"not safe for people who don't want to see gay porn?"
November 20, 2002 5:14 PM   Subscribe

Question in regards to WolfDaddy posting a link labelled not safe for work or people who haven't seen Queer as Folk. Shouldn't that have read "not safe for people who don't want to see gay porn?" I'm pretty sure what I saw, but I don't want to double-check. Just let me know if that was fair warning or I should sue for temporary blindness.
posted by son_of_minya to Etiquette/Policy at 5:14 PM (93 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

The comment is here

Yes, I agree with sonofminya.

Wolfdaddy think he's being funny and cool -- it's _so_ unhip to be straight, right? -- but linking to porn without a proper warning is neither funny nor polite (and yes, wolf, I'd make the same comment about a straight porn link, thank you very much).

Also, what's a tea room?


posted by matteo at 5:24 PM on November 20, 2002


I don't think I've ever seen actual pornography on Metafilter. Don't recall seeing any. I figured, worst case, it could have some gay classified ads or something.

I'm smacking myself because I know I was asking for it, and people are probably laughing their asses off now. Even turned my head and squinted just in case. Was kind of curious what these "tea rooms" are, though. Is Queer as Folk really that explicit? I've never seen the program, so maybe I shouldn't have clicked on the link, but Jesus Christ. "WARNING: HORSE COCK" would have been more appropriate.
posted by son_of_minya at 5:24 PM on November 20, 2002


It's where you get Oolong, and Orange Pekoe, and...uh... Fellatio, which I think is kind of like Earl Grey.
posted by Kafkaesque at 5:25 PM on November 20, 2002


So I don't understand what the problem is, it said it wasn't safe for work, which means there is going to be lewd and/or nude items on the page, which it had.

Is the problem that gay porn needs a stronger warning?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:33 PM on November 20, 2002


Besides, WolfDaddy has already been through the Meta-grinder, for an equally baseless and silly reason.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:36 PM on November 20, 2002


See, son of minya, now you've made me want to click on that link. If I become gay, my wife's lawyers will be in touch. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:38 PM on November 20, 2002


You were expecting what, exactly, from a site called "www.cruisingforsex.com?" Kitties? The warning was clear and sufficient. Check out the URL before clicking links then, if you're easily offended.
posted by boomchicka at 5:38 PM on November 20, 2002


I thought the URL (cruisingforsex.com) was kind of a giveaway.
posted by mcwetboy at 5:38 PM on November 20, 2002


I've read the whole thread, and not a single complaint about WD's link did I find.

Why didnt you challenge it in the thread, to see how much support your POV might have, then if necessary, bring it over here when unsatisfied?

posted by dash_slot- at 5:47 PM on November 20, 2002


Yeah, I gotta say that the link (again, it's www.cruisingforsex.com folks), PLUS a NSFW PLUS a QAF allusion should have given everyone a very LARGE, one might say horse-cock-sized hint.

matteo, I never alluded that being straight was un-hip, either. I interpreted the site linked in the thread in question as being satirical or sarcastic. I replied in kind.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:51 PM on November 20, 2002 [1 favorite]


"Also, what's a tea room?"

It's my guess that one would go there for tea bagging* (scroll to #42), but that's just a guess, mind you.

*potentially offensive content - follow at your own risk - not responsible for panty-bunching - not to be taken internally - may cause drowsiness
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:02 PM on November 20, 2002


Even google failed me when I asked it "What's a tea room?" so no g-rated sites will be provided, but let's just say that George Michael was arrested in one. 'kay?

If this doesn't illustrate the idea that there's simply not enough information about gay history and culture on the internet besides the blatantly sexual, nothing will
posted by WolfDaddy at 6:11 PM on November 20, 2002


I didn't bring it up in the thread because a) I had already put myself in danger of being bashed as a misogynist and didn't want to have homophobe thrown on top of that, and b) I'd already posted one comment with many separate topics and didn't want to bog it down with a bunch of things that people might respond to, so to go back to the thread and bitch about this "gay" link would have people yelling troll.

There probably weren't any comments about the link because nobody clicked on it, or they like gay porn, or they were smarter than me and didn't click the link. While it's not the fact that it was gay porn that makes it inappropriate, but that is the reason I'm commenting about it here. If it was "teen lesbian sex" I probably would have said to myself, Wow, neat, but that's kind of strange, and kept it to myself.

