> Okay, a site that has a backlog of 500 sets available but no new updates, does it really piss people off having access to _only_ 500 sets instead of 500 plus 5?
No idea about people in general, but yes, it pisses me off. And it is not about 500 vs 500+5, but about three things. The first thing is that if site hasn't been updated for 2 years or so, it can't possibly have stuff in decent quality. The second reason is that sites which are no longer updated, are way too often reselling same old non-exclusive stuff. The third thing is more subtle: if I know that some clip was there for a while, it is not new anymore, and this feeling alone has a chilling effect on me. I feel it is similar to the reason why people are paying BIG money to see a NEW movie as soon as it comes out (while the very same movie will be available for 30% of the price half a year down the road). Illogical? Maybe, but so is whole human nature.
So for me personally, update frequency is very important, and while I still can join a site which doesn't update anymore, if I have any choice, I will prefer site with recent updates.
> Fun poll, asmith - It makes you kind of nostalgic.
I didn't think about this side when submitting it, but you're right - when reading it, it IS kind of nostalgic :-).
Yes, and also ALL the sites should be marked as RTA/whatever else, so browser filters (school ones and those installed by parents) are able to filter such sites out. While I really hate government regulation, I think THIS (site labeling) should be made the law (it does not create any problems while solving concerns of those who cares about minors accessing porn).
If we're speaking about the sites which say about "real people", I can agree it's (arguable) a kind of fantasy. But if we're speaking about the sites who promise their members a chance to get into shoot (which I think was the whole question of this poll), and using boyfriends of models instead, I tend to qualify it as an OUTRIGHT CHEATING; don't you agree?
Do you mean that guys from the site members are GETTING PAID for doing it? :-) If yes, it would probably simplify things, though as the guy has paid for the site, to qualify as "getting paid" for it they will likely need to pay ALL of his previous membership dues, PLUS something "extra".
And obviously even then it will depend on specific location GREATLY (California is one thing, Tennessee is another one, and Europe is a different game altogether), which alone is enough for me to re-iterate that personally I still wouldn't risk it.
> Now what's the likelyhood that any of these so called real people having sex with pornstars sites are real??
Personally I will believe it only when I see a genuine report from PU member who's made it. BTW, have anybody tried to do it with BigSister? (and BTW, THERE it COULD even be legal, even if it IS prostitution).
> If the porn itself isn't illegal, why wouldn't it be legal?
I'm concerned about some *@&^#*!&@ thinking it is "sex for money", a.k.a. prostitution, which is illegal in many (or most) places.
And as it is indeed possible to organize such a site as a cover to brothel (like "pay $500 and you WILL get sex with our 'stars'"), I'm afraid courts in places where prostitution is illegal won't be really excited about it. While there is no precedent, nobody knows for sure, but personally I wouldn't take risk trying it.
Wow, now I'm beginning to see why that many people here on PU are that much concerned about DL speeds and especially DL limits. Still not my cup of tea, so please don't expect me to jump on this bandwagon in my reviews :-).
> I feel compelled to say (for the record) that we (PU Mgm't) see absolutely no indication that asmith12 is associated with kink.com
Thanks a lot, Khan (as you understand, it's important for me).
> Now, as I've mentioned to both of you privately,
I see now (and BTW sorry for posting URL after your first note on it - I just didn't see your notes until you've told where to look for them); the problem with such comments in "Approved" messages is that they don't pop up in any way; to compare: new "Denied" messages pop up as "Denied" at the top of the every page and attract immediate attention (and therefore one can understand that something went wrong), but such comments to "Approved" messages can easily go unnoticed forever; maybe it would be a good thing to highlight such non-standard "Approved" comments in some way (and/or to send e-mail about it)?
> Of course, the link doesn't work
As of now, it still works (if you removed all the spaces manually as I've asked); alternatively, there is an alias (I hope it won't be corrupted by forum software as it happened with the original one): http://tinyurl.com/mhenlz
> An apology to you? For what? The "allegation" wasn't against you.
You have alleged that "main page for Ultimate Submission changed the wording over the last 24 hours" because of your referring to "brutal leg scissors" in your reply to me, implying that I'm affiliated with kink.com. As you have already admitted above, this allegation was ungrounded; I'm still sure it requires an apology to me PERSONALLY for alleged affiliation, which is a very serious allegation for PU member. If you think otherwise - it's up to you, I don't care much, and will just hope that the rest of PU users will make their own conclusions about members who are making serious false allegations and not apologize afterwards.
