I did that, drained off what I wanted, then cancelled.
The bad part is that if I like the content I would like to see updates. The good part is that I know what I'm getting and what I won't be getting...and that's a good thing.
I have some old CD/DVD collections (I consider them to be part of "all digital") and have converted all my tapes to either hard drive or to CD/DVD. I burn all the really good material as a backup and have the disks coded with a latter-numbering system that is part of my overall backup system.
Someone who needs to find the backup names for a porn vid would be able to do so but with a bit of difficulty.
As with any commercially available porn, there must be a market for shock and/or extreme sex or it wouldn't exist.
But I have more interest in watching them stock shelves in the local grocery store than watching this nonsense. It may appeal to some but not at all to me.
Don't worry. With the caliber of people being nominated for the new Cabinet and senior Administration positions, just a bit of porn can't be damaging.
After all the Secretary of the Treasury (and in charge of teh IRS) is an admitted tax cheat, the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee accepted serious money and gifts from the companies he regulates, a Governor who tried to sell a Senate seat is still Governor, a Louisiana Congressman stashes $93,000 in cash from bribes in his freezer, a National Security Adviser steals and destroys papers from the National Archives the night before he testifies before the Senate, a senior Congressman who is Chair of several important committees runs a gay prostitution operation; it seems to me that watching legal porn on the web is almost a laughably silly transgression.
Oops. That is unless you are a Republican. Then watching legal porn is a hanging offense and will, at a minimum, force you out of politics.
I keep in mind that the older I get the closer I am to being a "Dirty Old Man" that can more easily get away with ogling the babes. The love of a well formed female body never fades. As one gets older, Big Dick doesn't drop in as often as he used to but Little Richard is always hanging around...but that doesn't change the level of appreciation.
Considering how much computers have changed in the 30 years since 1979 (remember the TRS 80? The "PC clones?" the IBM 360 and 370?, DOS 2.1, 4.0 and 6;12? remember WordStar and Multimate? remember when the Internet really only became available to the general public in the early 1990's?) and considering that high quality porn on the web is a whole lot less than 10 years old, my answer to your question is, NO. I really can't imagine what will be happening with porn in 10 years, much less 30 years. (Perhaps someone will invent VC (virtual copulation) in the next decade. ;)
It's been mentioned indirectly by others in earlier replies, but while I enjoy the "story" (see pat362's post #15) I don't need to fill up my hard drive with 5 minutes of story development between two fully clothed people.
What I used to do before internet porn was rent the VHS and copy off just the "good stuff" for later viewing. Now, there are only two ways I can save just the good parts; 1) Use Windows Movie Maker (but that downgrades quality significantly), or 2) go to a site that permits segmented downloads (like VideoBox).
I'd like to see all sites offer the ability to download just portions of a scene. It's a win for everyone. My hard drive is optimized and the site uses less bandwidth.
The question in the survey was social, not legal, so my response was on the social, not the legal implications.
The tsk-tsk issues in my example are the smoking, drug use, religious intolerance and the greens who will more likely make a SOCIAL issue about those issues rather than reading a copy of the latest Hustler magazine.
This is a real life question, not just a theoretical one.
Porn is already "socially tolerated." In fact it's much more "socially tolerated" these days than drug use, smoking, SUVs and open religious symbolism. Try driving up to a bar in an SUV, going in and sitting on a stool smoking a joint and wearing a jacket that says "Jesus Saves" while reading a porn magazine. I'll bet you get a lot more shit for driving a "non-green" vehicle, openly smoking in a smoke-free bar and promoting religion than you'll ever hear reading the porno.
In my case I was attracted to porn way back before Penthouse was created by Bob Guccione because of it's "forbidden fruit" aura. Back then some guy was always finding "smokers" ( grainy black and white 8mm movies of some ugly babe...or Bettie Page...stripping down to a hairy bush; or in some cases, actually engaging in male/female copulation.)
When Playboy showed the first bush in the 60's, then later when open labias were available in Penthouse, and Hustler was introduced, the "smokers" were considered tame. But when Linda Lovelace finally was introduced in Deep Throat, and the magazines started showing (timid) penetrations, the "forbidden fruit" characteristic continued, but now in an anything goes perspective.
