DELETED

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
The Bucket said:
I presume that in straight male targeted porn, the looks of the man is pretty irrelevant, and "performance" is more highly valued.
Supposedly if you put unattractive men in porn, the male viewers won't think the attractive female pornstars they are having sex with are out of their league. Or something.

thanatos388 said:
All the good ones tend to be assholes. Every time I'm just kinda indifferent to a persons work or think it outright sucks they tend to be really nice people. The talented inspirational ones....all shitheads. Why?

(And I'm sure its not actually like this 100% of the time but it tends to be that way)
I know, right? Ok, alternatively it could be that we are surprised at this sort of thing more, so it stands out and is memorable, but it seems to be true.

I wonder, though, does this only work once you like them for their talent? Otherwise, find the worst people you can, and they should be good at what they do, right?
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
I dunno, if GG is allowed to slander individuals and "SJWs/AGGros" right-and-left I think the same courtesy should be extended to Mr. Wheaton. His perspective is largely representative of... most everyone who doesn't support GG. I'm not saying it is right, but I really don't think his ideas of GG are really worth getting upset about. You're going to disagree with other people and they're sometimes going to disappoint you with what they say.

I mean, I consider myself a fan of Gary Oldman despite thinking a lot of his ideology is straight-up toxic. People aren't perfect, and their ideas of GG shouldn't make you turn your back on them.

GG is not the second coming of Christ, guys. It's really not that important int he scheme of things. If my personal hero Stan Lee said "SJWs" were just a bunch of whiny liberal arts majors I'd probably cringe for a minute, but I'd get over it. I mean, Stan's the man. Come on.
 

Smooth Operator

New member
Oct 5, 2010
8,162
0
0
People wouldn't be running into these problems if they understood once and for all that we are all human, just human, not saints, not above others, just human. Some days are good some days are bad, some topics we know a lot about other we know jack shit about, sometimes we are level headed and sometimes we are emotional wrecks. That is what humans are, that is what they always will be.

So praise peoples achievement's instead of people, because for every piece of good we do there is a pile of shit stashed somewhere you don't yet know of.
 

MASTACHIEFPWN

Will fight you and lose
Mar 27, 2010
2,279
0
0
Huh, that sort of reminds me of something...


MASTACHIEFPWN thus begins to violently run towards the exit of this topic as if he were being chased by tigers for the inexcusable sin he hath just committed.
 

AntiChri5

New member
Nov 9, 2011
584
0
0
Fappy said:
I dunno, if GG is allowed to slander individuals and "SJWs/AGGros" right-and-left I think the same courtesy should be extended to Mr. Wheaton. His perspective is largely representative of... most everyone who doesn't support GG. I'm not saying it is right, but I really don't think his ideas of GG are really worth getting upset about. You're going to disagree with other people and they're sometimes going to disappoint you with what they say.

I mean, I consider myself a fan of Gary Oldman despite thinking a lot of his ideology is straight-up toxic. People aren't perfect, and their ideas of GG shouldn't make you turn your back on them.

GG is not the second coming of Christ, guys. It's really not that important int he scheme of things. If my personal hero Stan Lee said "SJWs" were just a bunch of whiny liberal arts majors I'd probably cringe for a minute, but I'd get over it. I mean, Stan's the man. Come on.
This is something i have noticed GG folks do so often. Every time an individual or series or whatever said anything against Gamergate, there was a rush of people pronouncing they could no longer support it.

Don't get me wrong, some people (Moviebob) go so fucking far that i can't blame anyone who has a different view for being unable to support them, but a lot of sensible, reasonable folks too.
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
thaluikhain said:
The Bucket said:
I presume that in straight male targeted porn, the looks of the man is pretty irrelevant, and "performance" is more highly valued.
Supposedly if you put unattractive men in porn, the male viewers won't think the attractive female pornstars they are having sex with are out of their league. Or something.
Attractive men do gay porn for a paycheck that is much much bigger than the pay for straight scenes. its call gay for pay.