Anybody remember this thread?

[deleuze]

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...highlight=rape

or this one

http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/...highlight=rape

?

I wonder if their reception would be different if they skinned the board?

[Linkster]

I remember both of those quite well - its interesting however though to see what would happen if you come out and actually question the justification this time - Im not going to because Ive already heard it and Ive already made my decisions to not promote them.

[Extreme John]

Im sure Airek will be in here shortly to respond. Im curious Linkster your choosing not to promote the entire portfolio of sites because you personally are uncofortable with 1 of the sites out of 7?

[Linkster]

John - no offense meant at all - I'm not "comfortable" with two of the sites - and yes that will make my decision as to whether I promote a sponsor - a third site includes those two as "additional content" and without seeing inside the members area but knowing the standard practices today of most programs - I would imagine those sites are also included on the inside of all of the other sites.

Believe me its not a comfort issue - to me its a justification issue for me to deal with between me and my surfers - while there is one site that I would love to promote and would probably be doing a couple sales a day - the others keep me from adding it to my portfolio.

Ive also already heard a bunch of justifications this morning which some I agree with, some I disagree with and unfortunately the weighting right now is is the disagree column.

The funny part of the whole thing to me was (and the real reason I even responded to this thread) that the justifications used to me this morning were the same ones that the people in these threads posted here were using - and yet the people defending and giving the justifications this morning were the same people yelling BS at these other peoples justifications in the old threads.

[ponyman]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Ive also already heard a bunch of justifications this morning which some I agree with, some I disagree with and unfortunately the weighting right now is is the disagree column.

Did you hear these justifications on a board somewhere? I'd like to read them, too.

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by ponyman

Did you hear these justifications on a board somewhere? I'd like to read them, too.

ponyman - no they were discussions with some other LL owners - not posted anywhere.

John - We've known each other for a long time and I kinda expected that you and I wouldnt have a problem with this

[Extreme John]

Originally Posted by Linkster

ponyman - no they were discussions with some other LL owners - not posted anywhere.

John - We've known each other for a long time and I kinda expected that you and I wouldnt have a problem with this

Nope even if I didnt know you there wouldnt be a need for a problem, business is business, as much as you want to sleep with me you cant have me, which means we dont have to be like that with each other |badidea|

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by Extreme John

, as much as you want to sleep with me you cant have me, which means we dont have to be like that with each other |badidea|

Can we still at least share the same tanning bed

[Extreme John]

Originally Posted by Linkster

John - no offense meant at all - I'm not "comfortable" with two of the sites - and yes that will make my decision as to whether I promote a sponsor - a third site includes those two as "additional content" and without seeing inside the members area but knowing the standard practices today of most programs - I would imagine those sites are also included on the inside of all of the other sites.

Believe me its not a comfort issue - to me its a justification issue for me to deal with between me and my surfers - while there is one site that I would love to promote and would probably be doing a couple sales a day - the others keep me from adding it to my portfolio.

Ive also already heard a bunch of justifications this morning which some I agree with, some I disagree with and unfortunately the weighting right now is is the disagree column.

The funny part of the whole thing to me was (and the real reason I even responded to this thread) that the justifications used to me this morning were the same ones that the people in these threads posted here were using - and yet the people defending and giving the justifications this morning were the same people yelling BS at these other peoples justifications in the old threads.

Oh please understand, I am not offended, Ive always had a strict rule about how I do business or how I view how others do business. Im not here to judge anyone, nor would I ever take any judgments on me to heart, the only person I have to deal with on that level is my wife, children and family, beyond that anything I do follows those rules Business is Business not personal.

I respect your views, and by all means you have a right to do business in whatever fashion you choose, and I respect whatever fashion that might be.

[XPorn]

I'm in the same boat with ya Linkster...

XPorn

Originally Posted by Linkster

John - no offense meant at all - I'm not "comfortable" with two of the sites - and yes that will make my decision as to whether I promote a sponsor - a third site includes those two as "additional content" and without seeing inside the members area but knowing the standard practices today of most programs - I would imagine those sites are also included on the inside of all of the other sites.

