Do you prefer Bareback Porn?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mem0101 Do you prefer Bareback Porn or do you prefer to see the fucking done with condoms in movies?

I don't think I thought about it until the fall of 2006. I didn't catch anything because I always use condoms; but I had the misfortune of hooking up with a man that insisted we do every position he had ever seen in various pornos. It was at that moment I realized the influence porn has on the average man. I now prefer safe sex on and off screen.

In addition I never liked viewing facials, creampies, or that disgusting thing they do in straight porn where 2 girls swap a guys cum. This Ass to Mouth craze has got to stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jennuine73 I like to see condoms worn during sex but not during blow jobs in movies

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mem0101 I prefer bareback porn. If people are not smart enough to know the difference between a movie and real life, they are not smart enough to protect themselves.

That's just the thing a lot of people think if they do it in a movie they should do it in real life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffery_stelesvyle For everyone that likes bareback porn-

EXACTLY! I agree 110%

Condoms yuck!

Condoms promote promiscuity and "safer sex" delusions of "protection."

Bareback only. If they must show it, show it natural and reproductive.

Let us see the natural beauty of the huge human race naturally expanding.

Don't make it all yucky and perverted and bizarre.

Of course that brings up logical questions of what actors ought to be doing anyway. But why can't they be married already, and somehow work that into the story? If that's not possible, whatever happened to "suggestive" sexual scenes not actually involving penetration? People have no imagination anymore? Anything goes?

emmmmmmmmm YES.

I like to watch Bareback Porn Videos. Nothings hotter than seeing a big cock fill a hole, and then having hot white cum explode out the sides.
What a lovely Fantasy video.
Porn is made for fantasy viewing.

The industry needs to take responsability to protect their actors/actresses for rigorous testing, to make sure that no one is at risk.
More laws and licencing or something to get the point across that it's more than just hooking 2 hot people up and shooting a vid.

Now... for real life, that's obviously not an option, if you choose Life.
I only have anal sex with condoms. There just isn't a choice in the matter.
If he doesnt want it that way, then he needs to find someone else. Period.

Oh yea.... and Straight Porn is by far the worst for condomless fucking.
Almost every straight porn flick i've watched is condomless....
Awfully odd that "Gays" spread the disease of aids, now isn't it?

Attached Images

	Malecorps.jpg (72.0 KB, 46 views)
	FUCKED1.JPG (36.1 KB, 49 views)
	GALL3-1.JPG (18.8 KB, 39 views)
	JH32.JPG (23.9 KB, 39 views)
	SCFD043.JPG (53.5 KB, 40 views)

Just a quick note about porn, I'm also equally disturbed about the "hidden camera" videos taken of guys pissing in a public restroom, having sex, wanking off, etc. etc. Most don't know they're being filmed. That shit just isn't right. If someone did that to me I'd put them UNDER the jailhouse.

Last year I noticed that in gay bareback porn titles the movies are getting much more hard core, like with the multiple creampies, pissing, etc. I hope Chi Chi LaRue, Titan, does have more influence on the whole industry, aside from new regulations.

Either one is O.K.

Bareback? Uh, isn't that really the only real natural sex?

Yes, it is a lot about "fantasy," isn't it. Sex is most erotic, when at least appearing to be natural and reproductive. Thus condoms and porn, are like oil and water, they don't mix, as they contradict. Because so much porn depicts the bizarre and kinky, and not the natural, maybe that's why "amateur" and "educational" are so popular. Rather than "acting," some people may submit their real sexual activities, hopefully with their married mate, and not just a girlfriend. Not so sure that life's most intimate moments should be put on public display as some spectacle, but then that's probably a whole another topic?

It's so much more erotic, when we wonder whether she may have gotten pregnant, right then. That's natural and real, like how sex is supposed to be.

BTW, I hear that porn is a rather dispicable industry, for some of the crazy risk-taking that its natural seems to demand. I just don't agree at all, that it should be so promiscuous, either in story-line, or actual actor relations. Whatever happened to the more virtuous storyline anyway, rather than mindless airhead nonsensical fantasy? Say like they get pregnant, do the right thing and marry, and have still more babies, were they not smart enough to have married first?

