HOT + SEXY + nsfw(women only as per OP)

[greenoaks]

Post pics, comment on pics or get the hell out of the thread

[Robinette]

The Emperor's New Clothes

Do you mean like, "the White Elephant in the Room" ?

Click image to enlarge.

Great use of the [bigimg] function

Did you all really miss the joke on this one?


You just need to click on the picture to understand.
Or do i need to post this as a standard image?

[Dukasaur]

4) ...you managed to reach your keyboard, in your final moments before collapsing from sheer exhaustion, to tap out that you had identified several flaws in my post, and to tease us with the promise of identifying them later.

It does happen. Writing is considerably easier than reading, just as eating is considerably easier than cooking. It is entirely plausible that someone can read something and have an intelligent opinion about it and yet not the remaining fortitude to turn that opinion into comprehensible prose.

And you're right, if I didn't have the fortitude to answer properly I probably should have said nothing at all (which would be what I'd normally do) but for some reason the "post of the year" comment annoyed me. I can't reproduce my annoyance now, so it probably was a function of the fatigue already cited...

P.S. On an unrelated note, I corrected a few spelling errors in your post. Not everyone is comfortable with me doing that, but as you said, your post came at a point of absolute mental exhaustion.

Good job...

So let's be absolutely clear, we both know what this thread is for.
(...)

I hope I'm being direct enough here, and that we're pretty much on the same page.

No more pretending that when I called KoolBack a "Master Baiter" that I wasn't referring to masturbation, or indeed when I suggested that posters were here to "mass debate" that I wasn't making a joke about that too. Let's be clear- this isn't a thread for appreciating feminine beauty, or about figuring out where women turn up in various degrees of ranking. It's about titillation and sexy kicks.

I can't speak for KoolBack or anyone else, but I can honestly tell you that I have never masturbated while reading any part of the CC forums. Never was even tempted. Admittedly that might be because I'm getting old and my testosterone levels are not what they used to be. I suppose if I was 17 and looking at these images it might be a different story. But then, a 17 year old can ejaculate by staring at a knothole in a cedar plank, so that too doesn't prove much.

So let me level with the people on this thread absolutely and with no ambiguity. I think it's pretty clear that this a thread for a bunch of guys to get sexual kicks. That's what it's for. It's not for aesthetic appreciation of women.

I'm not sure if you (or I, or anyone else) are qualified to judge where to draw the line between those two.

Our sense of aesthetics is driven by our basic animal instincts. A fresh strawberry looks lovely because it is edible. There is no inherent reason why a can of boot polish should be less attractive than a strawberry. The only reason we don't "ooh!" when we see a can of boot polish is that it doesn't correspond to anything we like to eat.

Similarly we see a woman as beautiful because, at the most basic instinctive level, we want to copulate with her. There's no objective, independent reason why a human female should be judged more beautiful than a female squid, or for that matter a male armadillo. There's no abstract, independent formula by which you could say that the curve of a woman's buttock is superior to the curve of a male armadillo's buttock. It's purely subjective, and that subjectivity is rooted in our instinct to pursue and investigate that buttock.

So, if you want to make accusation of us seeking imagery for sexual titillation, well, that kind of accusation is easy to make because it's to a large degree quite true, and yet, it contributes nothing to our understanding. You could make the point that the classic Coca-Cola bottle was chosen because it vaguely reminds us of a buxom woman's body, and again, you'd probably be right, but what are you really proving by it?

We are all (and I do mean all -- even though we are primarily talking about heterosexual men, I think the same impulses are found in a weaker form among women and homosexual men) to some degree attracted to the image of a fertile-looking woman, but there are lines drawn between the "normal" level of titilation and the "pornographic." These lines are highly subjective and vary strongly with culture, but they do exist. The typical respectably-dressed businesswoman in our culture would probably be considered a harlot if she was transported into 17th century England, or even 20th century Saudi Arabia.

