Porn and relationships

Hmm, that is certainly true. But then again I'm quite certain many people will jerk to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or even the Victoria's Secret catalog. Now I'm not completely sure about the former, but I don't think the latter is created with the main intention of providing jerk off material.

Getting away from the pesky question of intent, it's fairly safe though to assume that the majority of paying members of this website are indeed paying their fees with the intention of wanking to pictures of hot, not-so-mainstream chicks. In that sense (and assuming the above is true), SG is indeed clearly a porn-site insofar as its economic success is founded on being a provider of jerk-off material.

opinions are like assholes

everyones got one

but people generally are only interested in their own

boreing

this has been going on for years, 50 years ago men got playboy and pretended it was for the articals,

some women don't like there men watching porn,
some women do,
some don't care
some men don't like porn
some do
isome men dont like there women looking at porn

SHOCK HORROR!
some arguments never go away

whatever

If i have a girl, I don't need porn. I barely need it when i'm not in a relationship, but it's completely unnecessary when I have a girl.

We've watched it both togeher and seperately since pretty much day one, and it's never come close to posing a problem. If anything, it's been cool as shit and made us more open to trying new things with each other. It's a great way to introduce something you may not know how to bring up in conversation, but that you've maybe been wanting to do with your partner. Knowing he's stroking it to porn definitely beats thinking he might be pounding someone other than me with it. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but it's never been an issue and I can't imagine that it ever would be, in my case...

[cynic]That applies to everything, not just porn.[/cynic]
But really, porn might be grotesque and it might be totally unrealistic, but I can't say that the average porn movie surpasses the average horror movie in either of those categories.

But, fundamentally, as with porn, they represent un-real fantasy scenarios.

That's the key connection.

good comparison with the horror movies

to some they enjoy watching people get killed and disemboweled... this is something not everyone would agree with and some people consider wrong others consider normal because its fake

the actions that go on in porn are in a sense the same... girls are acting... they are put in situations they may not normally be into... just for the point of making a movie and a dollar

i saw a thread on here about "dead girls" being attractive...

in no way shape or form do i find that appealing... somewhat disgusting in my head

its all how you look at it

and noones going to see the same thing as you

some consider any nudity offensive and degrading

others wait til the whips and chains are out

others not till stuf like shit and puking etc get involved

...but see, this is where this website is different.

i actually don't know if this is true. maybe "majority" is correct...but i have a feeling there are many paying members that don't wank it.

i've seen these discussions as well so i know for a fact there are many people (females at least, since this has come up in female only groups) who participate in the community aspect of this site heavily without masturbating to the pictures of girls. in fact lots of people on here barely look at the sets.

Unreal situations AND vicarious thrills. Both involve shit that it's fun to escape to for a while but would likely be pretty unpleasant (or, at least, awkward) in reality.

I think you're horribly deluded about this. My guess would be that less than (probably significantly less than) 5% of paying members post on the boards or even know they exist. The vast, vast majority of members are not part of the "community" and don't interract with anyone on here in any way other than jacking off.

The people who barely look at the sets are a minority of the already small minority of people who are active in the site and have public profiles.

And, while I agree with you on the "silent majority" membership, I don't think it even matters.

There's no rule that says "If a majority of members spanks it to the pictures, it's porn; if only a minority, then not." That's just silly.

It's softcore alt-porn, while being many other things at the same time, and different people get very different things from it.

Hardly seems complicated to me.

Which is a pretty meaningless thing to say as you pointed out before that you don't have a definition of porn.

Well, yeah, we don't have a clear-cut dividing line between porn and not-porn. I think the category "porn" is a pretty broad one, even when porn may also be "erotica" and "artsy" and whatever else.

Can be. Other people play the role of the coyote flying off the clff so we don't have to.

Meep Meep

or should I say...

You have now put the image of Hellboy naked into my head. I'm still not sure whether I should thank you for that.

Sure, that works too.
"If that gun really blew up in that cat's face, it would kill him."
"If that penis really shot off in that woman's face, she wouldn't enjoy it that much"

Both statements are silly in their own way, as neither is supposed to represent reality.

"Kids might emulate the violence they see in cartoons and get themselves or their friends hurt."
"Men might get mistaken and misogonystic views of women from porn, leading to ..."

Again, much the same thing.

And, hell, you don't really complain about the quality of the acting and plots in a cartoon.