Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Post Porn Pics II

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

As someone said after the first attempt: "It had so much potential." For those of us who only have access to the internet at work, and so can't risk downloading from explicitly-named websites, I'm sure this thread could really come in handy.

― xxx, Friday, 16 January 2004 09:22 (twenty-two years ago)

So where do you work?

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Friday, 16 January 2004 09:23 (twenty-two years ago)

looking at the thread title, I get this mental image of two people cuddling in bed, smoking a cigarette.

― M Matos (M Matos), Friday, 16 January 2004 09:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I've never seen 'em cuddle afterwards.

― nickn (nickn), Friday, 16 January 2004 09:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Cuddly porn would have very little market.

― Ian Johnson (orion), Friday, 16 January 2004 11:54 (twenty-two years ago)

How would viewing porn on ILX be more acceptable than viewing it anywhere else?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 16 January 2004 17:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Porn should always be acceptable in a free society, whether you like it or not (and in the case of hardcore I'm not a fan - but anyone got some pics of some centrefold honies and I'm a happy chappy).

― C-Man (C-Man), Friday, 16 January 2004 17:39 (twenty-two years ago)

I like my sex clean, none of that penetration crap.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Friday, 16 January 2004 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Friday, 16 January 2004 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Cor, interactive software on sexual decision making

― Ferrrrrrg (Ferg), Friday, 16 January 2004 22:22 (twenty-two years ago)

i opened this cos i thought it was a thread about annie sprinkle's "post porn modernist"

― The Lady Ms Lurex (lucylurex), Saturday, 17 January 2004 09:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I see no porn yet. Get on the ball people.

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Saturday, 17 January 2004 09:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Gimme a second.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Sunday, 18 January 2004 01:57 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.shesexy.com/
Pick yer own poison.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Sunday, 18 January 2004 01:59 (twenty-two years ago)

porn!
http://www.milkmanbook.org/hegre/archive05/05.jpg

― Aaron A., Sunday, 18 January 2004 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know if that pic is legal. She looks like she's, what, 13?

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Sunday, 18 January 2004 02:19 (twenty-two years ago)

She looks 18 to me.

Interesting, though, how many people seem to be under the impression that nude photography of minors is illegal. It may be, in many cases, in bad taste (or worse); but an image has to be lewd in ways carefully outlined by the law to be illegal.

― Aaron A., Sunday, 18 January 2004 04:20 (twenty-two years ago)

I was going through my old AOL directories and found this photo set from about two years ago (which I posted for my internet friends, some of whom were Pitchfork writers, to masturbate to). I still think she's really quite beautiful.

― Le Coq (DarrenK), Sunday, 18 January 2004 04:28 (twenty-two years ago)

The girl in Aaron's pic looks way over 13. Trust me, I know these things.

― Le Coq (DarrenK), Sunday, 18 January 2004 04:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Though I think Aaron's pic does come from one of those sites that have those embarrassing, rambling 'the wonder of little girls' tracts accompanying the pics. "O, the toasty cinnamon freshness of nubility of youth ETFUCKINGCETERA"

― Le Coq (DarrenK), Sunday, 18 January 2004 04:42 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.accuradio.com/Covers/75/cure-pornography.jpg

― jdrabbit, Sunday, 18 January 2004 04:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Umm, darren, did you not just post a series from Babyfacemag.com? The irony sort of baffles me. But yeah, I hate that sort of thing (which is why I didn't really like your pics!).

― Aaron A., Sunday, 18 January 2004 04:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Easy six-gun, I never said your shit was bad, just I THOUGHT IT MAY have came from one of the sites with the hokey writing. Babyfacemag doesn't have any of that kind of writing or soft-focus mood stuff, just regular pornbox style teen porn, so nice irony.

― Le Coq (DarrenK), Sunday, 18 January 2004 04:59 (twenty-two years ago)

And the chick in my set is very well known - I have two of her DVDs for fucks sake. She's english and 23 years old.

― Le Coq (DarrenK), Sunday, 18 January 2004 05:01 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.ebony10s.com/galleries/10/31/02.jpg

― %%, Sunday, 18 January 2004 17:52 (twenty-two years ago)

"How would viewing porn on ILX be more acceptable than viewing it anywhere else?"

Because the webpage addresses of ILx threads are completely innocuous, so wouldn't be picked out by internet monitoring programmes (I'm presuming). And when you download a picture from a thread like this you just directly save the .jpg rather than, as with the free porn sites listed on an earlier thread, having to click on a picture before being taken to a further site whose dodginess can't be predicted in advance, from where the picture can be saved. This also means that you can make your internet explorer window really tiny - so no-one else in the office can see what you're doing - and save the pictures by right clicking at their top edges, whereas when you click on the pictures you get on proper porn site front-pages, you'll get new internet windows opening up which may be any size, and possibly multiple pop-ups also. So ILx by comparison is a perfect medium for safe porn downloading at work.

