My Three Songs #5

[Tdarcos]

I have edited/removed Joy of Painting's post. I'm going to have Jonsey IP-check the author to find out who it was, and then we'll take steps.

I still sort of think that might be the case, but in case it isn't, I apologize. But you can see how I might think that was the case. (Especially if it is.)

Ben, I have to admit, there can be times when you really can be a decent human being and a valued member of society.

[AArdvark]

Must have been a hell of a picture to get Pinback to do the right thing.


THE
GLAD I MISSED IT
AARDVARK

[Tdarcos]

I don't post porn, that would be illegal and immoral.

Technically it's neither. The thing that bothered me about that animated GIF was that it was gay porn. And I'm a rare bird: a normal man who doesn't watch porn very much, plus that I do not like gay material at all.

I'm not going to claim I never watch porn, I just don't watch it much because it just seems boring. I've watched maybe an hour or two (in a few minute pieces every so often) in the last 20 years. The stuff has to be amazing to make me find it worth watching. Like one time, I saw a guy fucking some girl doggie style, then he pulls out, picks her up, flips her upside down so she's standing on her hands, and proceeds to fuck her that way! I had to pull my jaw off the floor.

The distribution of porn is not illegal unless it is done to minors or is legally obscene. The rules for what is obscene were set down precisely by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California and as a result we have the Miller Test: It must be sexually explicit, it must be outside of the normal expressions of sexuality in the community it appears in, and it must have no socially redeeming value ("dirt for dirt's sake"), in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment and a state may (but does not have to) ban it.

And in at least one case the bans were eliminated. One state decided to drop all restrictions on pornography involving adults and completely eliminated their obscenity statutes, the only thing that is prohibited there is distribution to minors and child pornography. Can't remember and don't want to bother looking it up but it was either Iowa or Indiana I think.

So many normal adults watch porn that it cannot be immoral in my opinion unless it represents something where a crime has occurred, such as the filming of a rape or of someone who did not know they were being filmed or did not consent to the distribution. (Filming of persons under 18 having sex or being naked is always illegal, even if the persons involved consent to be filmed, as some kids who got arrested and tried for distribution of child pornography have unfortunately discovered when they sent themselves video of their own lovemaking.)

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

All righty, so, pretty sure we all need to take a break for a week around here.

[pinback]

Wait a minute. Not yet.

The thing that bothered me about that animated GIF was that it was gay porn.

Paul? I would like you to explain how a chick spitting out a dude's load she just took in the mouth is gay porn.

I mean, sure, you're the guy who gets everything -- I mean, 100% of everything -- wrong, which is cool, and it's why we love you, but now I want to understand WHY you're wrong, at least on this particular subject.

Here's the link again, if you need to refresh yourself. She sure does, am I right?

https://cdn-d-limg.pornhub.com/pics/gif ... 25131b.gif

[Ice Cream Jonsey]

I think one of the other things we can do, after Paul answers that, is for us all to volunteer to not post or visit the site for a week.

Can we all agree on that? Don't hit the "reply" button. any of you. Your tacit, hopefully strangulated silence is word enough for me.

[RetroR]

SexySaffron.com

AS SEEN ON JOLT COUNTRY

[Tdarcos]

Wait a minute. Not yet.

The thing that bothered me about that animated GIF was that it was gay porn.

Paul? I would like you to explain how a chick spitting out a dude's load she just took in the mouth is gay porn.

Because it was a man spitting it out, asshole, or if it wasn't, it looked enough like one that it was for all intents and purposes. And even if it wasn't, explicitly spitting it out makes it gay as far as I'm concerned. A guy would spit it out obviously; a lady would spit into a napkin or a wastebasket. (Then again, porn is not done the way normal people act.)

Here's the link again, if you need to refresh yourself. She sure does, am I right?

I don't need to know, I don't want to know. It was someone doing something disgusting and nastily offensive.

Ladies do not act that way as far as I am concerned. A lady chooses to have sex with a guy if she's nice. A really nice lady will go down on you. Then, once she's done so, she either swallows if she's that way, or politely spits in a tissue and throws it away, or spits in a wastebasket.

