That's why I avoid sites like CNN.com. There seems little difference between them and some celebrity gossip site (and frequently no difference at all), plus all the annoying tricks and underhanded ways they employ to pump up their page view count. Splitting articles into multiple pages, misleading headlines, or just dumping a bunch of useless, spammy links instead of actually, you know, writing articles.
Basically whatever the hell you would call the Huffington Post. Is there a blocker for that site and anyone who takes it seriously? ;-)
HD doesn't really highlight the skin flaws anymore than SD did, especially considering how so many scenes are lit like an operating room (I guess so you can see inside the body? :-0 ).
I'm no fan of stretch marks, tan lines, skeazy tattoos, or scars...but who is? I have pretty fair skin myself, with more freckles and sunburns than I'd like to count. And I even worry I'm going to get a sunburn just from being near a fluorescent light too long, so it would be a little hypocritical of me to expect every woman to have perfect skin.
I mean, people already are, right? Not necessarily "many," but you know somebody's already violated an otherwise innocent machine. (I think the Japanese have pretty much developed the nightmarish technology.)
Occasionally I want to bash it with a sledgehammer...but normally I put it to sleep and turn off the monitor (annoying power light turns orange during sleep mode), which I do even when I plan not to use for just a few hours.
Technically my Internet connection is supposed to go to 12 Mbps download--in my apartment, faster Internet speeds are available only if you buy a cable bundle, thanks AT&T!--but realistically it's more in the 8-10 Mbps range. Not a big difference, and it works for Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, and other sites that benefit from a healthy connection.
Still, it's peanuts to what I've read about the recent beta testing of Google's insane 1 gigabit per second download ISP service Google Fiber (which I guess will complicate things if Google ever decides to make breakfast cereals).
That's like driving a Smart car with a tiny engine and no trunk and then being given a Rolls Royce with a V12 and massive amounts of luxury, and only for a slightly higher price. Right now such bullet train Internet speeds aren't really practical for anything but it sounds like a good development for the future of online entertainment (and the possible death of cable TV?).
"Other," because I don't think firearm pictures make women sexy, but I can't limit myself just to "girly girls" either. And aren't all women kinda girly anyway, on account of having a vagina?
More generally I don't understand the whole sexy-girl-with-____ kind of photos. Some beautiful girl in a bikini--hint: porn will show even more than a bikini!--is already beautiful, I don't really care to look at anything else. Seriously, how does an expensive car, motorcycle, energy drink (no, seriously), gun, whatever, become better simply by association because the company hired a hot girl to pose with it? And frankly, knowing my priorities, I would take the girl over whatever machine she is straddling/promoting.
That's an interesting link but I'm not totally sure about what it claims: "If properly conditioned, the PCs enable you to stop ejaculation while continuing to enjoy sex." Okay, no, you don't ejaculate, but you do orgasm? That's one of those things that might freak me out a little, like if I'm feeling something and I've always expected an accompanying action along with it. Seriously, wouldn't most guys think there might be something wrong?
And I would think in terms of your partner(s) there would be an expectation of multiple ejaculations when you say multiple orgasms, not having a less-than-hair trigger. Women love it (unless they really didn't want to have sex) when a guy can do either, but I'm not sure if they're totally concerned that you're having multiple orgasms before you finally take your shot, so to speak. Maybe it's just me, but having sex, even if it eventually only results in just 1 orgasm + 1 ejaculation, still feels pretty damn good.
Not to get all Bill Clinton on the question, but it depends on how you define "surf," since, yes, I've looked at porn on other people's computers, but not alone. I've done it usually in the whole share-the-wealth approach I think more people should take to porn (show someone a site or picture), instead of just hoarding like some paranoid doomsday survivalist.
In fact I've frequently looked at something or watched a video and thought, Hey, more people should see this (and occasionally thought, Wow, that mindfuck of erotica shouldn't be shared with anyone!).
Really depends on how you define "fetish," because if it's playing dress up and testing one's knot tying skills, then I have no interest. And the thing is I have subscribed to more general porn sites that also touch, literally and figuratively, on the things that might be called a fetish.
Then again, take a site like Kink.com and I find all the exhibitionism, water dunking, and rope play an absolutely boring turn off. I do like their rough anal, girl/girl, and fisting content, but plenty of other sites wouldn't even bother to label those things fetish anymore. Hell, a girl with a bush is practically considered a fetish model, but her ability to fist isn't? Who would would have seen that coming 20 years ago?
Lol If I was at a seafood restaurant that's probably what I'd order.
And I have about as much interest in feet as I do in seafood, by the way. Two tastes that I have yet the slightest understanding of why people prefer them.
Watching and buying porn are two very different things to me.
What gets me in the mood to watch? Waking up is more than enough for me--and what a way to start the day! :-)
As far as buying, I admit I'm a frugal person so it depends on whether I'm even in the mood to spend any money, much less give up some of my personal info to some website I might never have used before.
Sorry, but pretty much everything I've seen would not rationally be classified as striptease. Hence, why I'm not a very good judge and start yelling at the screen "Take that stupid shirt off already!" before I'm about ready to shoot the TV Elvis-style.
To be honest, with the Internet connections I've had over the years, combined with a practice of avoiding slower sites, I can't say that I've actually avoided a download because it was too big.
Of course I have reviewed files later and realized I have a 1 GB (or larger) video that I only really like half of and can't easily keep the parts I like. I guess I'm stuck between preferring whole videos and skipping through all the useless striptease and uninformative/creepy interview BS.
I don't have cable, but I do have an LCD TV with a PS3 and a Netflix instant watch subscription (where they have a ton of older TV shows, though most are of no interest to me). Does any of what I watch on there count?
But I know next to nothing about any of the latest TV shows or series and I probably couldn't care any less if I ever did. :-)
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
