Geoff, can we get some boners in here, or what?
 

Geoff,

It sounds like the rule for pictures in the adult forum is "no sexual organs in the state of arousal, and no penetration pics". Can we get that first part taken out? The anti-boner sentiment of this forum is truely disturbing.

A thread about well endowed male porn stars clearly needs some pictures to help illustrate the "points" trying to be made. Clearly, there's nothing more beautiful than a raging hard on.

Please, I haven't asked for much in my time on DVDTalk. But I'm asking you now, as a male... please... give us our boners! :saber:

I'm not necessarily a fan of the boner, but he's right. It's asinine that there is such a double standard for such things.

Are you serious? -eek-

I'd like to see more boners in lesbian porn.

I don't joke around about boners! :drool:

I like men and all, but if you want that kind of thing there's already sites out there. That would cross the line too much. (and this doesn't even affect me since I don't visit the adult forum, but just knowing it's there changes the whole atmosphere of all the forums). And trust me, I am no prude. But in my opinion it's going too far.

Have you actually seen some of the pictures of women being posted in the adult forum? And you think adding a few harmless boners would cross the line?

I'm sorry, but we're crossing over into serious double standard time here...

No, I haven't, as I don't visit the adult forum :)

Example? (link?)

I gave a few examples of pics I found that weren't linked in the thread that started this discussion. X has since gone back and decided one of those DID (obviously) break the rules and linked it. Funny how an explicit pic like that can slip by the mods, but a simply boner gets linked within minutes...

Did art ask you to start this thread on his behalf?

You know what's even funnier?

That moderators don't read every thread and don't see everything that's displayed. Go figure!

Oh I see, so you aren't reading the threads about naked chicks, but are all over the one about well endowed men? Hmmm... is there something you want to get off your chest, X? Are you our first gay moderator? ;)

I just think the whole "organs in arousal" thing is a completely arbitrary distinction.
Look at those 2 pics of women I linked to early in this thread. Can you honestly tell me that those pics are somehow less explicit than a pic of a guy, by himself with a hardon? If so, I'd love to hear the reasoning...

joeblow--i agree wholeheartedly with you. i think it comes down to what is "distasteful" or "uncomfortable" to the najority of viewers. and, unfortunately, we are the minority. how can you tell if a woman is aroused? can we say every female shot of her ***** is artistic or just a pic versus being aroused? i understand completely the need to link some images and keep things from being completely X rated here. i think that if i have to keep looking at ***** all day i should get to see some penis for compensation. i think it should be like a bisexual and go both ways :) either no crotches shown or allow some sausage. just mho.

krkuhl we're hitting all the good threads tonight ;)

I don't even visit that forum regularly (~10 times since its inception) because there's nothing interesting there.

Maybe Joe has a point... :)

While I respect the enthusiasm of you two, I'd suggest making the "boner" (a penis in a turgid state) ban formal. An erection draws more scrutiny from a variety of sources, from search engines to law enforcement. Heck, even our reviews of porn don't have such pictures and people clicking on those links might be reasonably argued as specifically looking for it.

Many of the free websites offering solely adult content have started censoring what they display so it looks like G! was ahead of the curve in this. Keep in mind that of all the people on the website, I'd advocate an "anything goes" attitude (within reason) if there weren't legal ramifications. In short, if you want boners, look elsewhere. :)

Sounds scarey, but do you have any actual proof to back this up?

It's just another example of the overly hetero-centricness of this forum, if you ask me! -ohbfrank-

;)

Scary?!? Not really, just a casual observation (keep in mind that the record requirements for adult material changed recently and it may end up that this website joins many others that bar explicit pictures altogether, even on reviewed box covers, such as those found covered up on rame).

Other than that, it has long been established that full frontal nudity of a male is viewed differently than when it's a female; both in terms of how many it offends as well as to what extent. When the gay reviews start here in the future, I'm willing to bet that they'll have a separate area based on past experience. Perhaps G! will start a gay blog as a reference point for gay material, including a forum, news of the latest releases, and stories of interest to the G & L community but that'll be up to him.

As far as the heterocentricity of the website in general, that's something determined more by the people participating in the forums than anything else. In the mainstream review section, DVD Talk has some well written reviews of G & L movies but it'll never amount to much more than a handful (no pun intended) without more participation. If you're interested in participating, send G! an email. (and if you're the JB from ADT, welcome aboard)

Yeah, I'm the same jb69 from ADT, but have no plans on writing any reviews. I burned out on that a looong time ago.

I have to disagree about the "dangers" of posting male nudes versus female nudes. Just look at all the latest prosecutions on porn lately. They've all involved straight porn, when there are plenty of gay porn movies available from mainstream sources that are WAY more explicit, and could probably be more easily prosecuted.

I believe those fundamentalists who are out on the web looking for porn to bust (when they aren't looking for child porn, beastiality, etc..) are more concerned with straight porn for the following reasons:
1. They believe it degrades women
2. They believe it causes some men to rape women
3. They believe it is addictive and tempts their christian men
4. They don't want their men seeing all those hot chicks and then wonder why they have to come home and sleep with ugo every night
5. They don't want their children exposed to it

The only one of these that really is relavent with gay porn is #5. The majority of gay porn doesn't effect their fundamentalist christian lifestyle, because "real" christians aren't gay, so they wouldn't be watching gay porn anyway.

Anyway, that's quite the tangent for another thread, I suppose...

While were at at it could we get words like pu**y uncensored?

Makes no sense to have fuck, shit etc. uncensored and words like pu**y censored especially when you have an adult forum and review porn DVDs. :confused:

STRONG AGREEMENT

My agreement is stronger than Buford, but less than Bandoman.

Some words were determined to be censor worthy because they were offensive. Some words were determined to be censor worthy because they could be used as insults or were demeaning and would enable a heated debate to quickly become an all out flame war.

Pu**y happened to, at one time, to fall into both camps. It might be safe to assume that with the loosening of the words in the first camp, the only reason to leave it censored, would be for the second camp. Unless we are talking about band camp, which would refer to the first camp.

That's silly both ways. If someone calls someone else a pu**y, it's a personal attack and they should be warned or whatever. Punish the act not the word.

As for the other, I don't think anyone not offended by fuck, shit etc. is going to be offended by someone saying something like "man the (insert team name) are playing like pu**ies today."

I say censor everything or censor nothing, and punish people using the words in attacks etc, not just ban words.

boner :down:
bonner :up:

I would agree in principle...if our time was limitless and we could read every post.

-other-

Not that I particularly want to see it, but I'd have to support the OP as a matter of principle.

As for the word "pu**y", it's no more likely to cause an altercation than the words "wuss" or "lame" or any number of other synonyms. "H*m*" is a little more in the gray area, but I think I've seen it censored a lot more being used in a legitimate context than as part of an insult.

I wouldn't mind letting people use h*m* again, if we could retire "teh gey". That's SO overplayed.

Don't personal attacks tend to get reported to the mods most of the time? I know I report everyone I see.

Also, I don't think having words censored lessens the number or personal attacks. People just use non-censored words.

I don't see how uncensoring pu**y and other words will lead to an increase in personal attacks.

Pretty faulty logic IMO.

If we ban "teh gay", dvdtalk will officially be dead.

But you caught teh gay before we even knew about it.

HMMMMM. YA THINK?

No reply from Geoff. :sad:

Oh well, I guess god doesn't always reply when I ask for boners either. :shrug:

Ask and you shall receive...




<img src="http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/53/62/63m.jpg">