| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
301
|
N/A
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
Hey, it's only self-abuse if it's done properly! ; - )
And in my view it's wrong if women don't masturbate. I mean how can you look at a beautiful woman and not think "She's just gotta touch that body--it's a temple!"
Of course I would also argue that if a person thinks masturbation or homosexuality--or simply "being" a certain sexual orientation--is abnormal or abusive then they are the ones with the mental disease. In fact both masturbation and homosexuality are found throughout the animal kingdom, and I'm not talking just primates either. Probably makes living life as an animal a little easier to stand--and all with no parent or religious figure to castigate them for it.
Plus, if there's a god, why would he (or she) frown upon masturbation when he made it so easy for so many humans to do? Not to mention why did he let humans create so much porn and sex toys to assist in said sin?
|
11-30-10 04:00pm
|
Reply
302
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jberryl69's Reply
I think solo porn can be pretty respectful, though that pretty much leaves the women to masturbate and play with themselves--that's not disrespectful is it? Girl-girl/lesbian porn can be pretty respectful too, though that can easily devolve into what can be considered degrading and objectifying.
|
11-30-10 01:04am
|
Reply
303
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
I say "Hair-pulling and choking" because they sound the most painful and certainly the most dangerous to me (I don't know what exactly was meant by "Roughneck and jerking around," though they could be worse). I've never been into the whole choking thing, especially when it's being done to a smaller partner by some creepy He-Man with a boner.
Seriously, of all the "abuse" on this list what else can go too far and fucking kill someone?! Can you curse someone to death, or spit them into an early grave? I'm sure one day some rough handling will cause a serious injury when someone on a set slips in a puddle of some mysterious body fluid and drops the other actor onto a nearby coffee table or tile floor. Maybe they will then drop the whole wrestling act.
I really hate spitting too, but only when it's in the face and then it's just being rude. If it's not in the face I don't find it abusive.
|
11-30-10 12:54am
|
Reply
304
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
You know, about ten years ago I would have said "Red please," then a few years later "anything but blonde!" but now I really do not care. Because every time I think I have settled on a favorite hair color I see a new angel with a different color and I realize it doesn't really matter.
All I really prefer is they don't shave their head à la Sigourney Weaver in Alien 3, but she even looked good with hair that short while battling monsters in some futuristic hellscape. Or Natalie Portman in V for Vendetta, or Belladonna, or...okay, apparently super short hair turns me on too!
|
11-28-10 08:28pm
|
Reply
305
|
N/A
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Yeah, it's usually the blood in your veins that knocks you off your feet--otherwise you need to ask your doctor whether Viagra or Cialis is right for you. ; - )
|
11-28-10 08:13pm
|
Reply
306
|
N/A
|
Reply of
slutty's Reply
You're right there are decades of 1.85:1 and similarly wide aspect ratios of films, but there are some 4:3 films (silent era) or 1.33:1. Later films widened a bit to 1.37:1 which looks very close to a SD fullscreen 4:3 TV so it gets confusing (1.37:1 should have a little bit of letterboxing).
Interestingly I remember a few widescreen "standard" definition TVs back in the 1990s before most consumers ever got wind of the coming HD formats. I guess the point of those sets were for the letterboxed VHS and DVD movies though TV signals and video games of the time would be boxed in with vertical bars--not much of an advantage if you ask me.
The number of different film formats is really crazy, though given a century of film it's understandable. Makes the number of formats in only a few recent decades of porn seem not so bad after all...until one won't play on your computer!
|
11-27-10 12:49pm
|
Reply
307
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
I would answer "other" if it was an option but I say "I prefer it a bit more" since widescreen today usually means a true HD video or at least coming from an HD source (or in the ultra rare case, actual film).
Bottom line is I want to watch my videos in whatever aspect ratio they were originally shot in, even if that's whatever the cameraman or whoever happened to switch it to that day. Yes, even if I owned some ridiculously panoramic widescreen monitor I would still want to watch my SD/4:3 videos in their non-widescreen glory.