I sure as hell would not post a link to a "teen lesbian sex" site with explicit photos on the front page, though. I would expect a lot of people to not appreciate that. If it wasn't clear that it was in fact hardcore porn, I would support people who complained about it.

I'm willing to admit I fell right into it. I read that comment and I thought, That isn't gay porn, is it? What the hell is a "tea room," though. If I click the link will I find out? No, it could be gay porn. I could see how someone with a twisted mind, and I have a twisted mind, might think that would be hilarious. Posted my comment, got bored later, and thought about it again...No way it could actually be gay porn.

BAMM: HORSE COCK! Temporary blindness. Would have been funny if someone else had clicked the link, and it had been posted on Stile Project, but that just wasn't cool.
posted by son_of_minya at 6:12 PM on November 20, 2002


What the hell? WolfDaddy gave sufficient warning that any member with half a brain could figure out (also give the URL of the site). Do we need to start putting potentially "gay" links in pink so that cringing "straight" boys won't have their delicate sensibilities offended if they click on them (or, more likely, won't find themselves inexplicably aroused)?

Sounds like you have some other problem, which is quite apparent, given that you "think male-on-male sex is pretty disgusting" and you "...don't want little boys to start wearing dresses or men to start making out in public."

Examine yourself and your motivations before you put another member before the inquisition for nothing.

Sweetheart.

~wink~
posted by sir walsingham at 6:12 PM on November 20, 2002


Personally, I think wolfdaddy provided ample warning. My only concern is that it might encourage other people.
posted by jnthnjng at 6:23 PM on November 20, 2002


You see, this is what I was afraid of. There are a lot of gays and "gay sympathizers" on detailer. Stereotypically, one might expect them to come out of the woodwork to say there's nothing wrong with the link, but it's horrible to be offended by it.

I'm really not saying there's anything inherently wrong with gay people, and that for them I'm sure gay porn is completely okay. Just to me, personally, it's about as appealing as farm porn. You take any straight gay and show him gay porn, he won't appreciate it. I mean a random straight gay off the street, he won't like to see the horse cock.

Just imagine that the link had been for -- not even "teen" lesbian porn -- just regular straight porn. Would if be appropriate to post a link that has a big-ass image of a woman fingering her spread pussy? Not like a banner ad on the side of the page, but that's the actual content of the page.

I wasn't extremely offended by the link. I could see the potential humor, realized I should have known better, but just didn't think it was appropriate. It crossed a line that I didn't think was crossed here. What will offend me is people making gay jokes and insulting me for making a valid point.
posted by son_of_minya at 6:28 PM on November 20, 2002


jnthnjng: That had better not be gay porn. Seriously.
posted by son_of_minya at 6:29 PM on November 20, 2002


BTW, I do not mean anything bad about "gay sympathizers." I'm just borrowing terminology from rightwing radio. Purely sarcastic.
posted by son_of_minya at 6:35 PM on November 20, 2002


"You take any straight gay and show him gay porn, he won't appreciate it."

Straight gay? OK, maybe it was just a one-time type-o...

"I mean a random straight gay off the street, he won't like to see the horse cock."

...or maybe not. Paging Dr. Freud!

Tee Hee. Something on your mind, minya?
posted by sir walsingham at 6:38 PM on November 20, 2002 [2 favorites]


I still don't see what warranted this thread, but better that you brought it up here than derailing the thread (that's what MetaTalk is for, to prevent derailing of threads with editorial talk).

Yes, a link to a porn site is most likely inappropriate for MetaFilter, but I think WolfDaddy here was making a joke and including the URL, along with a warning (that said it wasn't safe but didn't say it was unsafe gay porn for work).

In the future, I would hope that there aren't any unneccesary links to porn sites, just as I hope there isn't unneccesary profanity (even though I curse like a sailor, I keep it confined to times when it is necessary to express myself), nor unnecessary name-calling.

So relax already.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:38 PM on November 20, 2002


while i don't agree with s_o_m that the link should have read "not safe for people who don't want to see gay porn", i do wonder what people would have said if it would have been a link to a straight porn site, especially those annoying-'ass' popups. damn them to hell!

on preview: o.k. question answered. thanks.
posted by poopy at 6:46 PM on November 20, 2002


Paging Dr. Freud!

Argh... One-time typo. I caught that too late, and hung my head knowing I'd set myself up.