Believe me its not a comfort issue - to me its a justification issue for me to deal with between me and my surfers - while there is one site that I would love to promote and would probably be doing a couple sales a day - the others keep me from adding it to my portfolio.

Ive also already heard a bunch of justifications this morning which some I agree with, some I disagree with and unfortunately the weighting right now is is the disagree column.

The funny part of the whole thing to me was (and the real reason I even responded to this thread) that the justifications used to me this morning were the same ones that the people in these threads posted here were using - and yet the people defending and giving the justifications this morning were the same people yelling BS at these other peoples justifications in the old threads.

[MrYum]

Originally Posted by Linkster

John - no offense meant at all - I'm not "comfortable" with two of the sites - and yes that will make my decision as to whether I promote a sponsor - a third site includes those two as "additional content" and without seeing inside the members area but knowing the standard practices today of most programs - I would imagine those sites are also included on the inside of all of the other sites.

Believe me its not a comfort issue - to me its a justification issue for me to deal with between me and my surfers - while there is one site that I would love to promote and would probably be doing a couple sales a day - the others keep me from adding it to my portfolio.

Ive also already heard a bunch of justifications this morning which some I agree with, some I disagree with and unfortunately the weighting right now is is the disagree column.

The funny part of the whole thing to me was (and the real reason I even responded to this thread) that the justifications used to me this morning were the same ones that the people in these threads posted here were using - and yet the people defending and giving the justifications this morning were the same people yelling BS at these other peoples justifications in the old threads.

Apparently, this boat has at least 3 oarsman.

A couple of the sites look pretty good...a couple I wouldn't touch. Certainly not the first sponsor to push the edge too far...imo. No doubt, not the last either

Certainly doesn't do us any good as an industry when we portray the women as little more than cum receptacles.

[SirMoby]

I never liked the forced sites, drunk sites, tricked sites, skat and I don't like sex with animals. I know all that makes good money but I don’t like it and I don’t promote it. However, there are a lot of people that probably think I’m a sick bastard for profiting on naked women that obviously enjoy being naked for money.

For me to criticize the choice of others would be a bit hypocritical so I figure to each his own. There’s countless webmasters so no one needs me to make a buck and there’s also countless sponsors. I have a great deal of respect for GG, Jim and Extreme John and there’s nothing about Rage Cash that’s going to affect that.

[susanna]

I believe that there is way too many webmasters that blindly follow what trusted people like gg and jim do. They make it their business to have people following them and trusting their judgement. Dont fool yourselves, this board doesnt exist for the mindless posts of everyone that wants to say their morning hello's.

This board exists as a forum that attracts many people, most of which come here to hear industry news, to hear what others are up too and to learn from those trusted old timers (and at times newcomers).

When gg a jim condone something I feel is wrong I speak to them about it. Of course they do as they please but they are gracious enough to let me post to the contrary in the hopes that most of you out there will atleast think about what you are about to get yourself into. When I say gg and jim sold out for money, I also mean those of you out there marketing that site are also throwing ethics aside for money.

I always end posts like these (getting really tired of having to post about rape sites) with the question.....how would you like it if your wife/girlfriend/lover/sister/mother was fucked in her sleep because some guy thought that it was her fantasy?

Give me a break... there is only one type of person with that fantasy... the type is the person who likes NON-consentual sex.

When someone profits from a non-consentual rape site, even if its disguised as a reality fantasy site, I do not approve and I speak out.

You do what your own conscience says you should do.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by susanna

When I say gg and jim sold out for money, I also mean those of you out there marketing that site are also throwing ethics aside for money.

It always amazes me when people use the words "ethics" since it means so many different things. Is promoting a Couples Sex site where most of the models are NOT couples and they'll fuck any one for money ethical?

Does the same statement apply to you site as well?

Keep in mind I will not promote Rage Cash in any way but I see no reason to judge others for doing so. Aren't we all living in glass houses?

