- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:1000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1540 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
39 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 16895
>The periphery of a Taylor Swift concert is as thought out as the show she presents on stage. Beyond the traditional merchandise stands, there are often dedicated selfie-staging points and staff distributing light-up bracelets. When Swift performed at the Los Angeles Rose Bowl venue on 18 May, fans could watch rehearsal clips at a special kiosk.
>What they didn’t know was that a facial recognition camera inside the structure was taking their photographs and cross-referencing the images with a database held in Nashville of hundreds of Swift’s known stalkers, according to a Rolling Stone report.
Who the fuck would stalk Taylor Swift?
|>>|| No. 16951
Fuckin' hell. So that 'haters gonna hate' song wasn't just 4chan being memetic into the mainstream, it was actually written by a 4channer. That actually makes me feel a bit better about it.
|>>|| No. 16952
What better way to win over a fan base of shut in incels who spend their days spaffing off to her.
Next thing we'll know, Rachel Riley is a regular on .gs.
|>>|| No. 16953
Bit odd that you assumed she wrote (likely more correctly advised her songwriters) the song to appeal to 4channers, rather than just using material from her browsing.
|>>|| No. 16955
That it's odd you'd assume she's still trying to impress 4chan despite her massive success.
|>>|| No. 16956
I just looked up the lyrics and I can't see for the life of me how any of them could possibly connect to 4chan.
|>>|| No. 16957
I like Taylor Swift, lads. Her last album was a stinker and 1989 sounds like everything else now but if you can't enjoy her older country stuff then quite frankly don't have a soul.
|>>|| No. 16958
>quite frankly don't have a soul.
That probably rules two thirds of the site out then.
|>>|| No. 17083
Much of "sexy" was downright illegal in those days, during much of Carry On's original run.
Just like Kenneth Williams's sexuality itself.
|>>|| No. 17089
I've definitely wanked off to Barbara Windsor rolling around with nowt on before.
Mind you that was when I was 13 or so and didn't have a computer to go on the internet with, or it was only dial-up, so it was still more efficient to knock one out to a VHS.
|>>|| No. 17090
I was more of a Doris Day fan. I particularly like the scene where she gets spanked in On Moonlight Bay.
|>>|| No. 17091
I don't think I could resist wanking off whenever I caught a Carry On movie at that age. It's just oozing with an raunchiness you never see in today's industrially produced pornography.
|>>|| No. 17096
I think the main difference is that it's all out in the open now. In the days of Carry On, the raciest it ever got was that you saw an exposed tit for the briefest of moments. There were still very strict rules about what you could show in a movie or on TV. 90 percent of Carry On and similar films was just double entendre and clever camera work.
And then in the early 90s, all of a sudden you had quiz shows with all-nude, horribly out of shape 50something everyman contestants who didn't have a care in the world displaying their wrinkly flabby bits on national TV.
Somehow between those two, the middle ground became lost.
There were some really nicely made softcore porn flicks in the 80s and 90s that deserve mention. Much of the original French Emmanuelle series was tasteful softcore sex that let you have a wank to full nudity here and there but was also about intriguing erotic storytelling.
Decades before every 12-year-old had anal gang bang clips on his smartphone, without a whimper of a clue yet about actual sex.
|>>|| No. 17101
We all seem to be forgetting the amount of tits Monty Python got away with.
|>>|| No. 17102
Are you saying that the kind of lust I grew up with, where things were held by the tension and lure of the unknown just doesn't exist anymore?
Doesn't that make seduction and sexual tension effectively dead?
|>>|| No. 17104
It exists in the real world still, you can still exchanges glances and smiles across a bar and all that, or flirt outrageously with Sandra from the fourth floor and wonder if it's real or just an office thing. Though arguably with tinder and such, we can still make it to bonking much quicker than we used to, but you can still experience a lot of frisson when you meet your chosen slag in real life.
But when it comes to wanking, there's no such thing as tension unless you deliberately look for tease and denial videos. You can access any and all of your desires at a single click, instead of pausing to get a glimpse of Bab's sideboob and focusing intently on that.
