What do you consider porn to be? (NSFW, obviously)

[Red7]

i define porn as anything that brings me immediate joy and/or arousal even without direct long term benefits outside the joy itself;
if something is not porn/pleasure and not a tool to defend/secure/acquire porn/pleasure it has no value.


porn/pleasure is food, science, technology, experience and all others are used to get the food ergo they have value cause they are long term porn reward.
even the animals had figured out meaning of the universe better than most religious men somehow.


from those pics only last one is sort of acceptable/enjoyable, but still only like 6,5/10...

[Metalhead33]

Waiting now for another multipage debate on what constitutes hardcore pornography.

Well, ackchyually, nudity and cleavage constitute hardcore pornography because they lead young men to sin.

► Show Spoiler

To be serious for a moment, I am perfectly fine with actual pornography - as in, depictions of sexual activity - being forbidden. I'm also 100% fine with having to hide boobs under spoilers or posting them only in designated NSFW threads.

However, if the trads had their way, a woman clothed in anything less than a burqah would be considered hardcore pornography.

[Red7]

None. They are all whores though. Imagine being their father.

i could adopt last one

[Anon]

None. They are all whores though. Imagine being their father.

i could adopt last one

didn't know you were another asian lover, that's some news

[Red7]

Waiting now for another multipage debate on what constitutes hardcore pornography.

Well, ackchyually, nudity and cleavage constitute hardcore pornography because they lead young men to sin.

sin is genetical flaw. actually it means humans are not perfect slaves for elohim aliens ergo they got some genetic engineering still to do.
btw are u on 4k panel? cause that huge smiley takes way too much fucking space for me

[Red7]

None. They are all whores though. Imagine being their father.

i could adopt last one

didn't know you were another asian lover, that's some news

go to rule34 and look for kokoro with miyako double blowjob to get mommy daughter service appeal
6.5/10 is good enough with mommy daughter boost

edit
here is link

► Show Spoiler

https://webm.rule34.xxx//images/4162/41 ... p4?4728525

[Red7]

It's just women, fictional or otherwise. I don't get whats exciting about them.

they can be used to produce warriors and other cumbuckets to produce more warriors.


anyway
everyhing is about porn, except porn. porn is about power

[Oyster Sauce]

Waiting now for another multipage debate on what constitutes hardcore pornography.

Well, ackchyually, nudity and cleavage constitute hardcore pornography because they lead young men to sin.

► Show Spoiler

To be serious for a moment, I am perfectly fine with actual pornography - as in, depictions of sexual activity - being forbidden. I'm also 100% fine with having to hide boobs under spoilers or posting them only in designated NSFW threads.

However, if the trads had their way, a woman clothed in anything less than a burqah would be considered hardcore pornography.

Please be aware that you are still very gay for posting the way you do.

[Xenich]

To be serious for a moment, I am perfectly fine with actual pornography - as in, depictions of sexual activity - being forbidden. I'm also 100% fine with having to hide boobs under spoilers or posting them only in designated NSFW threads.

However, if the trads had their way, a woman clothed in anything less than a burqah would be considered hardcore pornography.

It is a difficult thing. See, as a Christian, you are not supposed to lead your brother to temptation. Yet, if taken to extremes, you end up as you describe. I think there is a reasonable line though. Standard clothed women is the base I think, but there are good arguments to be made for the clothing which is trying to bypass the covering to achieve the same result as nude.

For instance, in option D, it is obvious its intent. She is clothed, but... the design is trying to push the limits by removing that which clothes provide. Seeing a woman walking around with normal pants on, even if they are snug usually won't cause a focused arousal for sexually normal males, but for those who have a unhealthy focus on such, this could be an issue.

Though take for instance a woman in spandex, where it not only is smooth to show curves, but invades into nether regions to show fully creases and curves (some going as far to show nipples, or impressions of their genitals). Or cases where the blouse is hung so low as to reveal a large portion of their breasts. These I think are pretty obvious in their attempt to promote sexual response to others. All of the women I have known have been clear that such displays are for a specific purpose and that purpose only.

I once I had a discussion with some women on this topic who wore such things. They said it was fine in public and at work, etc... but when I reversed the example, for instance describing a male wearing spandex that showed all impressions and curves including their penis protruding clearly and defined from their crotch, they all scoffed and said that was "offensive" and not the same. There is a double standard in the public about this, much like the acceptance of women hitting a man being ok, but a man hitting a woman is not.

In the case of option D, a common adjustment is to add hard coverings (metal armor plates) over the sensitive areas. This leaves the same impression, but does not extend to that of a focus on the sensitive areas (which I think has been a growing move in conditioning over the years). Honestly, I don't think it will be too long at the pace we are going to see camel toes and full nipple impressions become standard in mainstream video games, and eventually as we have already seen, sex sim full on hard core interaction in mainstream games will become "accepted" (because they are animations), which again will lead to a conditioning to such where live action movies are having full on penetration porn in mainstream titles, but being excused as art and normal.