Another dirty secret about porn. Some of those massive loads, aren't real, but stuff that was injected into their bladders. Yuck!

Sure, if your videotaping a "How To get Pregnant" or "how to contract a deadly disease" documentary video.

Are we talking about an erotic porno, or an aggressive Rape video?

People look at porn for only a few things.
Mainly to get off. Period.
Secondary is improving technique or trying different things.

That's great if somebody wants to have sex, and have lots of kids to overpopulate the world moreso than it is now.
But were talking about raw, unrated, hot, fucking sex.

What society needs to do, is rid the world of Soap operas, and drive a wedge between fantasy and reality.

Attached Images

	431.jpg (42.5 KB, 38 views)
	963.JPG (17.7 KB, 37 views)
	squirting_206.jpg (96.0 KB, 49 views)
	78.jpg (23.9 KB, 34 views)
	558.JPG (34.3 KB, 34 views)

Sex is most erotic, when naturally reproductive.

Well of course porn would be about how to get pregnant. That is the basic and primal purpose of humans having sex.

Promoting baby-making helps prevent disease, because then people take sex more seriously and don't just have sex with anything that is warm and moves.

Rape isn't sexy but brutal. Sex is supposed to be loving and caring, not merely "animalistic." I would hope we are talking about an erotic porno then. And "animalistic" "hard fucking" is all the more erotic, when they are both getting really into it.

I much advocate populating the planet more densely and vastly with people, so that all the more fellow human beings may enjoy life. Yes, invite the cities and towns to grow bigger and closer together. There's lots of room that can be found or made for lots more people. That way, people may go on enjoying having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive already now. Urbanize the world to whatever extent needed.

You talk of raw, unrated, hot, fucking sex. Don't you realize that that is natural and reproductive? The guy cumming into his wife, that's about planting babies, one of the great beauties of nature.

Enjoy Life??
Get off my fucking planet.
Take you and your breeding Christian Right Clan with you.

Where you gonna get food if you Urbanize the world?

Where are you going to plant crops if you've got toothpick built homes spanning the land?

What about the thousands of homeless teens running amok destroying, stealing, and pillaging the world that we currently have today?

With what money are you going to provide to feed these Millions of people your propogating for?

Are you blind? Don't you already SEE the food and space shortage, among the WASTE OVERFLOWING?
WHat do you think happens when theres NO FOOD or SPACE to LIVE?
DISEASE and FAMINE. Examples - CHINA, AFRICA, TAIWAN

But...then when your "Right" I guess there's no changing a warped mind.

How in the heck do they do that? And the bladder is for urine not for ejaculatory fluid.

As I understand it, they use a catheter to put a synthetic milky fluid in the bladder. The guy urinates for the money shot.

The sheer numbers of people already alive, limits our options in human-beneficial favor of continued natural population growth.

Why don't you get off my planet? Now which view is the more inclusive? The pronatalist view, or the anti-natalist view? What makes you any more valuable than these babies coming to life? Doesn't God see us, as much all the same? All equally valuable and precious.

It's not just Christians who are breeding, but somewhere I heard that only 7% of the world's huge population lives in countries that are not growing. Most all major religions that last for any time, all tend to encourage large and "unplanned" family sizes. Not only is it good for "growing the flock," but also great for the greater good in promoting the natural enlargement of the entire human race, that our powerful reproductive urges and many compelling reasons for having as many children as we do, naturally calls for. Now what are you going to do about that? Just sweep it under the rug, as if the magical unnatural contraceptives, that quite many people still naturally and wisely shun, can just magically erase all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do?

I say let's be fair, just welcome everybody to breed naturally. There's no "picking and choosing" to such things. Besides, if there was to be any human population "control" imposed, who could be trusted to do the "controlling" other than God, who has made it clear that we should go on multiplying.

Have you no imagination? You can't even imagine growing food on rooftops, in "parking garage" warrens, in synthetic food factories, having underground cities, or even that cities and towns aren't likely to really get that much bigger within the forseeable future?

