Conquer Club

Jenna Jameson is disgusting. I don't even want to see her with her clothes on.

Agreed. She's icky.

I don't get this about people who like porn. The more slutty a girl is, the less attractive she is to me. I don't want to have sex with a girl who has a tent for a vagina. And fake boobs are an instant turn-off. Amateur shit is the best.

Agreed. The double pro's are icky.

Borderdawg wrote:

Lupe Fuentes, Spanish/Colombian, 4' 9"

She wins. Although 4' 9" is a little too short.

I've never really watched much porn. Maybe for a few of the reasons Juan stated. It's so fake. (Maybe Logjammin'--"I'm here to fix deine cable") But I must agree the Jenna Jameson is not attractive, and I don't know how anyone could think so.

-TG

Dominique Arganese

Alright, I've only seen like 3 videos of her just stripping, but I think the phrase "too beautiful for porn" applies here.

Also, I completely forgot about this whole ratdig argument. It's funny how much of an idiot he is.

Racquel Darrian for me..

Lexy Shawn

This entire thread:

What counts as porn? And what counts as acting? If a beautiful girl masturbating herself to orgasm and rubbing lotion on her breasts is considered porn and acting then I believe my all time favorite has to be Zusana Drabinova from the Czech Republic (her Americanized moniker is Raylene Richards). She masturbates and does plenty of boob squeezing and eye batting! She doesn't do hardcore porn...it's just her...naked...on camera...on a bed...with lotion! OMG! I got to go to the bathroom now!!!!

You guys are awful, absolutely awful. If you're going to suggest videos to watch in a porno thread, they really should be porno. I searched down Two guys and a Hammer expecting some epic porn, I was at actions stations and everything, and its a video of someone getting his coconut cracked. Not exactly excellent masturbation material.. Not the worst thing I've whacked off to though. what can I say.. that bloke was stroking that hammer like a boss. Nice screwdriver penetration too.

Aradhus wrote:Two guys and a Hammer expecting some epic porn, I was at actions stations and everything, and its a video of someone getting his coconut cracked. Not exactly excellent masturbation material.

I agree to disagree.

Kids in the Sandbox Ard.Think you'll like that one.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Borderdawg wrote:

Lupe Fuentes, Spanish/Colombian, 4' 9"

She wins. Although 4' 9" is a little too short.

I've never really watched much porn. Maybe for a few of the reasons Juan stated. It's so fake. (Maybe Logjammin'--"I'm here to fix deine cable") But I must agree the Jenna Jameson is not attractive, and I don't know how anyone could think so.

-TG

Meh. She was ok before she got her implants, and from that picture it looks like she's had something injected into her lips as well. So... sorry, but that just ruins it, now she's just another walking advertisement for plastic surgery.

again, amazed about american hypocrisy and lack of logic.
you guys create a whole thread about porn stars, your wancking stories and images in suggestive postures. If you see a nipple it's porn and you are afraid childern could see it. You post pornstars squeezing their tits in more than suggestive postures, and that is OK, it can be read and looked at by underaged??

do I get reported if I post "La Maja Desnuda" from Goya???

AUTO CENSURE

Only the "Maja Vestida" created to avoid the spanish inquisition and to hide the other one could be tolerated?



Basically art you can see in a museum is socially not OK, porn stars with hidden niples is??

Rules are made because judgement cannot be passed easily. So we do the easy thing, make rules and play by the rules.

The rule says no pussy and no female nipples so we avoid posting those. I understand your point tho. But you will get banned.

nietzsche wrote:Rules are made because judgement cannot be passed easily. So we do the easy thing, make rules and play by the rules.

The rule says no pussy and no female nipples so we avoid posting those. I understand your point tho. But you will get banned.

This is not what the rules say.

Night Strike wrote:Any images of pornographic activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.

This includes content posted here and links to other sites. Posting NSFW - "Not Suitable For Work" - does not make it ok for posting.

If it is ambiguous, we'll ask you to remove it anyway, so "It's a guy's nipple" isn't going to fly. You're just trying to be annoying at that point.
Posting a painting from the 13th century with exposed nipples to claim that we're evil dictators when we ask you to remove it is also just being annoying, and you're probably just being a troll at that point.

Quite specifically, the rules say that nude art, or posting any kind of nipple, male or female, are against the rules. Both the post you just objected to, and your thread specifically about men's nipples break the rules as written.

Personally I think they should be re-written, but you're breaking the specific example of "it's a guy's nipples" mentioned as an exemption that isn't going to fly, and the previous poster is breaking the painting example specifically mentioned in the rules.

But.. are my nipples pornography?? I thought only women nipples were bad.

nietzsche wrote:Rules are made because judgement cannot be passed easily. So we do the easy thing, make rules and play by the rules.

The rule says no pussy and no female nipples so we avoid posting those. I understand your point tho. But you will get banned.

well if i get banned for posting a world famous masterpiece, a PAINTING in a none suggestive posture, it's trully funny.
And what is also very funny was symetry in another thread posting gay porn and that was ok because there were no genitals and if we say it's offensive we will be reported for bigotery.

when I was around 10 and I was going to an american school. we had a cut and paste art project and I just pasted a penis-shaped piece of paper on one of the characters that was in a strage position to have a laugh with a friend and that I was going to remove immediately; a girl saw that, reported it to the teacher who reported it to the principal who called my parents who had to pick me up ASAP from school and I had a whole brainwashing speech from the principal as if it was a criminal offense. Americans need to chill out with nudity seriously, when we see how big the porn industry is in the US it's just silly and it makes no sense.

betiko wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Rules are made because judgement cannot be passed easily. So we do the easy thing, make rules and play by the rules.