As for your allegations (or whatever else) about kink.com - this is another story, and I don't care at all (I think you're wrong about it, but this is ok to have different opinions, the concept which you don't seem to embrace, resorting to personal attacks and allegations instead of discussing the subject).
> As for where it was changed, you probably need to clear your cookies
> to get the Click yes if over 18 to enter. The changed part is in the
> last paragraph, "Female wrestling holds on UltimateSurrender.com
> include severe leg scissors, head scissors, boston crab, back
> breaker, full nelson, grapevine and more. Enjoy women in bondage
> photos, movies, streaming video, and shoots you can buy at
> UltimateSurrender.com!"
Very good, exactly as I've suspected. I don't think we can argue on ANY other issue until we clear out this allegation of yours. I would like to ask you (and everybody else for this matter) to take a look at the page http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:8LJi...esurrender.com/+site:ultimatesurrender.com+%22severe+leg+scissors%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
It is Google cache page for the page in question, and it clearly says TWO THINGS: 1. "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Aug 13, 2009 00:11:47 GMT" (which was BEFORE this poll has even started, leave alone my comments on it). 2. "Female wrestling holds on UltimateSurrender.com include severe leg scissors, head scissors, boston crab, back breaker, full nelson, grapevine and more. Enjoy women in bondage photos, movies, streaming video, and shoots you can buy at UltimateSurrender.com! " - note "SEVERE leg scissors" there, and according to Google it has been there AT LEAST FOR A WEEK NOW!
Given this (unless you'll accuse me that my name is indeed Sergey Brin or Eric Schmidt and I've changed Google cache recently), it seems to me that you owe me some kind of apology. As soon as you admit it and apologize, we can continue our discussion.
> and in it, I mentioned that you sounded like you were part of the
> kink.com family. The way you defend them and so on.
Really? I don't remember, though I didn't really care then and I don't really care now. FWIW, I'm not affiliated with kink.com in any way (except for being their loyal customer for ages).
> So, tell me, why is it that their main page for Ultimate Submission
> changed the wording over the last 24 hours? It changed from "Brutal
> leg-scissors" to "Severe leg-scissors".
No idea (though I agree it should look rather suspicious to you). If it has indeed happened (I didn't check their home page for years) it probably means that they've read this discussion (it's public, you know).
> Their site clearly says, "The rules are set. There are three tags
> per team per round and three 12 minute non-scripted wrestling
> rounds."
Ok, so sue them :-). Personally I don't see any conflict between what they're saying and what they're providing. If you do - ok, it's your right to disagree or sue them, or setup a poll at PU to ask the others about their feeling about it.
> IF ultimate submission is not scripted, they would be in jail. In
> the world of REAL wrestling, if one wrestler popped a finger in the
> other wrestler's ass, that would be molestation/sexual assault.
Depends on your definition of REAL wrestling, but for "unscripted" wrestling I don't see why it should be illegal by default, IF THE MODELS SIGNED AGREEMENTS WHICH EXPLICITLY ALLOW THEIR OPPONENT TO DO IT. Last time I've checked, US (and especially California) has been rather supportive of the idea of consenting adults being able to enter in a rather wide range of contracts; still, if you feel they're violating the law, please feel free to sue them (especially as you've said that you're browsing adult sites with some kind of government money - didn't you)?
> these moves are not done with the intention of hurting each other
I think yes.
> or winning the match, then it is scripted.
I hope no. Why you're making "hurting each other" a synonym of "winning the match"? Sport is indeed possible without hurting each other (at least hurting too much), isn't it? Then why are you so sure that it's impossible to create a set of rules which will allow for unscripted wrestling with elements of sex but not hurting each other? I tend to believe kink.com that it's indeed unscripted (though obviously their rules are VERY different from any other set of wrestling rules); could be that I'm too willing to believe it, but at this point I don't see reasons why it should inevitably be scripted (BTW, "real" professional wrestling like WWE looks and most likely is, MUCH more scripted, then UltimateSurrender, that's for sure).
> porn is a perceived fantasy
Right, but only "by default", until explicitly told otherwise. And BTW, majority here on PU (2:1 if excluding "Other" votes) is on my side about this whole "teen models" issue, which (as I've shown in one of posts above) does matter.
> When anyone who has surfed porn for
> even a relatively short time goes to a site, say like, Teen Dreams,
> they know there are models that are not 18 and 19.
Right. But IF the site says "we're using only teen models on our site", or "we're using only gay models on our site", it becomes verifiable and objective statement. "Mature" on the other hand is still subjective. Why? I don't know and don't care.