As I see it, the only real "penalty" that nature can enforce against people for supposedly reproducing "too much," is that on a finite planet, human bodies are going to get closer together. I see no need for imposing any additional penalties. If people like reproducing so much, sure they can learn to and adapt to, live and breed in closer proximity to other people, on the global scale at least. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people, so that all our wonderous progeny can somehow fit onto a planet that isn't getting any bigger, as they say, well into the forseeable future. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more.

Food production has been getting so much more efficient, that it appears increasingly that humans face a seemingly "unlimited" food supply as we head into the future, and one "overpopulation" theory suggest that "too much" food fuels "wild" population growth, at least in the animal kingdom. You would think they could make up their minds which to worry us about. Too little, or too much food? You would think that in the deluded minds of the scare tactic worrywarts, that one problem might cancel the other out, once in a while?

Where did I once advocate such immoral behavior? I advocate stable families and marriages. I don't advocate that people be homeless at all. Build more housing to house all the people, which creates jobs anyway. Economies should serve the populous masses, not only the greedy corporations or the rich elite few.

So either you have no concept of what money is, or you are blinded by globalist socialist thinking? Money merely represents human labor. More people = more potential labor and more people needing jobs anyway. People are not mere stupid wild animals. People grow up to become at least somewhat self-sufficient, capable of producing their own wealth or food. They can build or buy their own homes and food, unlike our pets, which I advocate an entirely different standard for, usually getting them fixed, because they can't adapt to rising population size as humans can.

As the empty fields where people in poor developing countries where people could go to defecate in, become filled in with human housing as far as the eye can see, the obvious? answer isn't condoms to rob the people of their precious wondrous children, but the indoor flush toilet.

When I was a kid, I did live in the countryside, and quickly got used to the smells of the farmer's manure that they spread. People may think it's just a natural smell. Yeah, it's natural enough, and while it stinks, it's also fragrant in a way, a bit like perfume. At least a lot easier to tolerate than unnatural smells like that of harsh chemicals. Yeah, it's the smell of the countryside, but also the smell of expanding human population. For we must needs produce enough food to feed everybody, right? But even that smells better than the natural forest fires that might rage across the land every now and then, if people didn't clear and thin the land for our many needs.

There's no shortage of food, at least for people who can afford to buy it, when their local crops fail in the fickle weather.

And space shortages have quite a lot more to do with a few rich people hoarding much of the land, and corrupt "laws" that deny poor people clear title to their land, than with actual sheer population numbers.

All those places you list have plenty of space for lots more people.

The Biblical example of how to accomodate our natural population increase, is to spread out, like Abraham and Lot's growing tribes choose to do, as they noticed that they were getting bigger and squeezing together, so as to not have to compete for wells and grazing of their animals. But presumably on a "finite" sphere of a planet, there's only but so far people can spread out, before they run into themselves again. So how to accomodate more people as the frontiers finally start fading away? Simple. As I see it, there's actually 3 perceptional dimensions that people can still naturally multiply into. Outwards, inwards, and upwards. Outwards means build more and bigger cities. Welcome suburbs on top of suburbs. As the cities get more people, and have more people naturally reproducing within them, they must have some place to expand human habitat into. Urban sprawl would seem the obvious answer. Bigger and more cities and towns, welcomed to grow naturally closer together. Inwards means infilling underutilized space. Building more roads and streets within cities. High-density housing. People can even be stacked Upwards into highrises, if or as it comes to that, or in the most desirable areas where most everybody wants to live.

Why do you think I am such a proponent of letting not only human populations grow naturally, but letting population density rise naturally as well? Because it's the obvious way of how more and more people can fit into a planet that isn't growing as the human race is. By letting human bodies live and breed in closer proximity to one another, more people can fit, and the planet can hold lots more people, far more than the demographers even dare predict that there anytime soon could possibly be.

Now if only more people would dare to "think outside the box," just think what marvels might be found.

There doesn't have to be disease and famine. Why not people do that which they do almost the best? ADAPT to what apparently must be. People are already accused of adapting "too well" to their environment, such that not only do we appear capable of living most "anywhere" but also "everywhere" as well?

And that "bareback" porn seems so popular with most everybody, helps to prove my points. The natural human urge to reproduce, may be a bit more primal and impossible to long resist, than we sometimes like to admit?