There are still a lot of great non-porn films in 4:3 that I would hate to see blown-up just so they could appear "fullscreen" on an HD display. Give me the black vertical bars if a film is 4:3 or the video is SD, please!
|
11-25-10 08:14pm
|
Reply
308
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Reply
"Smaller" is a relative term, as widescreen can look smaller on a standard definition monitor, i.e. 4:3 aspect ratio. However a standard definition video can look smaller on a widescreen monitor (most likely an HD monitor), whereas a widescreen video would be full screen on this monitor.
Yeah it's confusing (especially when I explain it), but it really depends on the aspect ratios of the video and the display. A 60 inch standard definition TV from the '90s would make any 4:3 video look huge, even if it's not technically as large pixel-wise as an HD 1080p video, which would be a 16:9 widescreen ratio.
And people insist size doesn't matter! : - O
|
11-25-10 07:55pm
|
Reply
309
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Reply
Then it can't be done on a company computer, or probably even on company property--using your own laptop you would likely still rely on their Internet connection.
I think it's a good rule of thumb to be overly paranoid anytime your on a public computer or using a computer in a public area. Yes, even in the privacy of your own office/cubicle/wherever you should assume something or someone is tracking your browser history and therefore your at-work porn appetite.
The intention is sound; people are at work to work, not goof off on 'tube sites or take care of their morning wood. Save for a few jobs your work probably doesn't involve going through porn videos or pics and it's best such activities remain at home.
|
11-23-10 07:20pm
|
Reply
310
|
N/A
|
Reply of
slutty's Reply
Have you ever checked the link on my signature? Secondhand smut is apparently a growing problem (insert erection joke here). Though I don't if people will be in the mood to check out a [ignore]Hustler[/ignore] after experiencing one of the new fingerbangin' TSA security pat downs. : - O
|
11-23-10 07:11pm
|
Reply
311
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
But I don't have a daughter--what do I do?
I guess if this sort of situation ever did ever arise in real life I would first have to ask the most pressing question: is her dad big enough to beat me up?
|
11-19-10 06:34pm
|
Reply
312
|
N/A
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
Yeah, I agree here, and I'd probably throw a tantrum while I'm at it.
"Unavoidably" better mean the police have arrived at my doorstep just to "look around," but I tell them to come back when they have a search warrant. Like any responsible citizen I patiently wait for them to return--while wiping the hell out of my hard drives as fast as I can click my mouse. I can only hope a police officer thinking "I smell porn in these here parts" is not considered an exigent circumstance...though they'd probably have busted down my door a long time ago if it was. (Gee, am I paranoid or what?)
Knowing my luck they'd return with a warrant that doesn't include going through my computers--d'oh! : - (
|
11-13-10 05:08pm
|
Reply
313
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Colm4's Poll
I would go get me some real girls...and make my own porn! ; - )
I would also probably join more sites just to help the economy though.
|
11-03-10 01:56pm
|
Reply
314
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Reply
That's almost a whole genre unto itself, though usually with something other than a cocktail glass (shot glass typically), and frequently taken too far for many viewers...
|
11-01-10 07:50pm
|
Reply
315
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pornwatcher's Poll
A little bit of everything, I guess. Well, parents were pretty vague, as was school, which figures--the two sources that should be the best turn out to be the worst.
Porn definitely piques my interest, though I doubt it's educational in any practical way. If I could find a woman who could or was willing to perform the stunts I see in porn I would probably think I have all the education I need.
Hey, I'm probably still learning!
|
10-26-10 06:14pm
|
Reply
316
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Absolutely; it's a great way to ask questions and get members' feedback on how truthful the material in a tour section is, or just figure out what the hell is actually offered with a site's membership. Comments are not reviews so people should feel a lot more free to ask questions and talk about tours if they want.
|
10-24-10 06:33pm
|
Reply
317
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
I am assuming that the average woman would have a larger vagina as well. Wouldn't make sense for guys to have relatively large penises (compared to body size) but for women not to have evolved too.