At least people seem to get my point. Think I can leave the thread till tomorrow without getting buried in flames.

posted by son_of_minya at 6:51 PM on November 20, 2002


but Jesus Christ. "WARNING: HORSE COCK" would have been more appropriate.

Oh please, that wasn't that big. You should get out more. ;)

Sigh. Since you asked: (NOT SAFE FOR WORK CONTAINS BIG GAY HOMOSEXUAL SEXUAL CONTENT) Guide to tea rooms and cottaging. (NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR ANYONE OR ANYTHING, MMKAY?)
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:03 PM on November 20, 2002


What I learned on MeFi today:

1. A public toilet or port-o-john is not necessarily a place to relieve yourself (not your bladder, anyway), when it is referred to as a "tea room." (I think that's it, anyhow.)

2. Tea-bagging does not necessarily refer to putting dried and fermented, semi-fermented or non-fermented camelia sinensis in small sacs for brewing purposes. And a tearoom is not necessarily where you drink this brew.

3. This amazing freakin' green pepper vibrates! Maybe that's not what is really meant by "green pepper," eh? I'm catching on!

4. Evidently gay men all have bigger penises than I do.
posted by Shane at 7:07 PM on November 20, 2002 [1 favorite]


What was that purple thing?
posted by hama7 at 7:22 PM on November 20, 2002


Okay guys, take it to PenisFilter.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:31 PM on November 20, 2002


Isn't "not safe for work" a fairly big clue that something might cause "temporary blindness"?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 7:33 PM on November 20, 2002


son_of_minya, why you'd choose to protest the posting of a gay adult male link yet let a "teen lesbian sex" link go by unremarked says volumes about your thinking process.

Also, your Freudian slip is showing. And in this company. For shame!
posted by WolfDaddy at 7:39 PM on November 20, 2002


In the future, I would hope that there aren't any unneccesary links to porn sites

Well, then go and prune hmgovt's comment (mentioned above). I am also no prude, but I say while it's okay to joke about the goatse.cx guy but it's not okay to actually link to it.
posted by yhbc at 7:39 PM on November 20, 2002


I was waiting for a goatse, and son_of_minya's brain to explode.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:47 PM on November 20, 2002


And speaking of Dr. Freud - what does it mean that I put an extra "but" in my comment about goatse?
posted by yhbc at 7:51 PM on November 20, 2002


So, for anyone collecting guidelines, links to porn sites are okay if:
posted by timeistight at 8:04 PM on November 20, 2002


yhbc: it's not an extra but. It's just the other cheek.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:04 PM on November 20, 2002


Enter...MetaFister!

<Marge> You know, MetaFilter turned into a hardcore sex site so gradually, I didn't even notice.
posted by Danelope at 8:15 PM on November 20, 2002


Heh! This thread was worth a few LOLs.
posted by Shane at 8:18 PM on November 20, 2002


You mean there's porn? On the internet??
posted by hama7 at 8:23 PM on November 20, 2002


Rumor has it, hama7, that some of it even vibrates.
posted by WolfDaddy at 8:26 PM on November 20, 2002


Enter...MetaFister!

I nearly laughed the stitches out of my gums, Danelope! Damn you... :)
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:43 PM on November 20, 2002


Proposing a new disclaimer - [not safe for son_of_minya]
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:01 PM on November 20, 2002


In response to a comment in the original thread:

fold_and_mutilate: Congratulations. I think you pretty much just disgusted and offended significantly more than 50% of the population, without even giving us the goddamned courtesy of a "may offend" warning about your post.

A picture's worth a thousand words. Was not meant to be offensive, but at least you don't have an image burned into your mind forever because you misunderstood the comment. It would have been funny if I'd linked to some rape porn site, but I couldn't find a link. Also, there was more to my post than just snarkyness.

[No, I would not really post a link, and I'm not saying gay porn is as offensive as rape porn, that was meant as sarcasm.]

This just seemed a little too much to me, like something you'd see on Stile Project. Didn't think anyone would say anything for fear of being shot down as a homophobe (and suspected that was WolfDaddy's intention, and hated myself for falling for it.

"Cruising for Sex" could have been an informational site. It's hard to avoid seeing naked men--or women doing disturbing things to themselves and each other. Every once in a while, there's going to be something disturbing. I was prepared for the possibility. I just thought I also might find out what the hell a "tea room" is. And maybe where one is in my area.