Arguing that someone can get turned on by image #___ on page #___ of this thread is, even if true, a dishonest attempt at misdirection. Depending on one's personal tastes and preferences, the list of images we can get turned on by is pretty long and pretty variable.

No matter where you draw the line someone will argue that it's too conservative or too liberal. I think the makers of this website have done a decent job of drawing the line at a point that a majority of users can agree with. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble and repeat myself, but to get back to the original point:
Your statement that "it's pretty clear that this a thread for a bunch of guys to get sexual kicks ... not for aesthetic appreciation of women." assumes a false distinction that doesn't exist. Our aesthetic sense is rooted in basic instincts for things we can eat, places we can live, and women we can impregnate.

This thread went way off topic a long time ago, and it maintains its popularity by a kind of blind eye turned towards the OP and the general guidelines of the forum. Indeed, my posts seem to have actually required a moderator to change the title specifically to allow this thread to solely be about posting nudey pics of women. Guys in swimming trunks being completely off topic, and indeed, so offensive that I was reported.

So let's be absolutely clear, we both know what this thread is for. No more beating around the bush (and I'm aware that might have sexual connotations, but I mean it in its more general sense), this is a thread for people to get sexually aroused by pictures of sexy women. We both know that there is no other way I could be accused of ruining this thread, as I have frequently been, without that being the case. Without that, there would be no complaints, no reports, no accusations.

Almost everywhere I've worked (admittedly in very male-dominated proletarian situations) the first order of business each day was for someone to bring in a copy of the Toronto Sun and for everyone to gather around and examine the Sunshine Girl. I'm told the Sunshine Girl is an idea directly stolen from your London Sun, so you're no doubt familiar with it. The only difference is that your British Sunshine Girl is topless and ours has to have a token covering up top as well as on the bottom (an illustration of the nuances of the line-drawing game being played differently in different places.)

Incidentally, I've never seen anyone looking at the Sunshine Girl and rushing off to a dark corner to relieve their pressure. It's just something to put a smile on their face while they set about their dull, dreary tasks of earning their daily bread.

The interesting part about all this is the various maneuverings of the Sunshine Girl over the years. The original 70's Sunshine Girl was on Page Three just like yours. In the early 80's, demand for equal time resulted in the addition of a Sunshine Boy. But since the Girl had a firm grip on Page Three, the Boy usually languished somewhere around Page Fifty. This led to further cries of favoritism, so various attempts were made during the 90s to put them on an equal footing -- first close to the front, and then close to the back. But putting the Girl and Boy on an equal footing, whether on Page 4+5 or on page 54+55, led to worse outcries than ever before. People of all genders and all sexual preferences didn't want their ideal beauty "contaminated" by the presence of their non-ideal beauty. Today they both languish somewhere in the second half of the tabloid, but on widely separated pages, so that someone looking for the Girl cannot be horrified by an accidental viewing of the Boy, and vice-versa.

That's just the way it is, in papers with a circulation of millions, just as much as in a forum with perhaps 20 regular readers. I think you know that, which is why your outrage doesn't follow. Nothing you have said hasn't been said a thousand times in Letters to the Editor of the Sun. Let Girl watchers have some girls, let Boy watchers have some boys, and don't assume the mantle of holiness and try to force a commingling, or try to make those who want an unsullied Girl seem somehow perverse.

[mgconstruction]

Ah the power of the foe button works wonders

Click image to enlarge.

[Sackett58]

Happy Father's Day. Live long and prosper.

[greenoaks]

here's some more of Bianca

[Army of GOD]

I have never masturbated while reading any part of the CC forums. Never was even tempted.

You, sir, are missing out. I get a hard-on every time I fucking read one of Serbia's posts.

[Symmetry]

Sym, i realize you're trolling. The existence of this thread is baffling to me too when the internet isn't exactly lacking pictures of people/animals/inanimate objects in various states of dress and undress. I suppose this way people can claim they aren't "looking for" such pictures, they just happened to somehow click on this thread ...

However:

You and I both know that you're being a bit of a dick by claiming that she isn't nude.

