DC Tom Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 It didn't sound weird then?? They were called "stag films." Of course, you have to be about 90 years old for that not to see weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 yeah it sounds weird now. But that's what we would to. Guys let's go rent a porno. We would go get burgers and a porno. Burgers! I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clippers of Nfl Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 It didn't sound weird then?? No. Not at all. Most of the times we had parties/clubs. But when we had nothing to do, we would rent movies. Keep in mind in the 90's people still rented movies. There were no red boxes or netflixes. Sometimes we would get new releases. sometimes we would rent porn. Also keep in mind that we would laugh a lot during the porn. Porn can be very funny actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I bet Clippers was the one on the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I remember going with my friends to Syracuse to see Springsteen. When we got to the hotel (this was '92), it was at a time that we could order Basic Instinct that was about to start.............We watched that super hot beginning and then went to the concert. When I brought my girlfriend for the Stones a year or two later, I told her about that - and she's like - Why, what the hell are you guys going to do for each other after getting worked up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 I remember going with my friends to Syracuse to see Springsteen. When we got to the hotel (this was '92), it was at a time that we could order Basic Instinct that was about to start.............We watched that super hot beginning and then went to the concert. When I brought my girlfriend for the Stones a year or two later, I told her about that - and she's like - Why, what the hell are you guys going to do for each other after getting worked up? Ahhhh the beauty of getting married at such a young age. I was 20 when I moved in with my wife. We'd go to the porn theaters together. Yes no porn rentals at that time and we didn't have a VCR anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Ahhhh the beauty of getting married at such a young age. I was 20 when I moved in with my wife. We'd go to the porn theaters together. Yes no porn rentals at that time and we didn't have a VCR anyway. Went to a porn drive-in as a teen. The Aust. I think it was in South Glens Falls. Never been to another porn theater, inside or out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 Went to a porn drive-in as a teen. The Aust. I think it was in South Glens Falls. Never been to another porn theater, inside or out. Yeah we did the drive in thing too. And one or two indoor theaters. We were living in Miami. I was 20 she was 27 porn was the last thing we needed to get us going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 My high school friends would watch 2 hour porns in our days. Was a little weird with like 4-6 guys with all hard ons. But so what. That's what we would do. It was kind of fun too. We would make fun of the ugly or fat or weird. Any chance your name is Tobias? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) Went to a porn drive-in as a teen. The Aust. I think it was in South Glens Falls. Never been to another porn theater, inside or out. This thread has turned weird, even by my standards... Way too much info Clip! Anyway, a guy @ work said there used to be a X-rated drive out this way... In Indiana near Crown Point... Figures. I thought he was joking. My 80 year old grand uncle was a freak... Granted this was in the late 1970's. We had cable in S.Cheektowaga, he lived out in Eden and didn't have cable. They would make the trek and visit us; and in an instant he arrived he would be downstairs tuning into The Playboy Channel... LMAO My grand aunt and uncle weren't too shy about telling all... According to my aunt, he was a freak right up until the moment he died (no pun intended). LoL Boy, did he miss an era by about 30-40 years... He'd be in heaven today, may have prolonged his life. /devil Ha! Edited August 21, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Are we to interpret this as saying that viewing kiddie porn isn't hurting anyone? More to draw a distinction between the culpability of a guy who views pics he doesn't pay for and that of a guy who actually produces them. I'm not suggesting we should decriminalize possession of child porn, if that's what you're asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 More to draw a distinction between the culpability of a guy who views pics he doesn't pay for and that of a guy who actually produces them. I'm not suggesting we should decriminalize possession of child porn, if that's what you're asking. Gotcha. From what I understand, though, it's incredibly difficult to acquire child porn for free, unless you're in one of "those" circles that're probably doing more than just watching kiddie porn. Kiddie porn gets scrubbed from the surface web pretty quickly, so it typically isn't as simple as right click/save as. The mentality I approach it with is that pretty much everyone who possesses child porn has contributed some amount of money to those who produce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 More to draw a