Ladies do not spit this stuff all over themselves. Ladies do not pick the boogers out of their nose and eat them. And those who do those sort of things are not ladies might as well be men since they're nasty and uncivilized.

You want to watch that sort of thing, go ahead. I don't, and I don't have to.

And if they ain't ladies I ain't interested in them. I don't snowball, I ain't interested in snowballing, I do not need to see it and don't want to see it.

[pinback]

Because it was a man spitting it out, asshole, or if it wasn't, it looked enough like one that it was for all intents and purposes.

I know your eyesight is bad, but not being able to tell women from men, I think you need to go back to the hospital. But let's not worry about that, because this:

spitting it out makes it gay as far as I'm concerned.

...is the greatest thing you've ever said, and made this whole debacle worthwhile.

Of course, then you had to ruin it with more pages of your usual rape fantasies.

[AArdvark]

Whoa!

Just whoa. This thread has turned dark and...... Whoa.

[Flack]

Is there a porn filter where I can only get booger eating videos?

[Tdarcos]

Because it was a man spitting it out, asshole, or if it wasn't, it looked enough like one that it was for all intents and purposes.

I know your eyesight is bad, but not being able to tell women from men, I think you need to go back to the hospital.

You stupid fucking imbecile, someone in whiteface clown makeup is doing something disgusting in the maybe 2 seconds I watched it, and you think I can even tell what the person is? I'm more interested in scrolling down the goddam page. Besides, as far as I knew, most clowns are male. I don't really care.

Of course, then you had to ruin it with more pages of your usual rape fantasies.

What the fuck are you talking about? What rape fantasies? Exactly what part of

A lady chooses to have sex with a guy

constitutes rape? It's not rape if she consents, asshole.

[pinback]

Are you guys certain that we aren't under any legal obligation to report this stuff to the authorities? I can't be getting into trouble over this shit, not right now.

[RetroRomper]

I don't snowball, I ain't interested in snowballing, I do not need to see it and don't want to see it.

Hey Paul, I... I feel the need to point out that a snowball is when she feeds it BACK to the guy, instead of just letting it cascade out of her mouth.

Just... Just keep your facts straight, okay?

[AArdvark]

Now that's way too much info. Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know two minutes ago.


THE
OYSTER SOUP
AARDVARK

[RetroRomper]

It was very explicitly defined in the first Clerks movie, so I'm kinda chalking it up as common knowledge.

[youtube][/youtube]

[AArdvark]

Never saw that movie.

[Tdarcos]

Are you guys certain that we aren't under any legal obligation to report this stuff to the authorities? I can't be getting into trouble over this shit, not right now.

No. Straight from Wikipedia so you don't have to hear it from me:

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_2 ... ecency_Act

This means that Jonsey has no liability for someone else posting that material, nor do you, as a moderator on this board, have any liability for deleting it.

Now, as for us users, first, there is no obligation on the part of someone here to report anything since we are not required to be qualified to judge whether a work is or isn't obscene. Second, while the publication of obscene material may be made obscene, mere possession (such as if it is cached on your hard drive or you downloaded it) is not: In Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the mere private possession of obscene materials cannot be made a crime.

Third, since the image is not on this system, and its display has been removed, we are not distributing it. And we are not showing it so again, Jonsey has no liability.

In short, if you wanted to, you could report it, but you are under no obligation to do so and are not required to do so. Nor is anyone else here under any such obligation.

[Tdarcos]

I don't snowball, I ain't interested in snowballing, I do not need to see it and don't want to see it.

Hey Paul, I... I feel the need to point out that a snowball is when she feeds it BACK to the guy, instead of just letting it cascade out of her mouth.

Just... Just keep your facts straight, okay?

I'm aware of that but it's an important point, that she - I'll accept for argument it was a she - spit it into her hand, someone else could have slurped it up. Sort of like felching.

[Tdarcos]

Second, while the publication of obscene material may be made obscene

This should read, "Second, while the publication of obscene material may be made illegal"

Ben, if you want to change my original message to make this correction and delete this message that would be ok.