| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
101
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#6
from hodayathink:
(pat362's Reply)
I agree with this. It's possible (but pretty expensive) to put, for lack of a better word, moving fuckable parts on a life-sized doll right now. The only thing it's missing is some kind of AI/programming to control the parts (which shouldn't take long). Once someone does that, it's just about the cost coming down.
|
04-07-13 10:27pm
|
Reply
102
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#15
from messmer:
(pat362's Reply)
You hit the nail right on the head, Pat.
|
01-21-13 10:10pm
|
Reply
103
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#10
from Monahan:
(pat362's Reply)
Totally agree. The info is useful for evaluating other sites, good and bad. Sometimes when I find a great site I have found other great sites that I might have missed.
|
12-19-12 11:21pm
|
Reply
104
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#18
from marcdc1:
(pat362's Reply)
Well said!
|
12-05-12 05:43pm
|
Reply
105
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#11
from lk2fireone:
(pat362's Reply)
Agree with pat.
|
11-20-12 03:56pm
|
Reply
106
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#20
from hodayathink:
(pat362's Reply)
People steal cough syrup and many other drugs even though they're perfectly legal and everywhere. Whether of not a drug is illegal, legal, or decriminalized has nothing to do with whether or not someone will or won't steal it (and you bringing up cigarettes is a perfect example of that). People will steal anything if they think it's something they want/need and they can't afford it. If anything, this will probably increase the reporting of thefts, since now that it's legal people will actually tell the cops when it gets stolen, but not the amount of actual thefts that occur.
|
11-09-12 05:46pm
|
Reply
107
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#15
from hodayathink:
(pat362's Reply)
Because people don't drive while high already?
And there's a reason the official crime is "driving under the influence" or "driving while intoxicated" instead of "drunk driving". Whether weed is legal or not, it's just as much of a crime to drive high as it is to drive drunk.
|
11-09-12 02:54pm
|
Reply
108
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#19
from jberryl69:
(pat362's Reply)
"If I see a typo than I have to correct it."
Too funny Pat!
|
11-05-12 06:57am
|
Reply
109
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#7
from Cybertoad:
(pat362's Reply)
I saw issues with all of the suggested results.
I find annoying the most a shower, even a bath is not much fun as often bubbles are involved as we play hide and seek with the beaver.
My other pet peeve is as GM said, a couch. I think most sex scenes look so awkward on couches. Even solo have there own issues on a soft couch trying to support and get the right spot looks like the are trying to do yoga too LOL
|
10-17-12 09:34am
|
Reply
110
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#9
from Cybertoad:
(pat362's Reply)
Hi Pat, I think I was just sticking with joining and staying I see your point but did not want to complicate it too much. As I noticed already responses are across the board very interesting.
|
09-29-12 01:21pm
|
Reply
111
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#11
from Monahan:
(pat362's Reply)
What Pat said. Pee shots are fine when the shot of the cunt is clear and clean and the pee doesn't get misused. But the old saying still applies, "it's better being pissed off than being pissed on."
Seriously, I like pee scenes, like Pat, when the grass is being watered (or the floor washed) but I don't get the scenes where the pee is directed at someone else. How is that a turn on?
But the thing that crosses the line is when the babe pisses in a glass or bowl, then pours it on herself. The really disgusting scenes are when the babe actually pours the pee in her mouth.
|
09-23-12 09:35am
|
Reply
112
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#15
from turboshaft:
(pat362's Reply)
I was thinking the same thing, and if we are used to reading right to left, top to bottom, then the last thing we will register on screen is the watermark (assuming small size, subdued color, etc.).
And this is one of the great things about higher res videos and pictures--the smaller the watermark. Of course, this is because they assume it's being viewed on a larger display and the watermark should be scaled accordingly. However, watch an older lower res video at full screen on a newer bigger display and those watermarks look ridiculous!
|
08-25-12 12:31am
|
Reply
113
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#13
from marcdc1:
(pat362's Reply)
I agree.
Southern, British, and Canadian (yes Canadian) accents are my favorite
|
08-12-12 03:31pm
|
Reply
114
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#14
from jberryl69:
(pat362's Reply)
lol - yes, but then it's perhaps that they are ethnically mixed - OR - the director takes artistic license. I guess one that comes to mind is Vicki Chase.
|
08-10-12 01:45pm
|
Reply
115
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#9
from jberryl69:
(pat362's Reply)
idk Pat, if you look at someone like J.Darkko, he has entire movies dedicated to an ethnic group, though never one with just entirely Caucasian cast. But if you're looking at a specific producer then your observations might apply.
|
08-10-12 08:15am
|
Reply
116
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#11
from messmer:
(pat362's Reply)
Exactly, Pat. And most photographers refuse to see the obvious and can't wait to get their models nude.
|
07-21-12 08:16am
|
Reply
117
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#17
from jberryl69:
(pat362's Reply)
I agree Pat - there are some pretty thoughtful people in this forum, which one could assume, makes us a little more intelligent - but just so our heads don't get too filled, I'll just say for the record I've done some pretty damn dumb things in my life.
|
07-08-12 02:22pm
|
Reply
118
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#8
from jberryl69:
(pat362's Reply)
While I know you patrol other forums Pat (as do I), I think Graymane used the "we" to indicate this forum rather than some other ones. Of course, this is best addressed by Graymane as to his intent, rather than me projecting, but I'll bet a plugged nickel I'm right.