distinction between the culpability of a guy who views pics he doesn't pay for and that of a guy who actually produces them. I'm not suggesting we should decriminalize possession of child porn, if that's what you're asking. In my mind the viewer is just, if not more, culpable. If there was no market there would be no product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 In my mind the viewer is just, if not more, culpable. If there was no market there would be no product. Bingo. They are all the same level of scum ... which is pure. Pure scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 (edited) In my mind the viewer is just, if not more, culpable. If there was no market there would be no product. That's why I threw in the line about those who don't pay for it. Even still, I think the purchaser is less culpable than the producer just as the drug cartel kingpin is more culpable for the death and destruction inherent in the business than the guy buying an 8 ball to party over the weekend. Sure, the guy is partially helping to find the cartel, but his individual contribution isn't likely going to be the difference in whether the cartel will mow down rival competitors causing collateral casualties as a result. Again, I'm not condoning either, just pointing out that one is a lot worse than the other. It's a distinction recognized by law. Bingo. They are all the same level of scum ... which is pure. Pure scum. I agree that they are scum once they decide to satisfy their desires at the expense of a child, but they don't choose to have those desires anymore than gay dudes choose to desire rooster. Edited August 21, 2015 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 That's why I threw in the line about those who don't pay for it. Even still, I think the purchaser is less culpable than the producer just as the drug cartel kingpin is more culpable for the death and destruction inherent in the business than the guy buying an 8 ball to party over the weekend. Sure, the guy is partially helping to find the cartel, but his individual contribution isn't likely going to be the difference in whether the cartel will mow down rival competitors causing collateral casualties as a result. Again, I'm not condoning either, just pointing out that one is a lot worse than the other. It's a distinction recognized by law. I agree that they are scum once they decide to satisfy their desires at the expense of a child, but they don't choose to have those desires anymore than gay dudes choose to desire rooster. Boo !@#$ing hoo. When a gay dude desires an underage penis, this comparison would be relevant. I don't give a schit if pining for children is a sickness, or not. If one has said sickness, then one should be locked up forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Boo !@#$ing hoo. When a gay dude desires an underage penis, this comparison would be relevant. I don't give a schit if pining for children is a sickness, or not. If one has said sickness, then one should be locked up forever. I don't necessarily disagree with you entirely, but I suspect it's for an entirely different reason. I would support it purely for the purpose of protecting children, not to punish someone for something they have no control over. I'd prefer a less restrictive monitoring system if it could be implemented in such a way as to effectively protect children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I don't necessarily disagree with you entirely, but I suspect it's for an entirely different reason. I would support it purely for the purpose of protecting children, not to punish someone for something they have no control over. I'd prefer a less restrictive monitoring system if it could be implemented in such a way as to effectively protect children. I wouldn't consider keeping someone who can't stop wanting to have sex with children away from society a punishment for that person; I'd consider it protecting children. But I get what you're saying. However - back to your comparison - ... just like there is no "cure" for homosexuality, I don't believe there's a "cure" for pedophilia. It's simply who they are. The big difference, of course, is that homosexuality isn't harmful to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I wouldn't consider keeping someone who can't stop wanting to have sex with children away from society a punishment for that person; I'd consider it protecting children. But I get what you're saying. However - back to your comparison - ... just like there is no "cure" for homosexuality, I don't believe there's a "cure" for pedophilia. It's simply who they are. The big difference, of course, is that homosexuality isn't harmful to anyone. I agree with that completely. The science behind this has actually come a long way. There are methods they use to track the physiological response to images of children to determine the level to which one is hard wired toward pedophilia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 I agree with that completely. The science behind this has actually come a long way. There are methods they use to track the physiological response to images of children to determine the level to which one is hard wired toward pedophilia. Is that how priests are recruited? (just lightening things up a tad) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts