of most 25 year olds in the US anyhow, are at about the 13 yr old level.....
play game youtube girls myspace google ebay facebook youporn paris hilton britney spears jenna jameson

tags on you tube, not even Jenna Jameson....
"Trow the bum out!!!"

*ban

Tags for this video have been changed from 'play game, youtube, girls, myspace, google, ebay, facebook, youporn' to 'ban, the, little, monk' - edited by silvercord

Tags for this video have been changed from 'play game youtube girls myspace google ebay facebook youporn paris hilton britne' to 'play game youtube girls myspace google ebay faceban youban paris hilton ban' - edited by gorgonheap