Now, in 2008, Jenna Jameson is a, sort of, respected celebrity and being a porn actress is no longer a permanent stigma for any babes at all. So porn is virtually main stream today with the only remnant of "forbidden fruit" being the age limitation to view the stuff.
(Off topic. Did you ever wonder why it's OK for a girl who turned 18 yesterday to engage in all kinds of sexual activity from a BJ to a full double penetration to a 100 guy gang bang....but a guy must be 21 to view that 18 year old?)
In any case, I'm into porn because I enjoy watching gorgeous women engaging in sexual activity. I guess it's somewhat like guys who get off driving a hot car.
I really like the idea of resurrecting an older but popular poll. New people and new ideas can be far more interesting than a poll question that seems forced just to have a new one.
Agree. The discussions under many polls goes beyond just the question. But unlike the forum, the discussion has to be searched for when a new poll is created.
In any case IMO, the editors should consider the possibility of resurrecting an actual previous poll if enough possibly redundant suggestions are submitted, just because the subject has continuing interest.
Are the "anatomically correct" nude statues and paintings created in the distant past and on display all over the world pornographic? Do those critically acclaimed artworks display anything more than Playboy does? Were those pieces intended to be arousing when they were created?
I suspect that, in the year 2501, if there are still people around, and Playboy hasn't drifted into total obscurity, it will be considered either an exemplar of our overly "puritan" obsession with anything sexual or an exemplar of ancient art, similar to Michaelangelo's David or Venus de Milo.
I answered no, it's not pornography.
In fact a video depiction of a man and woman who are copulating can be non-pornographic as well. The real issue is the definition of pornography...and the intentions of the person/people who create the definition.
I am currently a mamber of 4 sites using a "please stay" special price. My problem is that I like the four sites (all networked) but don't have the time to stay current with them or to add another site...but I don't want to lose the special price.
I'd be interested if anyone has cancelled, then resubscribed and retained the special pricing.
If a well written review by a PU member identifies issues with which I cannot abide, I will not sign up regardless of price or any other consideration.
If a PU review identifies features that I like, then the site will not have DRM or other negative aspects.
The only subjective element that remains will be price (I just cannot agree to spend more than $30 on any site ever. A site must be a real winner, based on the reviews if I'm willing to pop for $25-$29.99. If a site is under $25, I'll usually bite if the PU review says it's a good site.
I'll also pop for a "Full Trial" of any site if the price is $2 per day or less and the biller is CCBill or Epoch.
Download limits don't bother me because I try to be selective in what I keep. Also I'm not a big photo guy so absence of a zip isn't a big deal either. Occasionally I'll see a babe that I'd like to have a photo set for, but I won't make a go/no go decision based on that characteristic alone.
NOPE. Same reason as I won't knowingly join a site that still uses DRM. Yes, a streaming site usually has more new stuff so there will be undiscovered treasures that I'll miss, but if I find something I really like, I'll be damned if I'll pay (and pay, and pay, and pay) to have future access to it.
My number 1 turnoff is a lousy boob job. The worst example (and probably what really set me off) was Sandra Scream, a porn star in the late 1980's early 1990's, who had a rather nicely done boob job. I saw her at a nude joint in San Francisco and fell in love. Yes, they were clearly enhanced tits, but she smoked.
Then after she dumped the drug dealer Woody Long she decided to join the previous knockouts who blew up their chests to ludicrous extremes (Wendy Whoppers, Busty Dusty and Candy Canteloupes, for example) and made herself look like a total freak with literally no sex appeal.
Since then when I see "bolt ons" that barely move during a heavy sex scene, I move on.
A babe like Carmella Bing, whose natural rack was awesome, had no legitimate reason to fuck with nature...but she did anyway. She looked far better before adding the aftermarket bumpers, but at least they didn't destroy her sexuality.
The good news is that the excessive surgical enhancements have caused me to look at tits more qualitatively so that even a gorgeous babe with a nice set of natural B's with nice round puffy nipples gets ol' willy to jump to rigid attention. My current favorite small titter is Jana Jordan who has a great body, a better attitude and a great pair of nipples.
