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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[susanna]

Am I the only one questioning the "sleep assault" content? I am by far niave to the kinks of this world but kink is not assault. Where is the consentualism? How can it possibly pass the visa test? Wasn't Visa going nuts on stuff like this?

This on the same day that there is a thread/story out there on how Bush plans to attack rape and torture sites with the same tactics that they went after cp.

I find it hard to believe that gg and jim have chosen money over ethics on this one.

[Useless]

I merged the two threads. No point in multiple threads.

-UW

[susanna]

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

I merged the two threads. No point in multiple threads.

-UW

thanks UW I thought it was removed for a duplication and I started a more interesting thread (instead of copying it over).

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by susanna

I find it hard to believe that gg and jim have chosen money over ethics on this one.

So is it the responsibility of Greenguy and Jim to censor sponsor content?

[Ms Naughty]

I'm going to stick my head above the battlements and say this:

The board look nice blue.
and
I will not be promoting RageCash due to the nature of the Sleep Assault site. I do not promote reality sites at the best of time and this particular site steps well over a line as far as I'm concerned. Anything that uses the word "assault" when it comes to sex is not promoting consensual sex.

The rest of you may do whatever you wish according to your own consciences.

Thank you, over and out.

[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.

[babymaker]

i don't believe in censorship or judging other's too much lol( if i hate a mutherfucker i hate them lol) but i too had a problem with that site when i saw the board change and checked it out just casually, i went again after all the controversy and watched the first free sample clip??? isin't that considered rape and illegal in most if not all states?? an unconcious girl being fucked against her will??? i understand it's fantasy but i can't promote that, i understand also that what i promote creampie can be considered by some to be immororal, but it is consensual, i don't want to be hated or blacklisted and i am not judging anyone, but to me it seemed not approriate. so while it seems as if we are voting here in a way, i put my vote for no, i am sorry, not like anyone needs my traffic but the line has to be drawn somewhere and while we are under extreme media scrutinty(while that should not be the reason!) it would seem this is an even worse time for a site such as this, not that i would believe that there ever would be one.

[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

[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

[deleuze]

A few points:

1) The site in question is not illegal;
2) Many if not the majority of people who get off on rape fantasies are women;
3) The site in question unlike some others that have been discussed here before does a very poor job at appealing to those with rape fantasies as there is no confrontation, no struggle, and no realized violation. The only people who I can see it appealing to are misogynists with no active fantasy life.
4) Still nobody has answered the question why a person or company promoting something controversial will be either blindly ostracized or accepted into the community based on what the gods deem worthy. I came here for some lunch-time drama yesterday expecting everyone to tell this newest rage to fuck off and putting their sites on an elite blacklist. This was based on how I've seen you devour other people with similar sites. Insitead I discover people here have just a short of memory as all the idiots at other boards they love to disparage. Boring.