[No, I do not want to know where a tea room is in my area. That last sentence was meant as sarcasm.]

Have gotten over the mental trauma, so I don't think I'll be pressing charges, but you can see from my earlier responses that I was so shaken I could not even proofread correctly.
posted by son_of_minya at 9:04 PM on November 20, 2002


temporary blindness

What, did it poke you in the eye? I guess it must be some psychosomatic reaction. Surely you've seen an erect penis... do you go blind when you mas... um. forget it.
posted by crunchland at 9:28 PM on November 20, 2002


that was meant as sarcasm

Sarcasm is often an excuse to say rude things.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:32 PM on November 20, 2002 [1 favorite]


Wolfdaddy think he's being funny and cool -- it's _so_ unhip to be straight, right? -- but linking to porn without a proper warning is neither funny nor polite

Wolfdaddy is probably both funny and cool...and he has the added bonus advantage of having a working ophthalmic system.

Unlike some.

It would have been funny if I'd linked to some rape porn site, but I couldn't find a link

From one who informs us that "too many women like being abused", that some need "deprogramming" and others require "stalking" to "teach them the lesson", I'm not too terribly surprised to learn you think "it would have been funny" to have linked to "some rape porn site."

~yeccccccchhhhhhhh~

Trust me. It wouldn't have been funny.

Friend, believe me, I'm all in favor of your saying whatever you want here, no matter how hateful towards women it might sound. But don't get indignant when someone (WoflDaddy) says/posts whatever he wants, (complete with the courtesy of a NSFW warning in plain white and blue pixels.) You really have no valid point whatsoever, and posting this MetaTalk thread is just silly.

posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:11 PM on November 20, 2002


I love you fold_and_mutilate.
posted by sir walsingham at 10:18 PM on November 20, 2002


Sarcasm is often an excuse to say rude things.

No, it's actually a way to make an ironic statement, and sometimes it's necessary to make that clear. Cliches have no meaning.

Proof that a "sarcasm tag" is needed quickly follows:

From one who informs us that "too many women like being abused", that some need "deprogramming" and others require "stalking" to "teach them the lesson", I'm not too terribly surprised to learn you think "it would have been funny" to have linked to "some rape porn site."

Complete misinterpretation of what I said.
posted by son_of_minya at 10:35 PM on November 20, 2002


I fold you, mutilate, and love.
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:46 PM on November 20, 2002


Man, if seeing a dude's schlong made you go blind, every gym locker room would be like a scene from Day of the Triffids, with people stumbling around, sightlessly trying to find their way home.

I'm not gay (nttawwt!), but I do recognize that dudes have schlongs and sometimes in this life you're gonna have to see 'em.

And just so I can type it one more time: Dude's schlong.
posted by Hildago at 10:49 PM on November 20, 2002


MetaFilter: Blinding Schlongs.
posted by hama7 at 10:55 PM on November 20, 2002


Can someone please explain to me this subset of genitally-sensitive straight men being blinded/traumatized/rendered mute/tearing patches of hair out/etc. at the sight of a penis? I mean, don't you fellas look at your own? Even sometimes? Just for a minute, perhaps while tucking them away? I've slept with several of your brethren, and I haven't noticed any of them overcome with St. Vitus Dance when they take their johnsons out of their trousers. It's just a penis! It's fine! It won't bite you! That's what our private parts are for!*

On preview: Thank you, Hildago, for reaffirming my faith that not all straight men are freaked out by the sight, concept, or process of typing a dude's schlong.

*Note for the genitally-sensitive: vaginas do not really bite, so please do not be frightened the next time you see one. It, too, just wants your friendship and goodwill.

posted by scody at 11:05 PM on November 20, 2002


scody - I do wonder about the selective vision that some gay-scaredy guys seem to have when it comes to watching hetero pornography...it's like the bluedot effect for hiding identity, I guess. Although the member in question is front and *ahem* center, they manage to ignore the fact that they are, in fact, staring at a dude's schlong.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:23 PM on November 20, 2002


It's vhere-a yuoo get Ooulung, und Oorunge-a Pekue-a, und...uh... Felleteeu, vheech I theenk is keend ooff leeke-a Ierl Grey.
pusted by Keffkeesqooe-a et 5:25 PM PST oon Nufember 20

Su I dun't understund vhet zee prublem is, it seeed it vesn't seffe-a fur vurk, vheech meuns zeere-a is gueeng tu be-a lood und/oor noode-a items oon zee pege-a, vheech it hed.

