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

[Anon]

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.

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?

I didn't equate though. Only compared. For me it's all people looking to impose their perversities upon the majority. Though sure trannies and wokies are way worse than clueless coomers, I'm never gonna deny that.

Btw to make it clear I don't see anybody as my enemy because of this, at most it's a disagreement.

[Kowe]

In similarity to prostitution, I consider porn to be anything with the commodification of the female body. Or it shares a degree of carnality, if free of charge.
So A) and B) fall under this category, whereas D) is borderline. It is generated but can potentially fulfill the same purpose.
Some carnality isn't bad hence we wouldn't be here otherwise, but everything in moderation. And at an appropriate place.
It just shouldn't get down to a low base level with porn where people's minds and, as cliche as it sounds, hearts are affected in a negative manner. So it doesn't lead to the abhorrent state of things with all those sexual fetishes on display in the modern western world.

[Tweed]

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.

Reported for slander. My post history will vindicate me.

[Red7]

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

what about this



gay jew photgrapher directed this
at least fags understand importance of liquids when they make whore squirt cow milk on her or whatever

[rusty_shackleford]

"is bestiality softcore pornography????"

no.

[Red7]

In similarity to prostitution, I consider porn to be anything with the commodification of the female body. Or it shares a degree of carnality, if free of charge.
So A) and B) fall under this category, whereas D) is borderline. It is generated but can potentially fulfill the same purpose.
Some carnality isn't bad hence we wouldn't be here otherwise, but everything in moderation. And at an appropriate place.
It just shouldn't get down to a low base level with porn where people's minds and, as cliche as it sounds, hearts are affected in a negative manner. So it doesn't lead to the abhorrent state of things with all those sexual fetishes on display in the modern western world.

what about poor camels tho?

[Red7]

"is bestiality softcore pornography????"

no.

i think they gay director from vogue that made this pic
was trying to say; vagina is i just animal piglet. or perhpas jews told him.

thank alien gods they used vag tho, these days they would be couple gay guys raping that pig.

[Anon]

According to the HQ, this is porn.

For you it probably is.

Weren't you slandering me as an autist for not figuring out some sarcasm earlier?

[Tweed]

Why do they persecute me so?

[Tweed]

"is bestiality softcore pornography????"

no.

[Metalhead33]

"is bestiality softcore pornography????"

no.

@Vergil x @Tweed

What a lovely couple

[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.

@rusty_shackleford Regarding what I wrote above, I think @Xenich proposal here is also sensible: viewtopic.php?p=75205-what-do-you-consi ... sly#p75205

Simply add a "[NSFW]" BBCode that is essentially just a pre-formatted, pre-collapsed & blurred:

► WARNING: NSFW Content

Nuds go here

Anything NSFW outside of NSFW marked topics MUST be inside these.

Also add a NSFW topic icon / tag / whatever, that prefixes "[NSFW] - " onto the topic title when creating topics.
Then update the rules to mandate people use those two solutions (with moderator's discretion on additional tagging of anything too borderline) for nudity, and outright ban "sexual acts" (I think that's self-explanatory enough..).

Then as Xenich said (if hiding such from view is possible), hide those for Guests, and give members a toggle (defaulted OFF but configurable during sign-up and then afterwards via profile settings) for whether they wish to see the NSFW elements & topics.
If off, they don't see the topics at all, and for the in-post tags they just see an empty NSFW field.


That way, workposters, catholics and coomers should all be happy. Other than small tiffles (where anything too borderline gets forcibly tagged by mods), there shouldn't be any further arguments around what's "porn" or not (who cares?), it's a simple separation between "Nudity" and "Sexual Acts".
(As I mentioned, direct GAME content should be the single exception for Sexual Acts being permitted, however these should still be suitably tagged / NSFW spoilered).
I think that's a sensible approach. @Vergil Would even you be happy with this?

[BobT]

^ As an example, @Red7 cumbucket mods would be permitted as "Direct Game Content" under the above (despite being full of enough "Sexual Acts" to give a priest and all his future generations heart attacks), however as mentioned, must be suitably NSFW tagged, if outside dedicated NSFW topics.

[Kowe]

In similarity to prostitution, I consider porn to be anything with the commodification of the female body. Or it shares a degree of carnality, if free of charge.
So A) and B) fall under this category, whereas D) is borderline. It is generated but can potentially fulfill the same purpose.
Some carnality isn't bad hence we wouldn't be here otherwise, but everything in moderation. And at an appropriate place.
It just shouldn't get down to a low base level with porn where people's minds and, as cliche as it sounds, hearts are affected in a negative manner. So it doesn't lead to the abhorrent state of things with all those sexual fetishes on display in the modern western world.

what about poor camels tho?

The Bible has it right. Just kill both, any human(s) involved and the animal. It is abominable, even more for any human participating in bestiality. They completely lose any dignity with it. In fact, they shouldn't be considered human anymore.
Porn is on the same slope, but not as extreme as bestiality and other illegal stuff, and has to be dealt with somewhat differently.

[Red7]

In similarity to prostitution, I consider porn to be anything with the commodification of the female body. Or it shares a degree of carnality, if free of charge.
So A) and B) fall under this category, whereas D) is borderline. It is generated but can potentially fulfill the same purpose.
Some carnality isn't bad hence we wouldn't be here otherwise, but everything in moderation. And at an appropriate place.
It just shouldn't get down to a low base level with porn where people's minds and, as cliche as it sounds, hearts are affected in a negative manner. So it doesn't lead to the abhorrent state of things with all those sexual fetishes on display in the modern western world.

what about poor camels tho?

The Bible has it right. Just kill both, any human(s) involved and the animal. It is abominable, even more for any human participating in bestiality. They completely lose any dignity with it. In fact, they shouldn't be considered human anymore.
Porn is on the same slope, but not as extreme as bestiality and other illegal stuff, and has to be dealt with somewhat differently.

did u just called vagina human being with dignity?

[Vergil]

Feel like there's a lot of extra fluff in this thread for an opinion that's already been settled and action that's already been taken.

[rusty_shackleford]

Feel like there's a lot of extra fluff in this thread for an opinion that's already been settled and action that's already been taken.

Nope, I made a minor temporary change.

[Anon]

I was almost putting you in that welfare topic btw

[rusty_shackleford]

I was almost putting you in that welfare topic btw

wot

[Anon]

I was almost putting you in that welfare topic btw

wot

Vergil gone for 3 entire days in my eyes was basically guaranteeing he was a goner

[aweigh]

debate is OVER

[Nammu Archag]

Feel like there's a lot of extra fluff in this thread for an opinion that's already been settled and action that's already been taken.

Nope, I made a minor temporary change.

you just love chaos

[maidenhaver]

Porn makes me want to kill minecraft villagers. It makes me want to dig a deep hole and put them down there.

[aweigh]

this is nnnnnnot permissible

[maidenhaver]

Its tax time, and I just want to punch vaginas. I work a month for free so that hoes can be hoes, and I'm mad. I'm a little ANGRY!

[BLofbr]

this is nnnnnnot permissible

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..boobs

[maidenhaver]

I FUCKING HATE THEM ALLLLLLLLLLLL

[aweigh]

[BobT]

These are always just ads. Very few make more than a few dollars a month. Too much competition.

[Cedric]

Jew poison