Tech29 said:
What makes me laugh is if a women news wire correspondent who worked on here had posted a rant againts this guy and againts this movie premier deal that SG has made, All the women here would be ranting againts this.
This is a busines and knowing an SG and having read the contract they sign, the images posted on here are the sole property of SG as is your NAME. Sean the owner will get a fee for hiring out some SG's to this premier as well as the girls themselves. So who cares if a couple of upperty femnazi's dont like it, who cares if a few guys who want to mensturate on behalf of women and cry about their exploted ovaries. Some women are happy to be paid to be expolited its in their nature. Hey your built to be prostitute doesnt mean you have to be one.

What makes me laugh is how you spell "against"

Starla

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUL 04, 2007 01:08 AM

A lot of people keep complaining that this is a sign of how SG is deteriorating due to promoting shitty shit that you personally don't like and therefore attracting shitty people that you personally don't like and therefore could possibly become a shitty site that you don't like.
SG has been doing this for as long as I've been here. Promoting some bands and movies and whatnot that I personally feel are ridiculous crap. Here's what I do when I see something that. I don't click the linky, I don't read the story. Yup, it's still there and SG is still promoting it and people who are interested are still gettting to check it out - and yet, it has no effect on me. Hell it's like it's not even there.
Try it sometime. Quit yer bitchin.
GEEZ!

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA

April 2005

JUL 04, 2007 01:39 AM

Starla said:
A lot of people keep complaining that this is a sign of how SG is deteriorating due to promoting shitty shit that you personally don't like and therefore attracting shitty people that you personally don't like and therefore could possibly become a shitty site that you don't like.
SG has been doing this for as long as I've been here. Promoting some bands and movies and whatnot that I personally feel are ridiculous crap. Here's what I do when I see something that. I don't click the linky, I don't read the story. Yup, it's still there and SG is still promoting it and people who are interested are still gettting to check it out - and yet, it has no effect on me. Hell it's like it's not even there.
Try it sometime. Quit yer bitchin.
GEEZ!

Yeah...just don't clicky. No see, no happen. We should try that with King George. Just turn our heads, put our hands over our ears and sing our fav song.

And then, all of a sudden, the country sucks.

What a shame...

Starla

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

JUL 04, 2007 01:41 AM

BurningKrome said:
Yeah...just don't clicky. No see, no happen. We should try that with King George. Just turn our heads, put our hands over our ears and sing our fav song.

And then, all of a sudden, the country sucks.

What a shame...

Yeah, cause everyone bitching and moaning on the internet is really making a difference!

jquincy

Dallas, TX

August 2005

JUL 04, 2007 01:44 AM

"When did artistic nudity become known as pornography? Did I miss a memo?"

yes, i think so...

this rhetorical question amazed me a little bit. while i'm not for the exploitation of women (and i know that's what i sould be really be focused on), i would like for someone to cut through the bullshit about what suicide girls actually is. when does 'porn' end, and 'artistic nudity' begin? i worked in an art museum all through college that had plenty of nude portraits AND sculptures, and i never once felt the urge to jerk off to any of them. not once. if ten subscribers to SG tell me they really ONLY look at these photos as the works of art they were intended to be, then nine.five of 'em are talikin' straight out of their asses. and don't give me that "erotic art" load either. where i come from, that's an example of "polishing a turd". 'art' (in as far as how it's communicated) is two things: 1)artist's intention 2) audience interpretation. if the the "artist" intended arousal, and the those who viewed said "art" were aroused, then...well...if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

DAMN GOOD ART....I MEAN PORN...I MEAN "ARTISTIC NUDITY"...

wasn't it duchamp who said that anyone can call anything art?

Salome

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

JUL 04, 2007 07:26 AM

jquincy said:
wasn't it duchamp who said that anyone can call anything art?

Since dude signed a urinal and put it in the SF MOMA, yeah, I wouldn't put it past him.

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH

April 2004

JUL 04, 2007 08:22 AM

Salome said:

jquincy said:
wasn't it duchamp who said that anyone can call anything art?

Since dude signed a urinal and put it in the SF MOMA, yeah, I wouldn't put it past him.

I really doubt Duchamp took that simplistic a view on the subject. If I recall correctly, one of his intentions was to illustrate how difficult it is to define art, not to suggest there is no line between art and non-art.

Nokturn

United Kingdom

April 2006

JUL 04, 2007 12:17 PM

Starla said:
SG has been doing this for as long as I've been here. Promoting some bands and movies and whatnot that I personally feel are ridiculous crap.

Granted.
But how many of these bands and movies have openly promoted themselves on the promise that they'll entertain via the means of glorifying abuse against women?
Because though a few people have lost it, that was the point of this thread.