Is zee prublem thet gey purn needs a strunger verneeng?
pusted by methooeee-a et 5:33 PM PST oon Nufember 20

Beseedes, VulffDeddy hes elreedy beee thruoogh zee Meta-greender, fur un iqooelly beseless und seelly reesun.
pusted by MeegooelCerdusu et 5:36 PM PST oon Nufember 20

See-a, sun ooff meenya, noo yuoo'fe-a mede-a me-a vunt tu cleeck oon thet leenk. Iff I becume-a gey, my veeffe-a's levyers veell be-a in tuooch. ;)
pusted by MeegooelCerdusu et 5:38 PM PST oon Nufember 20




What are you looking at Stavros? You said the place was scalable--this is just a test.
Don't make me cheferize you...
posted by y2karl at 11:27 PM on November 20, 2002


scody, I grew up in a world where I was told men did nothing but adore their penises, waved them around, had pissing contests with them, and that most of the world's problems were because when men couldn't whip out their dicks, they whipped out their guns.

Now you're telling me there's not enough of that?! I despair, I am lost, rudderless, tossed without sail upon an angry sea of penile attraction/repulsion.

MetaFilter: look at your own genitals, fuckwits!

:-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 11:30 PM on November 20, 2002


Noo yuoo're-a telleeng me-a zeere-a's nut inuoogh ooff thet?! I despeur, I em lust, roodderless, tussed veethuoot seeel upun un ungry sea ooff peneele-a ettrecshun/repoolseeun.

MeteFeelter: luuk et yuoor oovn geneetels, foockveets!

:-)


Sauce for the gander...
posted by y2karl at 11:39 PM on November 20, 2002


Many of you are feeling offended by this penis. That is because you are crazy. It's just a penis. It has no feelings...

<crickets chirping>

Doesn't work as well in this situation, does it?
posted by Danelope at 11:43 PM on November 20, 2002


y2karl, you're a maniac, but I love ya.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:00 AM on November 21, 2002


This Swedish Chef thing is positively twisted.

1 7|-|1|\||< 7|-|15 15 4|\|07|-|3|2 3><4 /\/\p13 0f '/2|4|21'5 |-|0p31355 08535510|\| \/\/17|-| p057 |\|u/\/\83|2, 45 |-|3'5 833|\| |-|4|2p1|\|9 0|\| 7|-|15 155u3 14731'/ \/\/17|-| 50/\/\3 k|-|4|27 7|-|47 |-|3'5 f0u|\|d 0|\| 4|\|07|-|3|2 \/\/385173.br>
F|24|\||<1 '/ 1 7|-|1|\|| 7|-|3 5\/\/3d15|-| k|-|3f f4k4d3 15 4 \/\/4573 0f 84|\|d\/\/1d7|-|, 8u7 /\/\4'/83 7|-|47'5 ju57 /\/\3.br>
qu4|<3 |2001z!!
posted by hama7 at 3:51 AM on November 21, 2002


Let's try this:

"This HORSE COCK . . . it vibrates?"
posted by mcwetboy at 3:56 AM on November 21, 2002


I just thought I also might find out what the hell a "tea room" is. And maybe where one is in my area.

[No, I do not want to know where a tea room is in my area. That last sentence was meant as sarcasm.]


Dude, between the "straight gay" thing and this, you're batting 1.000 in the "repressed homosexual" column. Seriously, maybe it's time for some introspection.

posted by boomchicka at 4:30 AM on November 21, 2002


michael jackson's cock.
posted by quonsar at 4:33 AM on November 21, 2002


Proof that a "sarcasm tag" is needed quickly follows:

The fact you need a "sarcasm tag" proves you shouldn't be writing.
posted by Dark Messiah at 5:26 AM on November 21, 2002


Good to see that MetaTalk is functioning properly and allowing people to explore opinions about the site without turning into a juvenile pile-on.
posted by rushmc at 6:48 AM on November 21, 2002


Care to note any examples rushmc, or are all the members of this thread simply part of your arrogant brush stroke?
posted by BlueTrain at 8:37 AM on November 21, 2002


Well, that was interesting. I'm a straight guy (gay?) and although I don't willingly search out gay porn, my sexuality isn't so stinted by the sex-is-dirty North American culture that seeing a picture of a naked man causes me to run shrieking in stereotypical male fear.

It's just a naked guy. That's it. Ooooh, scary. Would it have been better if he'd been rubbing lotion on a silicone princess, or does all porn offend you equally? You lay claim to the problem being the porn in general, yet almost every comment you make is about horse cocks. Only good if they're using it to cockslap a bitch? ;)

Wait, I'm listening to Fiona Apple. Maybe I am gay? WolfDaddy makes my heart flutter!
posted by The God Complex at 10:59 AM on November 21, 2002


Would it have been better if he'd been rubbing lotion on a silicone princess, or does all porn offend you equally?

I bet that if someone dropped a straight-porn link into a thread he'd get roasted alive in MetaTalk. Am I wrong?
posted by timeistight at 11:12 AM on November 21, 2002


This thread is soooo boy zone.
posted by ginz at 11:21 AM on November 21, 2002


I bet that if someone dropped a straight-porn link into a thread he'd get roasted alive in MetaTalk. Am I wrong?

Depends on the context, doesn't it? If it had a reasonable context, or was a joke like this one, I certainly wouldn't roast it.

The point was he seems more offended by the fact that it's gay porn that by anything else.
posted by The God Complex at 11:39 AM on November 21, 2002


Don't worry about that fluttering heart, TGC.

I know mouth-to-mouth.

timeistight, I wouldn't object to a straight porn link in context. Hell, I've been exposed to beheadings, erotic pictures of rocks, and menstrual blood artwork in my time here. To bitch about something as vanilla as people having sex seems a little misguided, given the other imagery that's been linked here.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:38 PM on November 21, 2002


It wasn't you that I'd imagined doing the roasting, WolfDaddy. Anyway, next time somebody links to whatever flavour porn here, I'd appreciate it if they'd label it [PORN]. I think "Not Safe for Work" isn't enough of a warning: I don't want to accidently click on porn at home either.
posted by timeistight at 12:47 PM on November 21, 2002


So, timeistight, let me get this straight (insert vibration here). I could give you a link to a video of a brutal decapitation, label it 'not safe for work', and you'd be fine with that...that would be enough of a warning for you? But for porn you want MORE than that? Violence wins out over sex again?

I'd rather it be the other way 'round, but I also think you're taking a risk clicking on *any* NSFW-marked link, regardless of its content.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:53 PM on November 21, 2002


Wait, I'm listening to Fiona Apple. Maybe I am gay?

Hard to tell. Any cds by the The Smiths in your collection?

posted by matteo at 12:57 PM on November 21, 2002


once again i'm shocked by the pc-police mentality of metafilter. there has been metatalk upon metatalk discussions of every bit of minutiae etiquette. but someone questions the appropriateness of a porn link and he is piled upon as prudish, homophobic, and in denial of his true sexuality. people have been banned for posting such links as recently as a month ago. while wolf daddy's comment was more or less appropriate in its context, i don't see how son_of_minya's thread is so entirely inappropriate that the gay parade should be allowed to stone the man while the sniveling straights jeer and cheer 'em on.
posted by danOstuporStar at 1:08 PM on November 21, 2002


Okay WolfDaddy, we probably need [BRUTAL DECAPITATION] warnings too (although they wouldn't be as hard to explain to my wife).
posted by timeistight at 1:19 PM on November 21, 2002


Oh, really, danO, come on, drop the politics for a moment and consider this incident on its own merits. son_of_minya stated he'd let a link with underage female homosexual pornography pass by unremarked, and to my mind, that makes his entire reasoning behind questioning this porn link very suspect. Almost seems like he's asking for special treatment rather than equal treatment, something I abhor as much as I'm sure you do.

NSFW is NSFW is NSFW, and if you have any skill at reading comprehension, you'll usually have enough information from the link provided and the warning given to make an informed decision about whether or not to click on said link. That goes for you too timeistight, and if that somehow makes it harder to explain things to your wife, well, that's your business.
posted by WolfDaddy at 1:31 PM on November 21, 2002


I'd appreciate it if they'd label it [PORN].

I suggest [JOHNSON ALERT]. or "dick" or "rod".

the gay parade should be allowed to stone the man while the sniveling straights jeer and cheer 'em on.

There's a parade? I love parades!
posted by octobersurprise at 1:31 PM on November 21, 2002


Don't worry about that fluttering heart, TGC.