Don't believe me? 40 years ago, the thought that pedophile would begin to be openly accepted, bestiality would be excused in many circles, and the idea that a man could somehow change their sex and be considered a women officially to public acceptance would cause you to be attacked as a logical fallacy.

Just because someone may object to these displays, doesn't mean they are fanatics.

[Red7]

To be serious for a moment, I am perfectly fine with actual pornography - as in, depictions of sexual activity - being forbidden. I'm also 100% fine with having to hide boobs under spoilers or posting them only in designated NSFW threads.

However, if the trads had their way, a woman clothed in anything less than a burqah would be considered hardcore pornography.

It is a difficult thing. See, as a Christian, you are not supposed to lead your brother to temptation. Yet, if taken to extremes, you end up as you describe. I think there is a reasonable line though. Standard clothed women is the base I think, but there are good arguments to be made for the clothing which is trying to bypass the covering to achieve the same result as nude.

For instance, in option D, it is obvious its intent. She is clothed, but... the design is trying to push the limits by removing that which clothes provide. Seeing a woman walking around with normal pants on, even if they are snug usually won't cause a focused arousal for sexually normal males, but for those who have a unhealthy focus on such, this could be an issue.

Though take for instance a woman in spandex, where it not only is smooth to show curves, but invades into nether regions to show fully creases and curves (some going as far to show nipples, or impressions of their genitals). Or cases where the blouse is hung so low as to reveal a large portion of their breasts. These I think are pretty obvious in their attempt to promote sexual response to others. All of the women I have known have been clear that such displays are for a specific purpose and that purpose only.

I once I had a discussion with some women on this topic who wore such things. They said it was fine in public and at work, etc... but when I reversed the example, for instance describing a male wearing spandex that showed all impressions and curves including their penis protruding clearly and defined from their crotch, they all scoffed and said that was "offensive" and not the same. There is a double standard in the public about this, much like the acceptance of women hitting a man being ok, but a man hitting a woman is not.

In the case of option D, a common adjustment is to add hard coverings (metal armor plates) over the sensitive areas. This leaves the same impression, but does not extend to that of a focus on the sensitive areas (which I think has been a growing move in conditioning over the years). Honestly, I don't think it will be too long at the pace we are going to see camel toes and full nipple impressions become standard in mainstream video games, and eventually as we have already seen, sex sim full on hard core interaction in mainstream games will become "accepted" (because they are animations), which again will lead to a conditioning to such where live action movies are having full on penetration porn in mainstream titles, but being excused as art and normal.

Don't believe me? 40 years ago, the thought that pedophile would begin to be openly accepted, bestiality would be excused in many circles, and the idea that a man could somehow change their sex and be considered a women officially to public acceptance would cause you to be attacked as a logical fallacy.

Just because someone may object to these displays, doesn't mean they are fanatics.

are u saying that if u had saudi prince money u wouldnt want to see instagram whore u fancy this week sucking of your camel with u and your buddies watching?

[Xenich]

To be serious for a moment, I am perfectly fine with actual pornography - as in, depictions of sexual activity - being forbidden. I'm also 100% fine with having to hide boobs under spoilers or posting them only in designated NSFW threads.

However, if the trads had their way, a woman clothed in anything less than a burqah would be considered hardcore pornography.

It is a difficult thing. See, as a Christian, you are not supposed to lead your brother to temptation. Yet, if taken to extremes, you end up as you describe. I think there is a reasonable line though. Standard clothed women is the base I think, but there are good arguments to be made for the clothing which is trying to bypass the covering to achieve the same result as nude.

For instance, in option D, it is obvious its intent. She is clothed, but... the design is trying to push the limits by removing that which clothes provide. Seeing a woman walking around with normal pants on, even if they are snug usually won't cause a focused arousal for sexually normal males, but for those who have a unhealthy focus on such, this could be an issue.

Though take for instance a woman in spandex, where it not only is smooth to show curves, but invades into nether regions to show fully creases and curves (some going as far to show nipples, or impressions of their genitals). Or cases where the blouse is hung so low as to reveal a large portion of their breasts. These I think are pretty obvious in their attempt to promote sexual response to others. All of the women I have known have been clear that such displays are for a specific purpose and that purpose only.

I once I had a discussion with some women on this topic who wore such things. They said it was fine in public and at work, etc... but when I reversed the example, for instance describing a male wearing spandex that showed all impressions and curves including their penis protruding clearly and defined from their crotch, they all scoffed and said that was "offensive" and not the same. There is a double standard in the public about this, much like the acceptance of women hitting a man being ok, but a man hitting a woman is not.

