Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
David Cameron Decides Porn is Bad for You, Blocks All Access to Pornography in UK
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Big Ewis" data-source="post: 584292" data-attributes="member: 57076"><p>^ haha, your life seems fine from here buddy ! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick Out Tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /></p><p></p><p>But:</p><p>I understand the *intention* argument. But what I meant was a regular movie, with an actual pron scene -</p><p>people ACTUALLY having sex (not acting), junk and full nudity showing. </p><p>First of all, it can't be erotica because that would be an ambiguous choice of word as erotica is usually everything BUT full nudity and depiction of the act.</p><p></p><p>Whether it is intended to give you a boner and (and then you start touching yourself) or not, though I totally understand your point, still isn't fully relevant here. It's almost like, in parallel fashion, some drunk/sedated person committing an act without being conscious - the act still is committed, and everything from there ensues like it would had the person been conscious. It's the same result, no matter the intention. In this example, let's say he crashed the car. The car is fkd, whether it was the intention or not.</p><p></p><p>In nature, that scene is pornography. There are no two ways about it. It can then be, say, artistic pron, in all kinds of direction; serve a great purpose in the film; be a fantastic transition in the story structure, or wtvr....BUT...</p><p>but but but but but BUT...it is pron. It is obviously pron. As a distinctive component of the larger entity (that is the film).</p><p></p><p>P.S.: Oh and about the school thing, well if it fits my aforementioned acceptation of pron then I'd say it's pron. If they're doing it, everything showing...then it's pron. </p><p>UNLESS it's the coldest thing ever, intended to be that way so that it doesn't get kids excited (like covering certain parts, doing it, I dunno, like machines with no expression no passion...).</p><p></p><p>I think for educational purposes, it's imperative authorities un-porn the act as much as possible. Because watching a couple doing it, enjoying it, and junk showing is stimulating naturally. So in a way, pron <u>naturally 'occurs'</u> if all the criteria are there. As people, we're naturally aroused by such a sight, spontaneously *entertained*.</p><p>There's no way they could show such a thing. They'd have to censor, desensitize it the best possible way. Which is what they do...I dunno, never had sex education in the French system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Big Ewis, post: 584292, member: 57076"] ^ haha, your life seems fine from here buddy ! :p But: I understand the *intention* argument. But what I meant was a regular movie, with an actual pron scene - people ACTUALLY having sex (not acting), junk and full nudity showing. First of all, it can't be erotica because that would be an ambiguous choice of word as erotica is usually everything BUT full nudity and depiction of the act. Whether it is intended to give you a boner and (and then you start touching yourself) or not, though I totally understand your point, still isn't fully relevant here. It's almost like, in parallel fashion, some drunk/sedated person committing an act without being conscious - the act still is committed, and everything from there ensues like it would had the person been conscious. It's the same result, no matter the intention. In this example, let's say he crashed the car. The car is fkd, whether it was the intention or not. In nature, that scene is pornography. There are no two ways about it. It can then be, say, artistic pron, in all kinds of direction; serve a great purpose in the film; be a fantastic transition in the story structure, or wtvr....BUT... but but but but but BUT...it is pron. It is obviously pron. As a distinctive component of the larger entity (that is the film). P.S.: Oh and about the school thing, well if it fits my aforementioned acceptation of pron then I'd say it's pron. If they're doing it, everything showing...then it's pron. UNLESS it's the coldest thing ever, intended to be that way so that it doesn't get kids excited (like covering certain parts, doing it, I dunno, like machines with no expression no passion...). I think for educational purposes, it's imperative authorities un-porn the act as much as possible. Because watching a couple doing it, enjoying it, and junk showing is stimulating naturally. So in a way, pron [U]naturally 'occurs'[/U] if all the criteria are there. As people, we're naturally aroused by such a sight, spontaneously *entertained*. There's no way they could show such a thing. They'd have to censor, desensitize it the best possible way. Which is what they do...I dunno, never had sex education in the French system. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
David Cameron Decides Porn is Bad for You, Blocks All Access to Pornography in UK
Top