The rule says no pussy and no female nipples so we avoid posting those. I understand your point tho. But you will get banned.

well if i get banned for posting a world famous masterpiece, a PAINTING in a none suggestive posture, it's trully funny.
And what is also very funny was symetry in another thread posting gay porn and that was ok because there were no genitals and if we say it's offensive we will be reported for bigotery.

when I was around 10 and I was going to an american school. we had a cut and paste art project and I just pasted a penis-shaped piece of paper on one of the characters that was in a strage position to have a laugh with a friend and that I was going to remove immediately; a girl saw that, reported it to the teacher who reported it to the principal who called my parents who had to pick me up ASAP from school and I had a whole brainwashing speech from the principal as if it was a criminal offense. Americans need to chill out with nudity seriously, when we see how big the porn industry is in the US it's just silly and it makes no sense.

To be fair, I have never posted gay porn. The closest I have ever come to that was posting a picture of two men kissing or of two men touching each other. I was asked to stop posting images that were hot sexy and NSFW by the moderators, and the thread title was changed accordingly so that such images as the OP asked for could no longer be posted without intentionally derailing the thread according to its new title, apparently without the consent of the poster who made the thread.

nietzsche wrote:But.. are my nipples pornography?? I thought only women nipples were bad.

Nope- NS says all nipples are bad. Link

Expand the nudity link on his post.

No, he specifically states that "pornographic" or "ambiguous" nipples break the rules. Male nipples aren't necessarily pornographic and the nipples aren't ambiguous as long as it's obvious it's a male's nipple we're looking at

Hey man, Night Strike banned me once for posting a completely clean YouTube video that happened to have a link to something about breast feeding back when he ran Off-Topics, before he was removed for abusing his power. So I never posted porn, there were no nipples or any nudity in the link I posted, but because if one clicked a few times from links in that link, one could see an instructional video about pumping breast milk, he flipped out, declared it "porn", and demanded I be banned. Of course he'll lie now and claim up and down he didn't, just because he got someone else to send me the email telling me I was banned, but it was him. And I had no idea that link was there. I had no idea nudity ever existed on YouTube. Someone could have just PM'ed me and said something, I'd have gladly taken it down. Or do a mod edit and send a quick PM letting me know why. I would have even apologized, despite being guilty of nothing.

You'll notice this thread contains photos with URLs to porn sites, but that doesn't seem to be a problem. Even mods have posted links that, when followed, contained other links to full-fledged porn sites (not in this thread, but in the past). They didn't mean to, they didn't know there were porn links. Nothing as innocent as breast milk instructions. But mods don't ever have to abide by the same rules as the rest of us.

Even with other users, the rules don't apply to everyone equally. Woodruff is allowed to flip out and call someone names non-stop for four entire months (1/3 of a year -- although he was calling everyone names for much longer, he targeted one individual for four sustained months). When that someone finally decides enough is enough, and starts telling Woodruff to knock it off, and then publicly mocking him for stirring up so much turmoil, some mods decide that Woodruff is just a poor helpless victim to awful wicked internet trolling/ bullying. Not that Woodruff, by constantly spewing insults directed at individuals, is reaping what he sows, and maybe the mods should have done something about Woodruff months ago. Just as an example.

Symmetry wrote:

betiko wrote:

nietzsche wrote:Rules are made because judgement cannot be passed easily. So we do the easy thing, make rules and play by the rules.

The rule says no pussy and no female nipples so we avoid posting those. I understand your point tho. But you will get banned.

well if i get banned for posting a world famous masterpiece, a PAINTING in a none suggestive posture, it's trully funny.
And what is also very funny was symetry in another thread posting gay porn and that was ok because there were no genitals and if we say it's offensive we will be reported for bigotery.

when I was around 10 and I was going to an american school. we had a cut and paste art project and I just pasted a penis-shaped piece of paper on one of the characters that was in a strage position to have a laugh with a friend and that I was going to remove immediately; a girl saw that, reported it to the teacher who reported it to the principal who called my parents who had to pick me up ASAP from school and I had a whole brainwashing speech from the principal as if it was a criminal offense. Americans need to chill out with nudity seriously, when we see how big the porn industry is in the US it's just silly and it makes no sense.

To be fair, I have never posted gay porn. The closest I have ever come to that was posting a picture of two men kissing or of two men touching each other. I was asked to stop posting images that were hot sexy and NSFW by the moderators, and the thread title was changed accordingly so that such images as the OP asked for could no longer be posted without intentionally derailing the thread according to its new title, apparently without the consent of the poster who made the thread.

Well, yes, what you posted was not "technically" gay porn because of their so called written rules. you were on one extreme, offensive that cannot be punished and I'm on the other extreme, the non-offensive that can be punished.

My point is to ask if we cannot use common sense on a case to case basis when we meet grey areas instead of treating everything manicheanly with the written rules that obviously don't always make sense??

Army of GOD wrote:No, he specifically states that "pornographic" or "ambiguous" nipples break the rules. Male nipples aren't necessarily pornographic and the nipples aren't ambiguous as long as it's obvious it's a male's nipple we're looking at

No, he specifically states that nipples are not to be posted. He lists it as an example of nudity.

Any images of pornographic activity or nudity - nipples, areola, genitals, anuses etc - whether intended as artistic, erotic, pornographic or otherwise are not allowed.

He also says that the male exception is not an excuse that will be allowed.

If it is ambiguous, we'll ask you to remove it anyway, so "It's a guy's nipple" isn't going to fly. You're just trying to be annoying at that point.

I think it's a pretty ridiculous set of rules, but saying that they aren't written the way they are is kind of silly too. That's what they say.