Are you actually trying to make the rules harsher?
If a woman was completely nude and i posted a picture of just her upperback and neck, that picture should supposedly be banned, cause she's really nude according to you?
Are the offending pictures worse than one of those ridiculous string bikinis? That wouldn't be "nude" right?

The intention of the rules is clear, avoid showing nipples, genitals etc.
Yes, it's an arbitrary line in the sand, but, as with a lot of things, a line in the sand needs to be drawn somewhere.
I don't see how MDF is being a dick by sticking to the intention of the rule and not the way it is written. Actually, if all the mods would think about what the intention of a rule/punishment is, and not just quoting "Thems the rules" I think this site would be a much better place.

Honestly, no I don't want the rules to be harsher. I was being a bit of a dick towards Hannibal with that line and I've sent him an apology which I hope he accepts, but I do think the rules should be clearer and less ambiguous. My quarrel was more with the rules and inconsistent application of moderation. MeDeFe was being a dick IMHO, because he openly lied to me. Now if he'd just said, yeah- it's nudity, and the rules are a bit vague, but the intention is pretty clear that it's primarily there to stop people posting pornography, then I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Instead he doubled down and said that not wearing clothes doesn't make you nude. I'll confess that that pissed me off.

It might seem harsh to call that lying, but I genuinely consider it the lesser of two evils. The other being that MeDeFe is genuinely operating under the illusion that nudity isn't what the majority of people accept it to be. I don't think he's an idiot, so I don't think that's the case. I think he too felt annoyed by my posts and doubled down by saying something patently unreasonable.

and I think that picking the #1 female of 2007 by virtue of Hot/Sexy/NSFW pics is pretty offensive.

Why would it ever be offensive? Because he called it "#1 female of 2007" instead of ""#1 hottest female of 2007" when the later was clearly the intention?

If you really need to change the rules to make this thread viable, then maybe you should consider asking the other mods if this kind of thread was really what the rules were set up to allow.

I don't think you really explained why this kind of thread shouldn't be allowed. Because it offends you?

You make a fair point, but it should also be noted that a large number of posters on this thread have made exactly the same argument in defence of me not being allowed to post picture of guys in swimming trunks. I think I would be perfectly happy if we could all just post hot sexy and nsfw pics in the hot sexy and nsfw thread.

[Symmetry]

4) ...you managed to reach your keyboard, in your final moments before collapsing from sheer exhaustion, to tap out that you had identified several flaws in my post, and to tease us with the promise of identifying them later.

It does happen. Writing is considerably easier than reading, just as eating is considerably easier than cooking. It is entirely plausible that someone can read something and have an intelligent opinion about it and yet not the remaining fortitude to turn that opinion into comprehensible prose.

And you're right, if I didn't have the fortitude to answer properly I probably should have said nothing at all (which would be what I'd normally do) but for some reason the "post of the year" comment annoyed me. I can't reproduce my annoyance now, so it probably was a function of the fatigue already cited...

Thanks for the response, I don't think you're the only one to be annoyed by another poster on this thread, and I should say that I found it fairly annoying that you simply posted that my post was full of non-sequiturs and false assumptions, but didn't address any of them. It's pretty annoying when someone just types "You're wrong" and doesn't explain. To be honest, I'm not sure you've really explained any of those non-sequiturs and false assumptions that you accused me of in the paragraphs below, bar perhaps one.

P.S. On an unrelated note, I corrected a few spelling errors in your post. Not everyone is comfortable with me doing that, but as you said, your post came at a point of absolute mental exhaustion.

Good job...

So let's be absolutely clear, we both know what this thread is for.
(...)

I hope I'm being direct enough here, and that we're pretty much on the same page.

No more pretending that when I called KoolBack a "Master Baiter" that I wasn't referring to masturbation, or indeed when I suggested that posters were here to "mass debate" that I wasn't making a joke about that too. Let's be clear- this isn't a thread for appreciating feminine beauty, or about figuring out where women turn up in various degrees of ranking. It's about titillation and sexy kicks.