[susanna]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

It always amazes me when people use the words "ethics" since it means so many different things. Is promoting a Couples Sex site where most of the models are NOT couples and they'll fuck any one for money ethical?

Does the same statement apply to you site as well?

Keep in mind I will not promote Rage Cash in any way but I see no reason to judge others for doing so. Aren't we all living in glass houses?

The reason to judge others for doing so is that its illegal. Do you promote rape sites? do you promote cp sites? all the same thing.

Is there any proof that the couples on my couples sex site are not couples? how do you know by looking at them that they are not? With regard to turning that statement around to the sleeping rape site, can you say the same thing?

My couples sex site is not hurting the industry anymore then the fake lesbian sites or the huge insertion or anal fuck sites....all done for money to apease someone elses kink. I draw the line at appeasing rapists kink.

Its against the law for good reason.


Whats next? reality porn that says its a great kink to fuck unsuspecting mentally retared people? There is a line, there has to be a line and its drawn BEFORE RAPE AND BEFORE CHILDREN OR INFIRM ADULTS. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

I am Canadian...the land of not judging anyone of anything but Canadians are not stupid...

[ArtWilliams]

Originally Posted by susanna

I am Canadian...the land of not judging anyone of anything but Canadians are not stupid...

Both the sites would be considered illegal in Canada. The Sleep Assault would get the most attention because of the implied violence. -- art

[Useless]

Fuck it - I didn't want to engage in this discussion because I see it going exactly no where. There are those who view Sleep Assault as fantasy, those who don't like it, but aren't going to lose sleep over it, and those who are going start mini-crusades over it. Not a single cocksucker reading any post of this thread is going change their mind. This thread is ass-fodder.

Read the first thread attached to the very first post of this thread and you'll see my feelings about rape and it's promotion through porn. Even the dumbest fuck out there will know that I will not promote any site that I feel is rape-related or insinuates rape. Hence - for those of you who need it spelled out - I will not promote (or link to) the site in question. Does this mean that I will abandon Rage Cash's complete portfolio? Hell no. If you feel that by promoting any of their sites, I'm promoting rape by default, well...fuck you. That's my opinion. Fuck you and fuck your mother and fuck your mother's mother AND your mother's father too.

Let me toss this sticky load in your freshly washed faces. Most teens cannot legally consent to sex. Thusly, we (the U.S.) have laws in place to protect teens from their own horrible libidos. I feel pretty strongly about the presence of certain teen content in this industry. I hate seeing teens in braces and teens holding teddy bears and typically won't accept galleries or sites which contain such content. I also don't accept the word 'young' used on a teen site. Why? Because a young teen is not a legal teen. I understand the fantasy, but don't wish to feed it. Does that mean that I've abandoned all sponsors who promote teens with braces? Fuck no.

Look at the laws those wacky-ass Canadians have created to protect those filthy BDSM kinksters from fucking each other while bound. Canandians cannot legally use content where anything is inserted into a bound person. It is viewed as non-concentual. The bound gimp could be screaming "Fuck my hairy ass you evil bitch", but in Canada it's illegal to fuck his hairy ass with your freshly lubed strap-on because he's bound. Does this mean that Canadian webmasters don't promote BDSM sites at all? No. They simply use content that doesn't have insertion. But wait - the paysite they're promoting most definately contains other pics and videos which would be deemed illegal in their hockey playing country. Hmmm...what could they be thinking? They're thinking about getting paid, just like the rest of filthy fucking no-good porn peddlers.

What am I attempting to convey through my nearly meaningless ramblings? I don't know. I lost track when I got the ugly vision of a bound dude getting banged from behind with a 12 inch rubber cock.

Anyway, discuss this all you want since some of you really like the sound of your own voice, or at least the appearance of your own words. Just be smart about who you are calling unethical sell-outs. Maybe a few of you could get together and pay the board's expenses so that advertising wouldn't be a necessity.

[Lemmy]

A fantasy is a fantasy is a fantasy. Comparing the site in question to rape sites and cp sites is way over the line IMO. The site doesn't condone or promote non-consensual sex, but a fantasy, and according to the experts it's a fantasy that's fairly common.

