| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
101
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I'd love a Kindle, but they are a bit expensive and the whole lending library for eBooks is still really underdeveloped. I'm not paying $10 for every book I want to read. I'd go bankrupt so fast. Maybe in a few years :-)
|
04-30-12 12:07pm
|
Reply
102
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
I've gotten back into reading novels and a lot of non-fiction books recently. "Stiff" by Mary Roach was a recent read - about the interesting lives of corpses. She also wrote "Bonk" which has everything you want to know about the intersection of Science and Sex. Did you know that Kinsey liked to masturbate using a toothbrush? (That's bristle first into the urethra... apparently he was well endowed... and fearless.)
I also have a number of thrillers, mystery and fantasy writers I follow. I highly recommend The Rook, by Daniel O'Malley, a fantasy/bureaucratic novel about working on Her Majesty's Super-Natural Secret Service. In the thriller genre, there are two good books by Taylor Stevens and her character Vanessa Michael Munroe, sort of a more hardcore and better written Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (I don't know why Stieg Larsson got so much praise for his trilogy) - her books are the Informationist and the Innocent, both quite good.
I also read magazines like The Economist, Reason, Advertising Age, The New Yorker and a few others that pass my way. While I read them, I mean more that I skim through and read the specific articles that draw my interest... I'd have no free time if I read every page. I'm no Sarah Palin, I can't read every Newspaper.
I also check out articles posted on IMDB (I wish they'd bring back their "Hit List") as well as articles posted on Arts & Letters Daily (www.aldaily.com). Of course, I'm frequently reading entries on Wikipedia as well. I'm addicted to that site too.
|
04-30-12 12:04pm
|
Reply
103
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Why redo the topic when it has been discussed thoroughly in the past? If you read through the old thread and have something new to add, resurrect it. Otherwise one ends up writing the same commentary again and again.
|
04-24-12 01:35am
|
Reply
104
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Ergo Proxy's Poll
Evolutionarily speaking (Yes, SpellCheck - that IS a word), monogamy is more important to males than females, as it serves to guarantee for an aggressively protective male that the offspring a child of that male rather than another. Biologically, females can usually be rather certain if a child is theirs or not. That said, long-term monogamy is non-existent in nearly all species of animals, even the ones known for monogamy. Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal did a great comic about that recently: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2566
In modern Western society, most people exhibit a behavior called Serial Monogamy. This is sexual activity with only one sexual partner at a time, but with the average individual having had multiple sexual partners throughout their lifespan.
Societal pressures are omnipresent and very persuasive and I think it is naive to say any complex behavior like social-sexual partnership can exist without being affected by society for any beings that exist within any identifiable society. That said, a classic meta-study (a study that studies other studies) was unable to find any (ANY) behavior exhibited by humans that was not in someway influenced by the genetics of the human exhibiting said behavior. So nature versus nurture? Nay, it is both.
Back to the question at hand, I believe couples that maintain longterm monogamy reap many rewards from society (both directly and indirectly) and can often be happier than couples that do not. I also believe it is extremely important that a couple have closely matched libidos, for otherwise one partner will begin seeking satisfaction outside of that relationship and will risk being punished for ignoring our society's mores.
That is not to say all sophisticated human societies have had such an interest in monogamy. Western society is rather renowned for its obsession with monogamy and its general "sex-negative" viewpoint. Many "eastern" societies like those native to Japan, India and some Arabic societies were much more "sex-positive" and more relaxed about multi-partner relationships.
Then there's the Mormons. Side Note: Mormons are often known for being really devoted to their religion. Wouldn't you be if you were certain your religion could guarantee you that you will rule your own planet if you follow the rules?
|
04-22-12 10:18pm
|
Reply
105
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I like a range of the BDSM arena, and I too am fond of Kink's network of sites, as they offer a pretty wide range of legal BDSM. I would say some of it goes into the realm of significant quantities of pain, but most of it is more focused on sub/dom role play, humiliation and costume. I do like rope work, breath control play, the assortment of flogs & whips, and the various role playing - but I don't like needle play, I have too much of a needle phobia to find even watching that enjoyable. I also am pleased with Kink.com's focus on transparency and teaching, they acknowledge the role play aspects of their work and talk to the performers about their experiences in the roles. Some of the performers certainly play it up for the camera, but there is a significant batch that are simply there being paid to do what they love - and that is enjoyable to watch.
|
10-31-11 12:06pm
|
Reply
106
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
I'm all about the 6-pack abs, but not the steroidal monster arms or the HGH man jaw. So I would make a vote for natural body building. I agree with rearadmiral, Wenona is an excellent example of an attractive Body Builder (I actually found her on a body building site prior to her Kink appearance) - but another more main stream example is the unstoppable Marie Luv. She is a reasonably attractive woman, but her physique is what really keeps my interest - a very low body fat and a physical strength that she applies to every performance. She is always a guaranteed download for me.
|
06-27-11 08:00pm
|
Reply
107
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Hirsute armpits can be quite interesting and attractive on women, but hairy legs I do not like on either gender. Add to that a hairy arse for either gender as rather unappealing. That said, one can overlook these things with the right people. Just as many fashion models can roll around in Taco Bell dumpster and still get seated at 5-star restaurant directly after.
|
11-15-10 11:53am
|
Reply
108
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
I had to vote for the brothel. It looked lonely, and brothels should never look lonely.
|
10-21-10 01:53pm
|
Reply
109
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
"Are all of you that voted no, telling me that you believe that seeing a beautiful naked woman in a magazine or on a website is not sexual?"
You are focusing on an extremely narrow segment of nudity. The poll simply asked: "Do you equate nudity with sexuality?" Nude, aside from the legal meaning, is commonly defined as "devoid of a natural or conventional covering; especially : not covered by clothing or a drape" So when the pollster used the term nudity alone without any situational descriptors he/she/it opened up this poll to addressing a very broad definition. While physical nudity is generally associated with humans, the common definition makes it easily applicable to sheered sheep. While some Kiwis might argue with the generalization, most people would probably agree that a sheered sheep does not bring sexuality to mind.
Perhaps we should define sexuality as well. This word has a more precise definition than nudity, though there is still a good amount of wiggle room. Sexuality is commonly defined as "the quality or state of being sexual: the condition of having sex; sexual activity; expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive"
While the common definition's secondary examples (listed after the colon) clearly intend to associate the word with reproductive activity, we could interpret it as addressing anything relating to sexes. This widened definition would probably allow most people to then include the sheered sheep with things associated with sexuality.
In regards to the examples of Playboy: This publication is clearly aiming for the common usage of sexuality and indeed most people would probably argue it fits it quite well. The women are depicted as females of reproductive age and are usually excessively expressing sexual receptivity in the form of good eye contact, prominent display of genitalia, et cetera.
However, the argument for nudity not equating sexuality boils down to this: Playboy is a good example of nudity but not representative of the definition as a whole. Nude beaches, public baths, locker room showers, hospitals, police stations after being picked up for loitering when you just wanted some breakfast and a bit of respect for having just gotten back from service in 'Nam. These are all places that have copious amounts of nudity that most people would probably not describe as sexual.
Looking at it another way, your argument is argument by example. The question that must be asked: "Is the example representative?" Just because it is valid, does not mean it is true. Notice the similarity:
Playboy has nudity. Playboy has sexuality. Therefore: Nudity is sexuality.
Cobras are snakes. Cobras are poisonous. Therefore: Snakes are poisonous.
The arguments are valid, but the examples aren't representative.
|
09-27-10 02:35pm
|
Reply
110
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
I'm a huge proponent of truth in advertising. While I'd probably not actually join a site obsessed entirely with teens (because I still contest that women look best at about 23 to 26 after they've naturally lost that teen "baby fat" and look a bit more cut) I would expect that the models fit that two year margin pretty damn closely. My recommendation is that sites focus more on getting attractive women rather than just young ones. The whole "teen" obsession in porn is a little bit creepy, honestly.
|
08-18-09 06:24am
|
Reply
111
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Duante Amorculo's Poll
I love the spirit of the venture, but I wish they'd found a better actress that could hit the imitation properly on the head.
|
05-26-09 12:30am
|
Reply
112
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
Sorry, I can't say that I do.