In the case of option D, a common adjustment is to add hard coverings (metal armor plates) over the sensitive areas. This leaves the same impression, but does not extend to that of a focus on the sensitive areas (which I think has been a growing move in conditioning over the years). Honestly, I don't think it will be too long at the pace we are going to see camel toes and full nipple impressions become standard in mainstream video games, and eventually as we have already seen, sex sim full on hard core interaction in mainstream games will become "accepted" (because they are animations), which again will lead to a conditioning to such where live action movies are having full on penetration porn in mainstream titles, but being excused as art and normal.

Don't believe me? 40 years ago, the thought that pedophile would begin to be openly accepted, bestiality would be excused in many circles, and the idea that a man could somehow change their sex and be considered a women officially to public acceptance would cause you to be attacked as a logical fallacy.

Just because someone may object to these displays, doesn't mean they are fanatics.

are u saying that if u had saudi prince money u wouldnt want to see instagram whore u fancy this week sucking of your camel with u and your buddies watching?

I keep running this through Google Translate and it comes up with an unknown language.

[Red7]

It is a difficult thing. See, as a Christian, you are not supposed to lead your brother to temptation. Yet, if taken to extremes, you end up as you describe. I think there is a reasonable line though. Standard clothed women is the base I think, but there are good arguments to be made for the clothing which is trying to bypass the covering to achieve the same result as nude.

For instance, in option D, it is obvious its intent. She is clothed, but... the design is trying to push the limits by removing that which clothes provide. Seeing a woman walking around with normal pants on, even if they are snug usually won't cause a focused arousal for sexually normal males, but for those who have a unhealthy focus on such, this could be an issue.

Though take for instance a woman in spandex, where it not only is smooth to show curves, but invades into nether regions to show fully creases and curves (some going as far to show nipples, or impressions of their genitals). Or cases where the blouse is hung so low as to reveal a large portion of their breasts. These I think are pretty obvious in their attempt to promote sexual response to others. All of the women I have known have been clear that such displays are for a specific purpose and that purpose only.

I once I had a discussion with some women on this topic who wore such things. They said it was fine in public and at work, etc... but when I reversed the example, for instance describing a male wearing spandex that showed all impressions and curves including their penis protruding clearly and defined from their crotch, they all scoffed and said that was "offensive" and not the same. There is a double standard in the public about this, much like the acceptance of women hitting a man being ok, but a man hitting a woman is not.

In the case of option D, a common adjustment is to add hard coverings (metal armor plates) over the sensitive areas. This leaves the same impression, but does not extend to that of a focus on the sensitive areas (which I think has been a growing move in conditioning over the years). Honestly, I don't think it will be too long at the pace we are going to see camel toes and full nipple impressions become standard in mainstream video games, and eventually as we have already seen, sex sim full on hard core interaction in mainstream games will become "accepted" (because they are animations), which again will lead to a conditioning to such where live action movies are having full on penetration porn in mainstream titles, but being excused as art and normal.

Don't believe me? 40 years ago, the thought that pedophile would begin to be openly accepted, bestiality would be excused in many circles, and the idea that a man could somehow change their sex and be considered a women officially to public acceptance would cause you to be attacked as a logical fallacy.

Just because someone may object to these displays, doesn't mean they are fanatics.

are u saying that if u had saudi prince money u wouldnt want to see instagram whore u fancy this week sucking of your camel with u and your buddies watching?

I keep running this through Google Translate and it comes up with an unknown language.

[asf]

degenerates

[Acrux]

Well, ackchyually, nudity and cleavage constitute hardcore pornography because they lead young men to sin.

Yes

[J1M]

I give it 10 days before someone invokes gender equality and starts posting dick pics.

[rusty_shackleford]

I give it 10 days before someone invokes gender equality and starts posting dick pics.

I don't want to see anyone's genitalia 2bh.

The most well-trusted dictionary, Urban Dictionary, defines softcore pornography as follows:

1) Pornographic material that does not show penetration, genitalia, or actual sexual activity, opposite of hardcore.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... m=softcore

[Slavic Sorcerer]

I give it 10 days before someone invokes gender equality and starts posting dick pics.

I don't want to see anyone's genitalia 2bh.

I wouldnt mind it

[Vergil]

I give it 10 days before someone invokes gender equality and starts posting dick pics.

I don't want to see anyone's genitalia 2bh.

I wouldnt mind it

Okay gimme a min and keep an eye on this thread.

