Every once in a while a thread crops up in Cafe Society where a bunch of horny het boys get together to slobber about some porn actress’s tits or this or that Playboy model.
Now, I don’t mind what people do in their own bedrooms, as long as they don’t shove their lifestyle choices down my throat.
Since what’s discussed in these threads is very specifically NOT the photography, but the TITs, etc., no one can seriosly make the claim that they’re “arts” discussions.
Is it just me, or should these threads more properly take place in MPSIMS?
Well, obviously, they should more properly take place in the dank, dark-paneled basement bedrooms these dopers rent from their mothers, but as far as the SDMB goes, I mean.
I’m assuming this is a rhetorical question, since of course a question about this message board that was looking for an answer would be in ATMB.
Since it’s not in that forum, would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean by “show their lifestyle choices down my throat”? Are you being ironic?
And, of course, no one is forced to read anything on here, to my knowledge. (I say that in case someone’s holding a poster hostage: “You MUST … READ… ZE PIT!!”)
my guess is that this is a rhetorical device, to display the counterpart to the folks who come into threads where same-gender liking folks are busy flirting and whatnot. the reference to ‘lifestyle’ being shoved down ones throat was my biggest hint.
Besides, the referenced thread involves a straighforward series of questions and answers as to who has or has not been featured in the magazine in recent years. Only maybe two or at most three, out of fifteen posts at the time I write this, make what would be understood as a “slobbering” comment – and one of them contained also useful information as to the question.
Playboy being a major pop-media outlet, it’s a fair topic for CS as long as the thread is kept clean. And like I said there, if threads about Enterprise that are 50%+ "slobbering"over Hoshi and T’Pol are CS material…
But the thing is, as an example of what this OP sets forth, that thread is a poor one as its contents, as of the time of this OP, were overwhelmingly non-prurient. Which is why ** wring** theorizes that your OP is meant ironically, lissener.
…or in other words, wring sees it as a how you’re giving an example of how silly it sounds like when antigays make a big stinkin’ deal out of gays just being themselves.
I honestly don’t recall any regular and known posters blinking a proverbial eye when a homosexual poster makes reference to an attractive male, celebrity or otherwise. I am open to being proven wrong, however. I can’t see why such a fuss is being made over a harmless thread that may or may not be posted in the wrong forum.
Well, lissener, because of you I went to a thread that I would have just skipped the title and not read without reading your rant. Plus I posted!
You kind of remind me of the people who protested Married With Children. Rather then having the desired effect, it propelled the show to far greater heights. I found nothing worse than some mild locker room talk. No members getting flamed. No toes being stepped on. Actually, a rather dull thread of no great consequence. A thread that you can easily ignore, or walk away from.
Jesus Christ, go Fuck yourself, lissener. Cafe Society is not your personal playground. Welcome to the world of having a choice not to click on threads.
I find tits to be very arty. And I have an Art History degree making me qualified to bullshit convincingly on what Art is.
Nudes have always been art. Sorry if that offends you.
(What a hunk o’ manhood on that David, huh? And I’ve always wondered about those perky breasts on Hindu sculpture - an indication of fertilility via lactation - or did Hindu sculptors just have a thing for perky tits?)