The only regular (as in frequency) amusing literary work I do in association with porn is I've taken it upon myself to write a unique Spam related limerick every time I report Spam on the forum.
|
05-22-09 12:14am
|
Reply
113
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
I just wanted to point out that a multiple of each would be an Orgy, while a Gangbang would be a singular of one gender and a multiple of the other.
|
05-20-09 09:15am
|
Reply
114
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Poll
I like diversity and get bored especially with continuously serious expressions. Unless the specific set is following a set theme. There are always exceptions. Anyway, if I like the model, I'll usually download the whole set. Editing requires more time than I have.
|
05-06-09 09:45pm
|
Reply
115
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
I've found that on my favorite sites the reviews provided by the foursome to be rather superficial, often missing the best parts. I worry that they are racing through the sites too quickly. Unlike a movie, you can't even try to absorb the entire experience of a good site in an hour and a half. I understand they have a business based on getting reviews out, but I usually find the reviews provide me no more information than I get from the simple site facts on the main page. The scores provide a rough guide, but I really don't put much faith in the written reviews.
|
05-05-09 11:53pm
|
Reply
116
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
I've had one drive fail, and I've erased the collection more times than I can recall (with any accuracy at least). Reformatting, needed the space, et cetera. I'm not strongly attached to it.
|
04-16-09 06:22am
|
Reply
117
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
Lately I've been a bit busy so I must admit I'm usually on the site only once or twice a day. Though there was a time I was basically on it 14 hours a day - I suppose that is how I racked up all those forum posts...
|
04-02-09 05:54am
|
Reply
118
|
N/A
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
If isn't clear why there is gender separation, then doesn't that argue that it should be eradicated entirely? If an institution is going to force its members to cleanse themselves in a group setting, then it shouldn't put different rules upon those members due to different sexuality, gender, race, religion, et cetera. The point of such activities is generally to emphasize the group and deemphasize the individual. By segregating a group based on individual attributes, it is sabotaging the agenda of the institution. In the future the military may imitate Paul Verhoeven's co-ed showers in Starship Troopers (1997).
|
03-26-09 06:51am
|
Reply
119
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
I have a batch of standard sites I check daily. I just right click on the folder and hit "Open All". Those sites are mainly comics sites that I keep track of, but here is the list starting with the three most frequented:
IMDB.com
PornUsers.com
Hulu.com
Comics.com
Penny-Arcade.com
DrMcNinja.com
GoComics.com
Blondie.com
QuestionableContent.net (may get knocked off the list soon)
WeTheRobots.com
PVPOnline.com
DanielleCorsetto.com/gws.html (aka Girls With Slingshots)
GoodShipChronicles.com (I hope he writes some new comics soon)
LeastICouldDo.com (Most reliable web comic ever - both in humor and updates)
TheDreamlandChronicles.com
TrailerAddict.com
EscapistMagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation (Funniest and most accurate game reviews I've found)
|
02-27-09 01:44am
|
Reply
120
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
Yup, sure would. Have done so in the past. $35 isn't much over the traditional $30 per month. Some people claim that $20 is the norm, however, this is a fallacy in my experience. To get good, exclusive content, you usually need to spend at least $30. I must admit $50 and above often causes some pause for me.
|
02-21-09 01:53am
|
Reply
121
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Rick's Poll
Nope, they have always proved to be a waste of time by either being crappy content or just another method for separating me from my money (as in free-preview live cam girl sites).
|
02-07-09 12:02am
|
Reply
122
|
N/A
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
Yup, I'll second that - I'm rather tired of the Bottle Blondes.
Natural Scandinavian Blondes on the other hand... that I can appreciate.
|
02-05-09 11:13am
|
Reply
123
|
N/A
|
Reply of
picdude's Poll
I pick Option #6: No, I'm a Porn Enthusiast.
I watch traditional movies a lot too. I don't think that qualifies as an addiction either. It seems to me that everyone is being turned into hypochondriacs (and the equivalent for mental disorders) by advertisers.
Weight problem?
Smoking habit?
Only get up from the left side of the bed?
Your problem is no problem with our assortment of possibly FDA approved drugs! Take them with the family! Share them with Fido! Everything will be fixed! New cars and peaches and Barbie dolls will fall from the sky! Enjoy! Be happy! Yay!!!
(Warning: Side effects may included suicidal depression and periodic bouts of situs inversus.)
Also, Option #5 is admitting it, so what's the point of it?
|
01-28-09 12:48am
|
Reply
124
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Nope, but I did run across a model that was practically a doppelganger for a friend of mine. I sent her some photos of the model; we were all amused and despite my friend's polish ancestry, we are beginning to wonder if perhaps she has some family in Hungary :-P
|
01-22-09 10:04am
|
Reply
125
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
If the site provided streaming service as good as Hulu.com - then yes, I would join the site. It must be noted that I would only consider the site if the service was cheaper than the $30 norm. $15 a month would be acceptable assuming there was a reasonable database of content and a daily update schedule that is followed without fail.
|
12-23-08 01:29am
|
