...in which chococat creates something new on the internet.
posted by geos on Apr 16, 2009 - 129 comments

Ok, what's the deal with the term "tater"? (NSFW) [more inside]
posted by Brandon Blatcher on Feb 12, 2009 - 478 comments

People who choose to complain about a question instead of trying to answer it are bad enough as is, but it was so excessive for this question about porn that the question itself got deleted and I think that's really inappropriate. [more inside]
posted by davidstandaford on Jan 13, 2009 - 248 comments

Oh, and ummmmm.... I may be reading this wrong, but didn't you already admit to looking at porn and get called out BY your wife? [more inside]
posted by furtive on May 15, 2008 - 188 comments

No fucking way is this bearable on MeFi.
posted by Civil_Disobedient on Feb 10, 2007 - 192 comments

In case any of you slept through your Women's Issues class in college, here are the cliffnotes.
posted by Civil_Disobedient on Aug 6, 2006 - 216 comments

Who has ever, or intends to ever, or never will, view pornography, at work?
This Ask Metafilter is devolving into this question rather than how the situation should be handled.
posted by tellurian on Jul 6, 2006 - 200 comments

Cedar has posted an interesting AskMe question on how to occupy oneself during three months in the stir. But when curious minds eager for details on how he came to such a predicament click on the Homepage URL link in his user profile page, they're greeted with a "Whoa!!" NSFW porn site.

Shouldn't he warn folks on the profile page? Should I or someone warn readers of the AskMe thread? What's the drill on something like this? [And I hate to be paranoid, but could it be possible this is an attempt to drive traffic to said porn site?]
posted by mojohand on Jun 27, 2006 - 57 comments

porn link on the front page.
posted by quonsar on Dec 13, 2005 - 29 comments

Is anyone else having, ahem, a problem (to be euphamistic) with the links on this FPP?
posted by oddman on Jul 23, 2005 - 30 comments

The Wiki/FAQ has been pornified. I'd revert it to a previous version but I can't seem to figure out how. Could someone who knows how this stuff works please revert it and then let us know how it's done? (AskMe or Meta, when in doubt take it to Meta)
posted by Mitheral on Mar 29, 2005 - 27 comments

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 on Nov 20, 2002 - 93 comments

Please, if your front page post links to anywhere remotely not worksafe, could you make sure this is properly flagged?
posted by salmacis on Oct 16, 2002 - 41 comments

Not that I want to question Matt... and not that I want to seem like the cranky old fundamentalist complaining (and it be far from the truth), but there is a TextAd for a porn site, and I am just wondering about the appropriateness of that.
posted by benjh on Oct 14, 2002 - 48 comments

Looks tasty!
posted by NortonDC on Jun 10, 2002 - 24 comments

I just noticed a text ad for Suicide Girls, a porn site (albeit nicely designed one with a blog), on the front page. What's the policy on porn ads? Should there be one, and if so are we being too puritanical?
posted by me3dia on Apr 3, 2002 - 224 comments

Porn Bombs? I just read through that thread and it looks like "porn bombs" are a mix of regular old-fashion homecooked spam and people signing you up to adult sites and mailing lists. Today someone signed me up to 20 adults lists, both gay and straight - this guy wasn't taking any chances. Someone else I know who is "high-profile" got the same treatment today. (more)
posted by skallas on Mar 24, 2002 - 35 comments

Enough with the porn bombs already! Isn't there anything we victims can do about this cowardly spamming tactic undertaken by so-called fellow users? I'm thinking of changing and then removing my e-mail address altogether, as it's not worth the trouble.
posted by MiguelCardoso on Mar 20, 2002 - 60 comments

Is suicidegirls the first porn textad ever on MetaFilter? It is certainly good to see such a liberal editorial attitude being displayed. Money does not corrupt. I wonder what their click through rate is, with the promise of naked girls and all? BTW I only clicked on it because I'm interested in goths and punks, and wanted to read their blog...obviously.
posted by RobertLoch on Feb 22, 2002 - 71 comments

Browsing the recently updated list of sites on Blogger, as I occasionally do, I noticed this site on the list. I was expecting a girl with a sarcastic take on life, or a similar cliché; instead, I got an actual porn site. (With plenty of html and blogger tag errors.) Is this simply the natural progression of things, or something dastardly and the... erm... artificial progression of things?
posted by moz on Jul 29, 2001 - 4 comments

This is incredible. While going through yesterday's stats (it was a slow sunday), I found a couple referrers from google, for "scooby doo porn" searches. So I tried it myself, and MetaFilter comes up third, for a comment made as a joke, making fun of search engines.
posted by mathowie on Nov 20, 2000 - 2 comments