― xxx, Monday, 19 January 2004 09:26 (twenty-two years ago)

The worst is when you have your window or door open and you click one of those awful 'audio popups'. "DO YOU WANNA LICK MY HOT, YOUNG, JUICY....*click*." Your friends/roommates: "Hahaha, so you're in there 'changing your clothes', huh?! Hahaha!"

― Le Coq (DarrenK), Monday, 19 January 2004 09:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Is a moderator purposely breaking the links to the two excellent porn pictures on this thread?

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Monday, 19 January 2004 09:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm, you know, that explanatory post (two up) changes things somewhat - for the worse! Unless it's somehow part of someone's job to be looking at the stuff (good luck with that) then it's creepy + stupid as hell to be surfing porn AT WORK. Gah. WTF ILX, we don't let people post their homework as threads, but this is okie dokie? Are we going to be a "portal" now?

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 19 January 2004 09:50 (twenty-two years ago)

We'll put Geir in the fetish link section!

― Le Coq (DarrenK), Monday, 19 January 2004 09:54 (twenty-two years ago)

God, not even a GOOD portal.

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 19 January 2004 09:56 (twenty-two years ago)

We're only talking about ONE THREAD for goodness' sake. And why would it be like a portal? Why wouldn't it just be a thread like any other, for people who already read or post to ILx (like myself, for about the last two years). Also, what on earth business is it of yours if I'm technically breaking my rules of employment. You could say that about half the regular ILx posters. Unless it's somehow part of *their* jobs to be reading and posting to discussion boards all day.

― xxx, Monday, 19 January 2004 10:07 (twenty-two years ago)

the idea was pics of folks after they were done watching porn . . . oh, forget it.

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 19 January 2004 10:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Haha it's my business because you've mentioned it here. If you've got a problem with that, then you can keep your habits to yourself, no? The "it's just one thread" theory - see point about homework threads. The portal thing was mostly facetious, but I say it because people have literally invested in this place to make it work as a discussion forum, and this type of thing is counter-productive to that.

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 19 January 2004 10:28 (twenty-two years ago)

anyway - whatever - if no one else cares I guess I don't either. Go nuts, and try not to accidentally staple yourselves to your desks.

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 19 January 2004 10:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Folks, aren't the p0rrn pix still on the webservers with the work-inappropriate titles? You might be looking at wh3rd.net but you're still downloading a file from freshpussy.com, and wouldn't that still show up on their server logs?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Monday, 19 January 2004 10:34 (twenty-two years ago)

shhhh... bet they don't know about browser image caches either.

― Kim (Kim), Monday, 19 January 2004 10:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Kim, sorry I wasn't meaning that you had no business saying you thought what I'd posted was stupid. Just that you seemed to be suggesting (though you may not have been) that part of the reason you found this thread unacceptable was because it would encourage reckless irresponsible behaviour at work, and I couldn't see how it was anybody's business to object to a thread's existence on the basis of personal behaviour which they disapproved of.

Also, I don't see how this thread would be any more counter-productive to general discussion than the dozens of threads full of pictures of album covers. But also, like yourself, I'm not especially bothered one way or the other, and if most people on ILx strongly objected to this kind of thread, even as a one-off, I wouldn't have a problem with it being deleted.

― xxx, Monday, 19 January 2004 11:11 (twenty-two years ago)

aw i honestly thought this is about post-modernist porn. like post-rock. it'd involve someone stroking another person exactly once every 5 minutes, whilst looking intelligent, or something.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 19 January 2004 11:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Folks, aren't the p0rrn pix still on the webservers with the work-inappropriate titles? You might be looking at wh3rd.net but you're still downloading a file from freshpussy.com, and wouldn't that still show up on their server logs?

Yes....

The weblogs don't distinguish between port 80 requests for leeched images on that are embedded in ilx and "what you think you are browsing"

So the weblogs would look like this

*your ip address* 80 http://lx.wh3rd.net/
*your ip address* 80 http://www.hotpussy.com/porn/sackme/hornynuns.jpeg

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Monday, 19 January 2004 16:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Error 404 - page does not exist Sorry, the page /porn/sackme/hornynuns.jpeg does not exist at www.hotpussy.com
damnit, I wanna see horny nuns!

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Monday, 19 January 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:0VxfnMtXx7EC:www.zoomagoo.com/images/packages/p105.jpg
best i could find sorry.

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 19 January 2004 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.bushcorp.net/images/nun57.jpg http://www.bushcorp.net/images/nun57.jpg

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Monday, 19 January 2004 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.thedirtyvicar.co.uk/gallery2.html

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Monday, 19 January 2004 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Wasn't the Dirty Vicar an ILX-er at one point?

― Prude (Prude), Monday, 19 January 2004 19:41 (twenty-two years ago)

He still is. He just calls himself DV for short now.

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Monday, 19 January 2004 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

(also I don't think it's the same Dirty Vicar who runs that smut site.)

― Lord Custos Omicron (Lord Custos Omicron), Monday, 19 January 2004 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

"Sisters doing it for themselves"

Ya gotta love it.

― nickn (nickn), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 07:14 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login