I can't speak for KoolBack or anyone else, but I can honestly tell you that I have never masturbated while reading any part of the CC forums. Never was even tempted. Admittedly that might be because I'm getting old and my testosterone levels are not what they used to be. I suppose if I was 17 and looking at these images it might be a different story. But then, a 17 year old can ejaculate by staring at a knothole in a cedar plank, so that too doesn't prove much.

This would be the false assumption that I think you're referring too. It was much more of a joke than anything else, and while irony is tough to read sometimes on the internet, I think it should be taken as such.

So let me level with the people on this thread absolutely and with no ambiguity. I think it's pretty clear that this a thread for a bunch of guys to get sexual kicks. That's what it's for. It's not for aesthetic appreciation of women.

I'm not sure if you (or I, or anyone else) are qualified to judge where to draw the line between those two.

Our sense of aesthetics is driven by our basic animal instincts. A fresh strawberry looks lovely because it is edible. There is no inherent reason why a can of boot polish should be less attractive than a strawberry. The only reason we don't "ooh!" when we see a can of boot polish is that it doesn't correspond to anything we like to eat.

Similarly we see a woman as beautiful because, at the most basic instinctive level, we want to copulate with her. There's no objective, independent reason why a human female should be judged more beautiful than a female squid, or for that matter a male armadillo. There's no abstract, independent formula by which you could say that the curve of a woman's buttock is superior to the curve of a male armadillo's buttock. It's purely subjective, and that subjectivity is rooted in our instinct to pursue and investigate that buttock.

So, if you want to make accusation of us seeking imagery for sexual titillation, well, that kind of accusation is easy to make because it's to a large degree quite true, and yet, it contributes nothing to our understanding. You could make the point that the classic Coca-Cola bottle was chosen because it vaguely reminds us of a buxom woman's body, and again, you'd probably be right, but what are you really proving by it?

We are all (and I do mean all -- even though we are primarily talking about heterosexual men, I think the same impulses are found in a weaker form among women and homosexual men) to some degree attracted to the image of a fertile-looking woman, but there are lines drawn between the "normal" level of titilation and the "pornographic." These lines are highly subjective and vary strongly with culture, but they do exist. The typical respectably-dressed businesswoman in our culture would probably be considered a harlot if she was transported into 17th century England, or even 20th century Saudi Arabia.

Arguing that someone can get turned on by image #___ on page #___ of this thread is, even if true, a dishonest attempt at misdirection. Depending on one's personal tastes and preferences, the list of images we can get turned on by is pretty long and pretty variable.

No matter where you draw the line someone will argue that it's too conservative or too liberal. I think the makers of this website have done a decent job of drawing the line at a point that a majority of users can agree with. Anyway, I'm starting to ramble and repeat myself, but to get back to the original point:
Your statement that "it's pretty clear that this a thread for a bunch of guys to get sexual kicks ... not for aesthetic appreciation of women." assumes a false distinction that doesn't exist. Our aesthetic sense is rooted in basic instincts for things we can eat, places we can live, and women we can impregnate.

This thread went way off topic a long time ago, and it maintains its popularity by a kind of blind eye turned towards the OP and the general guidelines of the forum. Indeed, my posts seem to have actually required a moderator to change the title specifically to allow this thread to solely be about posting nudey pics of women. Guys in swimming trunks being completely off topic, and indeed, so offensive that I was reported.

So let's be absolutely clear, we both know what this thread is for. No more beating around the bush (and I'm aware that might have sexual connotations, but I mean it in its more general sense), this is a thread for people to get sexually aroused by pictures of sexy women. We both know that there is no other way I could be accused of ruining this thread, as I have frequently been, without that being the case. Without that, there would be no complaints, no reports, no accusations.