From http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10r.htm

It comes as a surprise to some people that rape fantasies occur to about 24% of men and 36% of women (Knox, 1984, p. 283). Over 10% of women report that being forced to have sex is their favorite sexual fantasy (Doskoch, 1995). Remember, fantasies are not wishes! The rape fantasies of women may reflect a desire, not to be hurt, but to be attractive, to be passive, and to avoid the responsible for the sexual act.

Any healthy individual understands the difference between fantasy and reality, and while there are many fantasies that I personally find distaseful I'm not about to start policing peoples' thoughts. Suffice it to say that there are many - many - sites out there that I find far more objectionable than the site in question and I will make my choices on whom to promote based on my personal feelings in any given case.

On a final note; just because someone's ethics differs from yours, it doesn't mean they're unethical.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by susanna

The reason to judge others for doing so is that its illegal. Do you promote rape sites? do you promote cp sites? all the same thing.

Is there any proof that the couples on my couples sex site are not couples? how do you know by looking at them that they are not? With regard to turning that statement around to the sleeping rape site, can you say the same thing?

My couples sex site is not hurting the industry anymore then the fake lesbian sites or the huge insertion or anal fuck sites....all done for money to apease someone elses kink. I draw the line at appeasing rapists kink.

Its against the law for good reason.


Whats next? reality porn that says its a great kink to fuck unsuspecting mentally retared people? There is a line, there has to be a line and its drawn BEFORE RAPE AND BEFORE CHILDREN OR INFIRM ADULTS. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

I am Canadian...the land of not judging anyone of anything but Canadians are not stupid...

I noticed that you refused to answer the question about your own ethics. It's not very comfortable is it?

"Is promoting a Couples Sex site where most of the models are NOT couples and they'll fuck any one for money ethical?"

I'm continuing this discussion because I find it fascinating how people justify putting thier own values on others. I find myself sitting here wondering about Hilary Swank and everyone that was involved with the movie "Boys Don't Cry". I won't watch the thing because it's not my taste in movies but I don't think poorly of the people that did see it or created it. I'm thinking about your opinions on that movie.

BTW - I'm a professional. I own some of the same content that you do and I know some of the models that performed in it.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

...I'm continuing this discussion because I find it fascinating how people justify putting thier own values on others....

Two words: Republican Cocksuckers

[sue-fl]

Originally Posted by susanna

I believe that there is way too many webmasters that blindly follow what trusted people like gg and jim do. They make it their business to have people following them and trusting their judgement. Dont fool yourselves, this board doesnt exist for the mindless posts of everyone that wants to say their morning hello's.

I take offense to that statement! I have no friends or family that do what I do. To have a place to come and talk to other people in the porn business in great to me. Do I do every thing gg&jim suggest on the board? I say fuck you for even implying I would, I do have a brain and know how to use it.

Of course this board is here to make money!! Nothing wrong with that. People do take the time here to help and offer advice, they care about things going on in others lives. So money is NOT the only reason this board is so successful.

As far as comparing this new site with the old thread, that is wrong. No where on this site does it mention any one being drugged or passed out drunk. It's females that have fallen asleep. Think about that for a minute. I have gone to bed damn tired many a nights. There is no way in hell my husband could get me totally aroused and have sex with me without me waking up!!! This site does not imply that any girl wakes up and freaks out and says no and he continues to fuck her. Excuse me if I offend anyone by saying what I'm about to say. There has been hundreds of times in my 28 years of marriage that I have been woken to his tongue or cock in various places. Rape?? Damn I say wake me up like that anytime you want to!!

No drugs, no passed out drunks, no one waking up terrified and fighting off an assault. No issue as far as I'm concerned!!

[Useless]

Maybe it's my lack of beauty sleep, but I'm just now seeing the issue here. It appears that vast majority of use agree that Sleep Assault is a rape site. The text quotes from the site itself are pretty damning, there's no denying that. So the main argument must be the lack of reaction or criticism towards its owners. Some of you would like to see a complete outcry against Rage Cash for conceiving the site in the first place, perhaps a total ban of their program. I think you realize that that just isn't going to happen. Even if they were'nt a board sponsor, I doubt that everyone would be going nuts right now.