I know mouth-to-mouth.


Hahaha.

Hard to tell. Any cds by the The Smiths in your collection?

*blushes a deep shade of red*
posted by The God Complex at 1:46 PM on November 21, 2002


NSFW is "your manager may not approve of it." Everything even slightly involving nudity or controversial material gets a NSFW tag. The Farm Sluts short is the last thing I remember seeing a NSFW warning for. Do a search for "NSFW" in the past month, year, etc. It is nearly always relatively tame.

I guarantee you that if someone posted a link to a video, "not safe for work or people who haven't seen Queer as Folk" and clicking on the link instantly played a video of an all-male orgy, people would be shocked and offended. That is more extreme than what WolfDaddy did, but it's in the same spirit. How in the hell is seeing Queer as Folk the same as seeing gay porn?

Have you ever seen Stile Project? He pulls this exact same stunt constantly. It's a tried-and-true bad taste prank. Vaguely word a link, just enough so if someone does click on it they'll know it was stupid, but a lot of people will be tricked into seeing a guy jacking off. That is what WolfDaddy did -- an immature little stunt.

I admitted that I would not complain if it had been appealing pornography, because that question was raised. I did not say that would make it okay. "Well, it's only a penis" is close to what I would think..."Well, it's only a hot little teen slut fingering herself." I realize that my "hetero-sexist" porn would be just as offensive to you people as a guy jerking it is to me, and I would never post that here.

Described the image I saw as "CHRIST! HORSE COCK!" because that's the immediate image that comes up on the screen. The whole point of the link was to stick a picture of an engorged penis in the face of whoever clicks on it. It was obviously a gay porn site, with no informational content whatsoever. It was just porn, in other words -- no value outside the "erotic" images. I jokingly said that you couldn't even find out what a tea room is on the site -- to point out that it had no informational content. If WolfDaddy had posted a link with information and maybe a little bit of gay porn off to the side, that might have a little bit of value and I wouldn't complain about it here.

danOstuporStar should have had this thread settled. Hell, there should have never been such a debate in the first place. I hate it when stereotypes do hold true, and especially when I'm right about my lowest expectation of a group of people, but I knew this was going to happen.

As irony-impaired as everyone seems to be here (though I do think it's intentional in most cases and used as a cheap shot), it's amazing that you think it was so obviously a gay porn site. Of course it likely could have been, and I wasn't all that traumatized because I was ready just in case, but I was amazed that someone would actually do that. I partly blame myself for having even a little bit of a "ha ha, it was partly my fault" attitude. In the future, I won't joke around and will just make my point.
posted by son_of_minya at 2:10 PM on November 21, 2002


son_of_minya stated he'd let a link with underage female homosexual pornography pass by unremarked . . .

"suspect" granted, but how i read what he said is "i wouldn't have commented on straight porn, but if i had posted the link (to the porn) i would fully expect other folks to call me out for it"

i'm not advocating for anything beyond NSFW no matter the subject, all i'm saying the guy is getting more flack for this thread than is deserved . . . and am shocked (ok -- exaggeration) by the double-standard. if that had been a big-ass pussy there would be all sorts of uproar about the objectification of women. instead, here we have the equivelent of "twats are great, don't you ever look at yr own twat? i think you don't wanna see em, cause you're really scared you'd wanna lick it if you did." followed by "yeah yeah, get him."
posted by danOstuporStar at 2:13 PM on November 21, 2002


"Cruising for Sex" could have been an informational site.

Trust me, when I tell you, that that excuse doesn't work...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 2:45 PM on November 21, 2002


NSFW, and much better than WolfDaddy's link. You can probably even find something about tea rooms here.

Look at that url. Seriously. Look at it.

FREE GAY SEX.COM -- that's gotta be gay porn, right?

The NSA probably thinks I'm gay now thanks to you, but it took just 30 seconds on Google to shoot you down.
posted by son_of_minya at 2:54 PM on November 21, 2002


and much better than WolfDaddy's link


?????? Your criteria for saying so is...? And, in case you didn't notice, the page "www.freegaysex.com" has a pic of two gay men kissing. How, on Earth, have you shot down inpHilltr8r's point? Or were you too blinded to notice what you linked?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:06 PM on November 21, 2002


Jesus hopping Christ, son_of_minya, the hole you're digging is so deep you'll never get out. All you have contributed to this discussion is your own increasingly frantic attempts to redeem yourself of your demonstrated immaturity and you're failing so miserably you're in jeopardy of becoming even more of a laughingstock than you already are.