Which is why I thought it was a dicey question since he was asking us to ascertain what we thought about ourselves and our own level of intellectualism on this forum. That is why the replies could either slide you up or down that scale.
|
07-07-12 11:25am
|
Reply
119
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#11
from Monahan:
(pat362's Reply)
The state of the porn art in June of 2002 compared to today can be a guide.
In 2002 the major source of porn was magazines and VHS videotapes. Magazines were timidly entering the hard core business. Back then most of the major magazines were experimenting with mild insertions (dildoes, fingers, etc.) and men with woodies were showing up in some cases. The "good stuff" was available on VHS tapes available in rental stores and we horn dogs copied off the salient parts for our collections.The internet porn biz was just starting with what now are called low res photos and short, lousy quality videos.
Today the vast majority of porn is web based with most of the remaining video stores barely hanging on with copy protected DVD's and marginally popular non-mainstream stuff. Magazines are struggling for survival.
The delivery systems for porn in 2022 are most likely going to be exclusively web based with a very simple interfaces to large screen 3-D TV screens. Magazines will disappear as will many of the video stores.
While there have been some who have discussed the possibility of reality delivery to include olfactory elements (smell-o-vision) and even tactile capability (simulated touch capability).
I've heard ideas like virtual sex being available but my limited mental capacity can't imagine how that can be accomplished.
In any case it will be a fun ride to see how porn advances over the next decade.
|
06-29-12 10:42pm
|
Reply
120
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#9
from Toadsith:
(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
121
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#10
from otoh:
(pat362's Reply)
It's not something I'm too worry about either way. I was going to say revisit, but actually pat326's points are very valid - a long older thread can be clumsy to navigate; and also, we are a fickle bunch so it's good to think about things again in a new light, and with the input of newer members.
|
04-25-12 01:57am
|
Reply
122
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#12
from hodayathink:
(pat362's Reply)
Let's see:
While men don't get pregnant, nowadays if they end up fathering multiple children with different women, they end up with tons of child support payments, which isn't a small thing at all. So it's not like men can do whomever they want without any consequence. Not to mention that little thing called birth control, which makes it so that women can have all the sex that they want with very little chance of getting pregnant (which, while around in your formative years, has gotten much better since). And men are just as likely to catch an STD from having sex with an infected partner as women are.
And, really? Romance novels prove that women want to be loved? First of all, I'm going to completely ignore the fact that you just suggested that men don't want to loved, they just want to have sex with anything they find attractive. And present the counterpoint of "Sex in the City" and media of that ilk, which is basically centered around the fact that while, yes, women do want to be loved (just like everyone does), they don't consider themselves a slave to it, and are willing to go around having fun until that man shows up. As someone who watches a decent amount of porn, you should know that what you fantasize about and what you actually do in real life usually aren't the same thing.
|
04-11-12 11:08am
|
Reply
123
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#6
from hodayathink:
(pat362's Reply)
There is an inherent problem with a swinging life style when it comes to how the genders view sex in general. Guys can have sex without an emotional attachment but women tend to require a certain level of attachment. Incorporating swinging into the couples sex life can be a big problem in the long run because the woman can fall in love with one of her sex partner. Of course a guy could fall in love with one of his partner as well but I think the term love might be more like greta sex with said partner.
That is such a complete and total antiquated assumption based on a gender stereotype. Women are just as capable as men nowadays of having sex without the need to have a relationship. Hell, women have always been just as capable mentally, it's just that society tended to instill in them that love was required before sex. But society and cultural values have changed, and women aren't getting that idea drilled into their heads much anymore, so they go out and have hookups and one night stands whenever they want, just like men do.
|
04-10-12 05:08pm
|
Reply
124
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#7
from Monahan:
(pat362's Reply)
I agree.If the only review(s) is(are) expired and the expired review(s) is(are) less than glowing, that tells me that the site likely isn't all that great.
|
04-08-12 10:47am
|
Reply
125
|
N/A
|
REPLY TO
#13
from slategrey:
(pat362's Reply)
You havent seen it. Trust me you will notice if you run across that niche.
|
04-01-12 07:48pm
|