When it comes to knocking one out, we live in a world of abundance. There's more porn on this website than I saw in three years of dial-up puberty. There's a tab open right next to this one on my browser with a full length, high definition video of Harmony Rose being tied up and spitroasted, simply because I forgot to close it yesterday. That's the sort of power I could only have dreamed of all those years ago.
|>>|| No. 17106
The guilty woulds thread on /x/ is reassuringly old-fashioned, as is our ongoing obsession with Konnie Huq.
|>>|| No. 17117
>When it comes to knocking one out, we live in a world of abundance. There's more porn on this website than I saw in three years of dial-up puberty.
I'll see your dial-up porn and raise you pre-Internet times where acquiring porn either meant going to the newsagent's or having a friend who had somehow managed to get hold of a third-generation VHS copy of an antiquated y'all American porn movie.
|>>|| No. 17118
I lived through both eras mind, I was wanking before we got internet.
I had playing cards with topless women on it that I bought in a shop from a disapproving looking Spanish woman on holiday.
|>>|| No. 17119
My only memory of non-internet porn were those odd car-and-boob lads mags that always had a surreal comic book story on the last few pages. Unsurprisingly, they were usually about washing cars in white tops.
What's weird is that this would have been in the 2000s, surely they were already redundant.
|>>|| No. 17120
My mate used to regularly get Max Power and FHM magazines. I'm assuming it's because the only computer in his house was in the living room, although he used to also regularly record porn films off Sky on to VHS.
|>>|| No. 17121
Max Power wasn't that bad for car stuff actually. The big killer was the death of the car scene and supermarkets banning "lads mags" because they came with a poster of a girl in a bikini.
It's a bit like saying that Playboy is all about the girls when at least the early years it featured short stories from now classic writers.
|>>|| No. 17122
>the early years it featured short stories from now classic writers
I think my favourite story of a now famous author working for a magazine is Kurt Vonnegut's brief employment at Sports Illustrated.
He reported to work, was asked to write a short piece on a racehorse that had jumped over a fence and tried to run away. Kurt stared at the blank piece of paper all morning and then typed, "The horse jumped over the fucking fence," and walked out, self-employed again.
|>>|| No. 17123
Yeah, as a 15 year old with a computer in my room, I still bought Max Power, not only because tits is still tits however you get them, but because I liked reading about the cars and dreaming of one day owning my own Peugeot 206 with a horrible bodykit, neon underglow, and a PS2 in the boot. I probably did get more out of the articles than the girls, as I'm definitely a Car Guy now.
Back when I was buying it you could still publish topless 16 year olds too, so sometimes the girls were basically my age, too.
|>>|| No. 17124
>He reported to work, was asked to write a short piece on a racehorse that had jumped over a fence and tried to run away. Kurt stared at the blank piece of paper all morning and then typed, "The horse jumped over the fucking fence," and walked out, self-employed again.
You can't fault a man for having principles.
|>>|| No. 17125
Just seems like pride more than anything else. He could well have bashed out a satisfactory piece in an hour or so, got paid, and fucked off home. Seems daft to refuse that even if it's stupid. I could understand if he was there all day at it, but, if anything, he wasted his own time by staring at it. Just write about a fucking horse for a few paragraphs, even I could do that.
My work is skilled and creative too, but if someone wanted me to do the equivalent of burger flipping for a couple of hours a day and would pay me a presumably quite reasonable salary for doing it, I would jump at the chance.
|>>|| No. 17126
What I meant was that if you feel a job just isn't right for you, then it's best to act accordingly and quit.
When I was still studying for my economics degree, I took a student job at an insurance agent's office. I'm not saying that it should be a surprise if they give you all the shit jobs to do during your first few days on a job, any job, especially if you don't yet have your degree.
But what they had me do almost the whole time during my first week was mainly sorting files in the filing room, and opening incoming mail and forwarding it to the fulltime employees. I was basically doing the work of an entirely unskilled office drone. At £7 an hour.
I politely asked them if they didn't have anything more challenging for me to do, like calculate insurance quotes or really do any kind of hands-on stuff that I would well have been capable of after over three years already of studying economics, but they said their student jobs weren't intended for that kind of work. Which made sense I guess, since their other students there were studying things like anthropology or political science.