If it was a site that was peddling true assault pics instead of staged bullshit, yes - we would be screaming foul and contacting the police and tearing the program apart. But it's not. It's fake. It's twisted, but it's fake. I think there are some who don't perceive it as rape because the girls aren't struggling against it, but I disagree. Again, the site's own text says it all. Like I've said, I won't promote anything or accept listings to anything like that.

I more than understand why people would be pissed and outraged. I really do. The first time I saw it I too referred to it as a rape site. I showed it to my wife and she agreed, though she appeared to think the whole premise was cheesey.

I truly hope that the site owners reconsider the site now that they see the reactions to it, but if I abandoned every program that did things that nauseate me, I'd been broke a long time ago.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Maybe it's my lack of beauty sleep, but I'm just now seeing the issue here.

Deleuze is pointing out that a similar site from a different program owner would probably get a totally different response.

Linkster pointed out that he has the freedom of choice and a good deal of respect for John.

John is pointing out that he likes Linkster and I truly expect them to exchange warm hugs, in a manly sort of way.

Susanna is pointing out that Canadians are smart and that her ethics are the right ethics.

Grandmascrotom is pointing out the blue does look nice.

GG is pointing out that Republican Cocksuckers come in many shapes, forms and nationalities.

Sue-FL is pointing out that she don’t like other people pushing their ethics on her.

Jan Barnes is pointing out that she agrees with UW and that somebody must have a small pecker.

UW, you’re pointing out that you can merge threads, your wife doesn’t let you touch her at night and that you need more sleep to be beautiful.

I’m trying to understand why one person feels the need to push their own ethics on to others.

I guess I just pointed out that I can read 39 posts in a thread and still miss the point everyone was really trying to make

[susanna]

The point I am trying to make is that there is a line and someone has to draw it somewhere. Since the debate years back agreed that the word YOUNG etc will only hurt the industry...what happened to those warriors? What happened to the people who could figure this stuff out and actually make a difference in the opinions of others that work this biz?

I believe that when I go to the doctor he isnt a quack because he has to answer up to an ethics board. He has to follow codes of conduct and ultimately he has to follow the law. He doesnt border on anything just because he might be able to get away with it. If he does he pays the price firstly from his governing body and secondly from the laws of the land.

If there isnt a law banning a site like this...lets keep putting them on the net so that someone will make one. I think thats a swell idea. If there isnt a bit of pride in what you do... that you provide legal and ethical porn for the kinksters, the horny and the weirdos....then go ahead and produce sites that clearly border or move over to the illegal side.

I think the teen issue is a great issue to bring up.

This is about one thing... consentualism. The site name and text implies that there is no consentualism. They havent even nailed the fantasy right. They have nailed non-consentualism.




|fart|

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Deleuze is pointing out that a similar site from a different program owner would probably get a totally different response.

Linkster pointed out that he has the freedom of choice and a good deal of respect for John.

John is pointing out that he likes Linkster and I truly expect them to exchange warm hugs, in a manly sort of way.

Susanna is pointing out that Canadians are smart and that her ethics are the right ethics.

Grandmascrotom is pointing out the blue does look nice.

GG is pointing out that Republican Cocksuckers come in many shapes, forms and nationalities.

Sue-FL is pointing out that she don’t like other people pushing their ethics on her.

Jan Barnes is pointing out that she agrees with UW and that somebody must have a small pecker.

UW, you’re pointing out that you can merge threads, your wife doesn’t let you touch her at night and that you need more sleep to be beautiful.

I’m trying to understand why one person feels the need to push their own ethics on to others.

I guess I just pointed out that I can read 39 posts in a thread and still miss the point everyone was really trying to make

[Useless]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

I guess I just pointed out that I can read 39 posts in a thread and still miss the point everyone was really trying to make

Good point