Almost everywhere I've worked (admittedly in very male-dominated proletarian situations) the first order of business each day was for someone to bring in a copy of the Toronto Sun and for everyone to gather around and examine the Sunshine Girl. I'm told the Sunshine Girl is an idea directly stolen from your London Sun, so you're no doubt familiar with it. The only difference is that your British Sunshine Girl is topless and ours has to have a token covering up top as well as on the bottom (an illustration of the nuances of the line-drawing game being played differently in different places.)

Incidentally, I've never seen anyone looking at the Sunshine Girl and rushing off to a dark corner to relieve their pressure. It's just something to put a smile on their face while they set about their dull, dreary tasks of earning their daily bread.

The interesting part about all this is the various maneuverings of the Sunshine Girl over the years. The original 70's Sunshine Girl was on Page Three just like yours. In the early 80's, demand for equal time resulted in the addition of a Sunshine Boy. But since the Girl had a firm grip on Page Three, the Boy usually languished somewhere around Page Fifty. This led to further cries of favoritism, so various attempts were made during the 90s to put them on an equal footing -- first close to the front, and then close to the back. But putting the Girl and Boy on an equal footing, whether on Page 4+5 or on page 54+55, led to worse outcries than ever before. People of all genders and all sexual preferences didn't want their ideal beauty "contaminated" by the presence of their non-ideal beauty. Today they both languish somewhere in the second half of the tabloid, but on widely separated pages, so that someone looking for the Girl cannot be horrified by an accidental viewing of the Boy, and vice-versa.

That's just the way it is, in papers with a circulation of millions, just as much as in a forum with perhaps 20 regular readers. I think you know that, which is why your outrage doesn't follow. Nothing you have said hasn't been said a thousand times in Letters to the Editor of the Sun. Let Girl watchers have some girls, let Boy watchers have some boys, and don't assume the mantle of holiness and try to force a commingling, or try to make those who want an unsullied Girl seem somehow perverse.

This last section I can largely agree with, and I'm not entirely sure how it disagrees with my post unless you genuinely believe that my post was about masturbation. We basically seem to agree that this thread is for sexual titillation on the most part and you seem as bemused as I am by the reactions of those who are outraged at seeing a guy when they wanted to see a girl.

If it's any consolation, I'm not hugely susceptible to nationalistic arguments though, so the fact that the Sun publishes pictures of topless women in the UK kind of washes right over me as an argument. I'm genuinely not sure how I should respond to that line of thought. Do you want me to defend the paper that you refer to as "your London Sun"? Or should I be reacting defensively to defend the honour of the page three topless photos you refer to as "your British Sunshine girl"?

Honestly it makes you sound like you don't like British people very much and lump us all into the same category.

[Symmetry]

Oh and as a heads up. I think it only fair to say that I've agreed not to post in this thread anymore, except in response to other posters.

This post is kind of a paradox as such, as it isn't in response to other posters, but this will be my last unsolicited post. I'll happily continue discussing the wider issues if people see fit to respond, but that's it.

So basically, if you ignore me I'll go away. For many that's fairly easy as I seem to have earned a few foe listings with this thread, mostly from posters who rarely have anything to say anyway.

For what it's worth, I am sorry for letting myself take things a bit far in this thread. Things kind of escalated and I got annoyed. I'm usually a fairly level-headed poster, so I thought it might be a good idea to let you know that I won't be posting unless you address me or one of my posts.

That's my compromise for the sake of a more peaceful forum and the rights of those posters who just want to see nudey pics of ladies without fear of seeing a dude in tight underwear and for whatever purposes they see fit.

[jonesthecurl]

What a waste of page 300.
Where's the boobies?

[notyou2]

What a waste of page 300.
Where's the boobies?

Busy posting.

[Robinette]

Ok... now we're getting somewhere...



just kidding...

[Symmetry]

Ok... now we're getting somewhere...



just kidding...

Urgh, look, you put me in a difficult position. Was that directed at me? It wouldn't be unreasonable of me to suspect that it was, right? I would kind of be justified in posting a response unless you were calling another poster an asshole.