If you want to make your penis look bigger than lose some weight--preferably around your mid section--and it will appear larger even though it's still the same size. Shaving might help as well but that makes it obvious that you really care about its looks.
But if we're simply talking about size then a large bank account gets more women fired up than any pill or any genetic luck of the draw. Look at all the bullshit men spend way too much money on that isn't lurking in their shorts: cars, cologne, clothes, gym memberships, the list is endless. All of it designed to impress the opposite sex or at least impress upon them that we have money.
|
10-16-10 04:39pm
|
Reply
318
|
N/A
|
Reply of
graymane's Poll
She can have sex with me all she wants...but that's not going to cover her rent! What, am I going to pay property taxes and utilities with, my stories of sexual conquest? I'd try to work with her as reasonably as possible but I'm not demanding sex (which really wouldn't be sex once you demand it, at least in my book).
Now, if it was just a female roommate--all the options are on the table. : - )
|
10-12-10 03:02pm
|
Reply
319
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
A combination of EBI, Google, and/or IAFD.
I really wish there was an American version of EBI, even if it's not always very complete or up to date, for at least to point us perverts in the right direction.
|
10-11-10 01:55pm
|
Reply
320
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Wow, leave it to Toadsith to really hit the nail on the head! It would be interesting to see this poll broken down by country or at least continent. I'll bet the results would be quite varied.
The problem is realistically, even if you don't personally equate nudity with sexuality, the law may not see it that way. It's why in most of the U.S. a guy can mow his lawn shirtless (which I hope has nothing to do with sexuality!), but if a gal does the same chances are someone's going to see her, get upset, and then call the police to rein in her questionable morals.
Whatever reason is given for such laws to exist and why people act so upset at such things--whether they claim that it would pervert men, harm the children, put forth a sexual message--chances are it comes back to religious prudes not being very open about human nudity, especially female nudity. I'm not saying it is all bible-quoting Evangelicals who get offended, but religion does play a major part in why these laws will likely stay much the same for years to come.
So while the vast majority of those who answered the poll say "No" (and we are all admitted users of porn at that), in litigious societies, where laws are quite clear about what is okay for public exposure, the opposite, that it does equate to sexuality, is likely be the current (mis)interpretation of the people.
|
09-27-10 08:07pm
|
Reply
321
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
It might have saved the girl's life that you didn't associate her nudity with sex. Fortunately you chose reality over fantasy (whether good or bad fantasy).
|
09-26-10 01:07pm
|
Reply
322
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
No.
Even if I did, what would be wrong with that?
|
09-26-10 12:45am
|
Reply
323
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pornwatcher's Poll
It depends.
I don't think many of us have an interest in seeing the guy's dick be the center of attention the whole way through but at the same time who hasn't fantasized that the gal is going down on us, especially in POV scenes? It's also fun to watch a girl get eaten out and see her moan and squirm as a result (sometimes squirt!).
|
09-24-10 03:34pm
|
Reply
324
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nadiencendia's Poll
Considering that this site is for porn lovers/users, yes, I'm more open here. In "real-life" (does this mean PU isn't real?) I'd say I know or are acquainted with a somewhat wider variety of people, at least concerning attitudes towards sex. And it's possible this is not even by choice, it just happened that way. I don't gravitate towards prudes but inevitably many of us will meet and befriend people of fairly different backgrounds and views--and sex talk is not shared equally with all of them.
|
09-18-10 02:51pm
|
Reply
325
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
A good point about corporations; they should have some moral obligation but that doesn't mean they ever will. They priority of any corporation is money--to make a profit--all else is secondary really. If sex sells, then that will be marketed. If celibacy sells, then that will marketed instead. This doesn't just apply to sex, there are far worse things businesses are doing; pollution, ill treatment and underpayment of workers, unsafe products, support of tyrannical governments, etc. I'm just saying you can't expect much from corporate powers.
|
09-12-10 08:38pm
|