And my distaste for tattoos dissipated a bit with Jana Jordan, who has a cute one on her foot and a whale tail on her back that is tasteful Anastasia Christ's little butterfly on her gorgeously natural and full sized left tit is also an enhancement. But Friday's big fucking "F" where her pubic hair should be, and Belladonna's ridiculous body art both spoiled a very good thing.
The unnatural hair color doesn't bother me very much and a pierced tongue is no big deal. But pierced nipples and clitoris makes no sense at all to me. I can just imagine the pain involved if something bad were to happen during a particularly frisky scene.
Correct. Long threads that become longer are difficult to read and, because the tangents are hard to change, usually don't attract a lot of interest.
If a thread is truly redundant it's no big deal for someone to post a link to the old one...or post a comment in the old one that pushes the old one back up to the top,
I'm not that young and I agree with your 2 minutes as an absolute maximum for any activity. Given the impatience of the younger folks these days, I doubt they would differ from a 2 minute benchmark except perhaps to say it should be closer to a minute or so.
It kinda reminds me of the good old days a quarter century ago sitting in the local Pussycat Theater, bored to tears, while Serena, Seka, Aunt Peg or John Leslie would act out a set up scene to create a "plot." Then finally, Leslie yanks out his sausage and a babe would wrap her lips around it and go to work. By and large the porn directors back in those days were smart enough to limit the action but the new guys, I guess, figure that, if a girl takes 15 minutes to get off with a toy, if he has to wait, so do we. ;)
Background chatter sucks. The video is about the baabe so if she needs instructions, fine. Edit out the chatter for Pete's sake.
Shutter sounds also suck, especially when it's so damned easy to shoot silently with modern equipment.
Poor lighting is crazy. The babe(s) is/are paid good money to show off their assets so why not light those assets properly?
But the one thing that annoys the shit out of me is when the camera man lingers far too long on, say, a solo masturbation scene. Two minutes is plenty, but seven or eight minutes where the last 30 seconds are the same as the first 30 seconds? What's the point?
The question asks about "New" site memberships so my answer is one every two or three months. Why? Because I have my favorite sites that I allow to auto renew until I'm ready to move on.
Strangely, the comments in this thread actually serve to strengthen my general trust level in the reviews I read on PU.
Based on the comments of so many members, with whom I agree, that reviews by rogues are not just bad but also are really a betrayal to the 95% of us members who try to keep this site as useful and honest as possible
The newbie reviews that look like they took about 1 minute of thought and say very little are easily ignored.
Conversely those written by members with a high number of positive trust ratings and/or people whose reviews attracted me to a site and my own opinion of the site matches theirs, always get my attention.
So I'm encouraged by the reaction. It says most of PU's members are motivated toward honesty in posting reviews, comments and replies. That's a good thing.
BTW, Pinche Kankun has been posting off beat posts for a long time, many of which are hard to understand, so his comments in this thread are consistent with his personal writing style.
OK, I'll say it. I like "toys" but let's define the term.
Dildos do nothing much for me but other objects, for some reason, can really turn me on...but it's how the "toy" is used.
Example. There was a scene in a VHS tape I got 15 years ago where this knockout babe with a great body and a superb labia showed off her body in a great striptease, then started fingering herself and really had me going.
Then she started insertions. First was a screwdriver, handle end first. Then a hammer, first the handle, then the driver end (but not the claw). Then she stuffed a string of beads and danced with the last two or three dangling down from her pussy.
Obviously that scene sticks in my memory and was the beginning of my interest in insertions.
So my answer to the poll is, first a striptease, then a bit of titty/pussy finger play, followed by insertions. The usual "toy," of course, is a guy's schlong; but I'm cool with fruits, veggies, beads, panties, golf balls, pool balls, fists and bottles. (I even saw a babe squat down on a kitchen faucet knob and, in a different case, on a bed post.)
I must be weird because there are other objects that do nothing at all for me such as dildos, pool cues, baseball bats, candles, pencils, etc.
Also, just sticking in an object doesn't do it for me unless the babe has already worked herself up and is using the object to keep her ecstasy level high.
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.