You put me in a strange position. You seem to be responding to my posts, which would allow me to post an appropriate response. On the other hand, you don't directly refer to me, so I'm breaking my own rules by responding if it turns out you were referring to another poster.

For the moment I'll consider this a grey area until either you respond to this post and say that it was or wasn't about me, in which case I'll reply appropriately, or you fail to respond- essentially admitting that this was a post about me, in which case I will reply.

Just kidding

show

[Dukasaur]

Thanks for the response, I don't think you're the only one to be annoyed by another poster on this thread, and I should say that I found it fairly annoying that you simply posted that my post was full of non-sequiturs and false assumptions, but didn't address any of them. It's pretty annoying when someone just types "You're wrong" and doesn't explain.

Yes, it is. My apologies. I don't make a habit of it.

Let's be clear- this isn't a thread for appreciating feminine beauty, or about figuring out where women turn up in various degrees of ranking. It's about titillation and sexy kicks.

I can't speak for KoolBack or anyone else, but I can honestly tell you that I have never masturbated while reading any part of the CC forums. Never was even tempted. Admittedly that might be because I'm getting old and my testosterone levels are not what they used to be. I suppose if I was 17 and looking at these images it might be a different story. But then, a 17 year old can ejaculate by staring at a knothole in a cedar plank, so that too doesn't prove much.

This would be the false assumption that I think you're referring too. It was much more of a joke than anything else, and while irony is tough to read sometimes on the internet, I think it should be taken as such.

It may have been partially a joke, but I think you were at least partially serious. It's certainly consistent with the rest of what you're saying.

(...excise long quote. If I couldn't make myself understood after all that, then I'm probably not going to improve anything by repeating it all...)

Basically to paraphrase your recent arguments, you've been arguing that our desire to look at pretty women and not pretty men makes us hypocrites, and that if we're not willing to give men and women equal time that proves that this is just a pornographic thread for getting off on looking at the women. (Which in turn is why I think you were at least partially serious with your comments about readers masturbating.)

My response to that is that while appreciation of the female form is rooted in sexuality, and if you're not going to draw a line between that which merely brings a smile to a man's face and that which brings an erection to his loins then you're losing any point you might be trying to make.

To make a non-sexual analogy: If I wish to make some statements about "moving objects" and you jump in and say, "but ALL objects are moving objects, since they are all sitting on planet Earth which is itself always moving" then yes, you are in the strict sense telling the truth, but you are at the same time doing truth a disservice. You are making the whole category "moving objects" useless by redefining it.

If you argue that all images of women are pornographic because all our appreciation of women is rooted in our sexual need for them, you are making the whole category of pornography useless, and all discussion of it irrelevant.

That's just the way it is, in papers with a circulation of millions, just as much as in a forum with perhaps 20 regular readers. I think you know that, which is why your outrage doesn't follow. Nothing you have said hasn't been said a thousand times in Letters to the Editor of the Sun. Let Girl watchers have some girls, let Boy watchers have some boys, and don't assume the mantle of holiness and try to force a commingling, or try to make those who want an unsullied Girl seem somehow perverse.

If it's any consolation, I'm not hugely susceptible to nationalistic arguments though, so the fact that the Sun publishes pictures of topless women in the UK kind of washes right over me as an argument. I'm genuinely not sure how I should respond to that line of thought. Do you want me to defend the paper that you refer to as "your London Sun"? Or should I be reacting defensively to defend the honour of the page three topless photos you refer to as "your British Sunshine girl"?

You don't need to defend either, since neither was under attack. I brought up the subject for two reasons, neither of which was offensive in nature. The first was just, since I was talking about a paper which you've probably never seen, to link it to a paper that you probably have seen, to make the image more tangible. The second was to point out that there are fine nuances in where distinctions are drawn. I wasn't interested in saying that one definition is right and another wrong, only that they are drawn differently even in very similar circumstances.

Honestly it makes you sound like you don't like British people very much and lump us all into the same category.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I love British people, especially Eric Idle...

In all seriousness, I have fun teasing the British, but it is good-natured teasing with no malice.