> Your monitor example did nothing but strengthen what I said. They
> said their monitors were 17 inches, but the viewable area was only
> 15.8 inches. That is specific.
Exactly. And that's exactly why they've got beaten pretty hard for doing it.
> The definitions I used were relevant in the discussion, as it
> showed that the word Teen does have definitions in different
> languages that mean a time of life.
There is no way how German translation can affect an ad in English, but I won't argue with you on it anymore, because I hope that it's already very obvious to anybody else, and persuading you is obviously impossible.
> You really believe "brutal" means hot and innovative?
Nope, and I've never said it. It is as subjective as those two, that's it.
> Honestly, I have no idea what the first half of your post is saying.
It basically says that reference to "how the word 'teen' is translated into German" is completely irrelevant to the question of honesty in advertising, see also below.
> I felt like I used the correct contextual definitions
Once again: if the word you've mentioned for German, is not STRICTLY EQUIVALENT to "teen models" within the adult site context, it's not a correct translation of "teen" (by definition of correct translation) and therefore is irrelevant. If it IS strictly equivalent, then I don't see any potential point which applies to "teen models" discussion (therefore, I see it as irrelevant too).
> I said if the sites got together and defined teen as 18-19 year old
> models, there would be a possibility of fraud. As it stands now,
> there is no clear definition of "teen" model.
Here you have a point, BUT here such a thing as user perception and expectation comes into play. Do you remember the case with advertised size of CRT monitors (which if I remember correctly ended up with penalties AND requirement to show monitor viewable size to the end-users)? It happened because when end-user have seen ad with "17"-monitor", he was reasonably expecting 17" of VIEWABLE area. The very same logic IMHO applies to "teen models".
> They advertise brutal leg scissors.
"Brutal" in my books is in the same league as words like "hot", "innovative", "attractive", "industry leader" and so on and so on; it's a very standard ad practice to use words which are essentially unverifiable subjective claims (with key words being UNVERIFIABLE and SUBJECTIVE, therefore it's up to ad writer if he thinks it's indeed "attractive", "industry leader", or "brutal"). It is BTW is VERY different from saying "award-winning" (which can be verified and therefore requires to be substantiated to be honest; which award it was is another story, but SOME award is indeed necessary to qualify as honest).
> They also advertise "unscripted" then say "3 tags per round" in the > tag team matches. That's scripted!
Nope. Per their rules, 3 tags per round are only ALLOWED for each of competing teams to be exercised (and they USUALLY happen, as they're very beneficial for the team), but are not required. Therefore, I don't see any false advertisement here either.
Overall, the only potential argument I see about "teen models", is if "teen models" claim is in the same league that '17"-monitor' and "award-winning" (opposed to "hot" and "innovative"). IMHO "teen models" is a verifiable and non-subjective claim, therefore I interpret deviating from this claim as false advertisement.
> For example, the German word for teen is "jugendlich",
Assuming that your further interpretation of this word is correct, it means that it is NOT a correct translation for "teen" in this context, as correct translation by definition is the one which preserves meaning, and this word doesn't. "Teen models" in English-speaking adult-only world means exactly as you've said, "18 and 19 year old models", and it is a job of translator to provide the same meaning when translating it into other languages (even if it will mean translating short English "Teen" into several words in German).
> Nobody expects 100% truth in advertising in the porn world
I do expect 100% truth in advertising, EVERYWHERE, including porn. So IF they have explicitly said that ALL their models are teens, I expect just it. On the other hand, if they just said that "MOST models are teens", or just included "teens" in the name of the site, it has much milder implications (the last one IMHO requires them only to have SOME really teen models on the site).
For me BY FAR the most annoying technical thing is broken login system, when you're asked to re-enter your login/password just because they can ask for it, or because I went to restroom in the middle of browsing the site, and my "session has expired" (as if I care about "sessions" and similar stuff).
With Pamela that tape was exactly when it was needed (popularity started to decline etc.), so personally I'm pretty sure it has "leaked" intentionally.
> you should make sure that you keep all copies of the sex tape and
> then you can make a deal on it. This way you can't blame an ex
> boyfriend for releasing it at a time when you are trying to get a
> specific role.
Well, the whole idea in such cases is to blame ex boyfriend :-). But I agree that careful keeping of such tapes won't prevent you from blaming ex boyfriend anyway if necessary :-)).
Are you 100% sure it's ALWAYS a bad thing for celebrities? Publicity is always publicity :-), and "Pam Anderson" obviously became even more of a household word because of it.
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.