There was obviously an error of communication when a friend of my parents' had recommended the job to me. I should have been suspicious when there was no real job interview of any sort but they merely said on the phone "Great. When can you start?".
But again, this job was shit, so after a week of doing it, I called them on a Monday morning and said I wasn't going to come in again because the job wasn't what I had in mind for myself.
|>>|| No. 17127
If you have that low of standard don't be surprised if you wake up one day hating your life and career and you never reach your goals. There is value to life and work that can't be measured in pure income, and being picky is beneficial to you in the long term.
|>>|| No. 17128
You both seem to have missed the part where I say I'd do it for a couple of hours a day.
If he was expected to be there 9-5 then fair play, but I'm under the assumption he was being paid for one article.
|>>|| No. 17129
Big Work will have you believe otherwise these days and tell you that you should be thankful for any kind of job at all, in the current climate and whatnot (which they will always tell you is difficult), but it's just their usual way of keeping employees down.
A good work ethic isn't always marked just by doing even the most low-profile and menial jobs well. But also by having aspirations to do better things in life than a shit meaningless job.
|>>|| No. 17130
If you lot really think doing work you find trivial for a short period of time per day is a bad idea then you have your priorities very wrong.
Think of all the free time you'd have.
|>>|| No. 17131
If you're referring to the study I'm thinking of, it wasn't very useful in terms of identifying perpetrators, only victims. It asked who had experienced domestic violence over their lifetime- this could include past heterosexual relationships before a woman came out as lesbian/bi, or an abusive parent at home. It also classified things such as shouting and the silent treatment as abuse. It doesn't surprise me that gay/bi women would have a high number of *victims* as being LGBT and also largely smaller/weaker is not a great combination for avoiding abuse.
As other anon said about stalking, it's very hard to get solid numbers on these things.
|>>|| No. 17132
Nah m8. There's a lot of hand-waving and evasiveness from the usual suspects, but the best available evidence shows that lesbians really do commit more domestic violence than heterosexual men. Multiple studies give similar findings, even when you narrow it down to serious violence within the context of a sexual relationship.
As the son of lesbians, I'd argue that a) the taboo against women hitting women is far weaker than the taboo against men hitting men and b) there ain't no argument like a lesbian argument, 'cos a lesbian argument don't stop. Ever. Seriously, I think my mums once had a row that took up every second of spare time they had for at least five weeks. I once asked a group of my mums' friends if they had ever woken up their partner to resume last night's row, and every one of them said yes. Lesbians love arguing even more than they love narrowboats, Tracy Chapman and half-zip fleeces.
|>>|| No. 17133
>this could include past heterosexual relationships before a woman came out as lesbian/bi, or an abusive parent at home.
You're kind of clutching at straws here though. Given a roundabout percentage of some ten percent of the general population who are or might be gay, somebody coming out as gay/lesbian after an abusive heterosexual relationship where they experienced domestic violence should really only be a statistically insginificant exception.
Where I agree with you is that a study like that always needs to be dissected and picked apart thoroughly, because with domestic and/or sexual violence studies in particular, they tend to be rife with suggestive questioning. Which has to do with who usually commissions these studies. Or in other words, if you pay for a study, then you will probably want that study to confirm your preconceived notions and not shoot holes into your whole reason for being, especially as a charity outfit that targets such things as violence against women.
Hold your horses everybody, I am not saying that violence against women, domestic or otherwise, isn't real. It very much is a problem that exists. It's just that women aren't the only victims of violence, and they can also be the ones committing violent acts against another person. And that fact is often intentionally overlooked IMO.
|>>|| No. 17134
That study was interesting reading. Most importantly, it provided me with plenty of ammunition to troll studenty feminist types who think they've figured out the solution to every problem with the world.
|>>|| No. 17136
>studenty feminist types who think they've figured out the solution to every problem with the world.
The worst kind there is.
|>>|| No. 17137
>If you're referring to the study I'm thinking of
I was thinking about an arrogate of hundreds of studies over the last 50 years. Not all science has been perverted by political agendas just yet.
|>>|| No. 17138
This thread has got really shitty in a real hurry and I sincerely regret my involvement.
|>>|| No. 17140
they photoshopped her face so she looks sillier
r e a l i t y
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]