[BobT]

Right, there are degrees. This is why there are different sub-categories like soft, hard, etc. I really don't understand what's so hard about the definition aspect. "Was it designed to titillate" seems pretty direct to me. I understand there will be grey areas where you can't tell for sure, like the covers of some of the magazines that were posted. I also understand if Rusty wants to allow certain degrees of pornography inside of dedicated threads or behind NSFW filter (I don't agree, but I understand).

But all this "Well akchually there is no definition" bit is honestly going over my head or something. I just don't get how we can not know or understand the definition.

It's all fine and dandy until the day somebody gets a random ban/warning for posting a supposed porn the user thought would be yet another "NSFW" content, then it'll be an even bigger shitstorm than what happened today

Regardless of the actual definition of "Pornography", for forum acceptability it should be pretty simple.

"Standard nudity (including transparent / form fitting clothing that reveals genitals) allowed in clearly marked NSFW threads, or otherwise in clearly labelled spoilers.
Media depicting sexual acts is forbidden unless it is game content, which must then be inside clearly labelled spoilers".
Any of the above may be removed at discretion of moderators".

If anything is "borderline" and spoilered or removed by mods based purely on subjective judgement at the time, then do so but just notify and don't punish / warn, unless repeatedly & intentionally violated.
Job done.


As to the topic, A & B I'd consider "porn", C is "sexy" but otherwise alright, D is borderline due to the nipples but eh, have to look close on that specific one, if just browsing past it I don't think would notice.

[Acrux]

have to look close on that specific one

Oh you do, do you?

[Faceless_Sentinel]

None. None of those images depict sexual intercourse or masturbation taking place, ergo, none of them are porn. NSFW? Yes. Suggestive? Yes. Porn? Nope.

Agree with this.

Also, why does the definition of porn 70 years ago matter to the question at hand?

Why does the definition of "woman" from 70 years ago matter when talking about trannies? Words have meanings and definitions don't change just because sensibilities have.

None. None of those images depict sexual intercourse or masturbation taking place, ergo, none of them are porn. NSFW? Yes. Suggestive? Yes. Porn? Nope.

Also, why does the definition of porn 70 years ago matter to the question at hand?

Wokies and troons and overall minorities make this exact kinda argument, y' know

Are you not ashamed to stoop to the tranny level of ignorance and equate the moral decay of society and denial of human nature?

[OnTilt]

Are you not ashamed to stoop to the tranny level of ignorance and equate the moral decay of society and denial of human nature?

Are you suggesting that we're just animals who should set our standards to our base impulses?

[A Chinese opium den]

Are you not ashamed to stoop to the tranny level of ignorance and equate the moral decay of society and denial of human nature?

Are you suggesting that we're just animals who should set our standards to our base impulses?

Why would you write this post in such a way that the only possible response is someone saying "Yes" and posting a gigachad?

[Tweed]

According to the HQ, this is porn.

[OnTilt]

According to the HQ, this is porn.

For you it probably is.

[Tweed]

According to the HQ, this is porn.

For you it probably is.

No, but it made a lot of people rather upset 4 no raisin.

[OnTilt]

According to the HQ, this is porn.

For you it probably is.

No, but it made a lot of people rather upset 4 no raisin.

I don't remember that image being part of the conversation. I guess I'm out of the loop on that one.

[TKVNC]

I don't remember that image being part of the conversation. I guess I'm out of the loop on that one.

He's a furfag, they have to inject their fetish into everything, all the time. Probably best to ignore him.

[DemoGraph]

Which, if any, of these do you consider to be 'porn'?
Your feedback is valuable and may be used for further refinement of the rules. Thank you.

C doesn't load for me. A, B and D aren't porn, though they're all NSFW.

This is porn, though it might be SFW, depending on your job.

[Faceless_Sentinel]

Are you not ashamed to stoop to the tranny level of ignorance and equate the moral decay of society and denial of human nature?

Are you suggesting that we're just animals who should set our standards to our base impulses?

I am suggesting that definition woman 100 or 70 or 50 or 20 years ago is the same (human are not evolve into something else for now):

► What is a woman?

Woman is a female person.

Female, or female individual - in biological species that have sexual reproduction and associated sexual dimorphism, a form of a living organism that has female sexual characteristics of its species and differs by them from the male form of the same biological species. Female sexual characteristics include primary (the presence of not a male, but a female reproductive system (female genital organs)), secondary (physique features, etc.) and others.

Social norms and morals have changed, not human nature. Social and moral acceptance of porn, nudity and all that is so big now, that it is hard to tell difference. In modern days woman with naked tits is not something outstanding and never seen before, this everywhere, in books, films, social media etc. Definition of porn also changed with moral decay.

Referring to original problem: anime woman with naked tits is not an porn.
Porn is when somebody fully naked and doing something sexual.
We have erotica as a matter of fact, witch also involve nudity, but nobody scream that this is porn.