That you don't seem to recognize this fact is the most delicious example of irony yet in this thread.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:11 PM on November 21, 2002


WolfDaddy, my preference is "Jesus fucking Christ in a jumped-up sidecar". I have no idea what it means, but it carries exasperation off very well.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:21 PM on November 21, 2002


A picture of two gay men kissing? I didn't even notice. What the hell is so offensive about that, anyway? Did you even read this thread?

"and much better than WolfDaddy's link" was just a vague description of the link that could be taken more ways than one. I think it's better than his link because it's not gay porn. He could have linked to a site like that, even if it had a banner ad off to the side somewhere with something a little worse than two guys kissing. The problem with his link was that the whole point was that it was gay porn, and the central focus of the page is a nude man masturbating.

There was an important lesson taught on South Park last night. "We all need to be tolerant, but we don't have to tolerate this guy acting like an asshole."
posted by son_of_minya at 3:22 PM on November 21, 2002


because it's not gay porn

The Nifty EROTIC ARCHIVE is nothing but porn. You sure aren't trying very hard, buddy.

The whole point of my link was in response to the misogny and frustrated sexual desire rampant in the site linked. In satrical fashion, I was trying to demonstrate that the author of the site could be both as misogynystic as he liked and as much of a rutting male sex pig as he liked if he just broadened his horizons. The hardcore porn was part and parcel of that point, and I couldn't have made it without it. Are you that fucking stupid, or just a clueless little boy? No wonder your "sarcasm" and "irony" is so easily dismissed by everyone else. It's nothing of the sort, it's just the rantings of an immature person trying to play with the adults. So sorry, you lose.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:31 PM on November 21, 2002


What the hell is so offensive about that, anyway?

That's the whole point that people have been trying to make to you. Ya' see, I have read this thread.

There was an important lesson taught on South Park last night. "We all need to be tolerant, but we don't have to tolerate this guy acting like an asshole.

Pot...Kettle...you know the drill.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:32 PM on November 21, 2002


~waves at s_o_m in his hole~
posted by yonderboy at 3:43 PM on November 21, 2002


WolfDaddy: The Nifty EROTIC ARCHIVE is nothing but porn. You sure aren't trying very hard, buddy.

That is a flat-out misstatement of truth, and I hope to hell anyone who's going to agree with you here checks out both sites first.

It is clear I'm not going to "win" this, and maybe in this forum my views are too far outside the "norm" to even register. Maybe, though, there is just an extremely vocal minority here. I'm satisfied with leaving this thread for good and letting others judge for themselves. Just, please, don't post any outright laughable misstatements about me or anything I have posted, because I am not going to humor them with a response.
posted by son_of_minya at 4:04 PM on November 21, 2002


From nifty.org, a categorization of the stories you'll find contained therein:

Bestiality - Stories involving animals
Bisexual - Stories involving M/M/F(/...) or F/F/M(/...) combinations
Gay Male - Stories involving Male/Male(/...)
Lesbian - Stories involving Female/Female(/...)
Transgender / Transsexual - Stories involving cross-dressing, sex-change, female-domination
Information - General Erotic and Educational Information

QED, asshole. God, I shouldn't relish ripping you to quivering chunks as much as this, but I can't help it. Sometimes easy prey is the most delicious.
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:17 PM on November 21, 2002


God, I shouldn't relish ripping you to quivering chunks as much as this, but I can't help it. Sometimes easy prey is the most delicious.

I agree, WolfDaddy. 'Times ya just gotta bark at the moon.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:45 PM on November 21, 2002


I have no idea what son_of_minya is talking about, I just like the sentence "The NSA probably thinks I'm gay now thanks to you ..."
posted by octobersurprise at 5:25 PM on November 21, 2002


"The NSA probably thinks I'm gay now thanks to you ..."

... and that dude's schlong.

Exeunt. Been fun everyone :-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:58 PM on November 21, 2002


Who was that masked man?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:52 PM on November 21, 2002


Did you see the size of that dude's schlong?!
posted by Hildago at 8:37 PM on November 21, 2002


« Older This dangling baby . . . it vi...  |  Is it possible, or even a good... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments