SITE POLL –-- Intravenous Drug Use in Self-Published Porn Torrents
-
I think it should remain banned. For me, it's a simple question of legality. I'm not in support of the gaytorrent team making moral judgements on our behalf – but I do encourage them to make the most sound legal judgements they can for themselves. Bottom line -- if the video depicts illegal behavior of any type, it shouldn't be allowed (based on the laws of the country governing gaytorrent.ru). Drug use, beastiality, incest, REAL rape ... these and so many other things are already forbidden and should remain so. If a line needs to be drawn (and it DOES) then let it be dictated by the law.
Call me selfish if you must, but I happen to enjoy gaytorrent.ru and I'd hate for it to get in trouble or even hassled because of the content it features. The risk, IMHO, is unnecessary.
-
Allow it -_-
-
First: I voted allow (& also this was the first time I ever wondered what would happen if I WERE TO CREATE A SECOND THIRD OR FOURTH profile just to skew the results of poll not ratio)
Second: By previous responses it seems in general some are not aware of this genre or of it's availability. See Rule 34.
Third: I for one do not judge but last I checked Slammin' Perverts is readily available here, are we distinguishing between profesional and amateur needle work? Wait Liam Cole's Slammed has been upped as well. If the only difference, or the poinT is being made that there is a difference between the 2 how is professional status determined.
Remberance Day 2014 seems so far away but note I will campaign for this poll until that day.
-
Third: I for one do not judge but last I checked Slammin' Perverts is readily available here, are we distinguishing between profesional and amateur needle work? Wait Liam Cole's Slammed has been upped as well. If the only difference, or the poinT is being made that there is a difference between the 2 how is professional status determined.
Remberance Day 2014 seems so far away but note I will campaign for this poll until that day.
The title's mentioned were/are the impetus of this poll and, when initially uploaded, NOT in violation of policy as written at that time (complaints and initial determination made 7-19-2014) Since then, the new rule was written and implemented and this poll initiated at that time (8-11-2014)
Thanks for pointing out the oversight.
-
derp
when will i learn to keep my trap shutdon't hate me because i am beautiful, hate me because i got the poinTs taken away
To be fair, if I remember correctly in "Liam Cole's Slammed" Intravenous Drug Use is only implied, not actually seen. Same as the injestion of gamma-Hydroxybutyric acid, how can one be sure without proper testing…
Side note: As I understand it, in certain jurisdictions if one is caught with alleged illegal substances one should request testing because not only then do you know for sure what the alleged substance is, it may also be a perfectly acceptable substance. Where I live, in a building not even from last century but from the one before that astute businessman (or thieves) break off parts of the not insulation but something just inside the outer wall and sell it to tourists as, well not sure what exactly but I do know those tourists are likely upset because it is not the souvenir they were hoping for.
-
why not allow it. we may be missing out on some great porn just because we have our heads stuck up our asses. aren't there videos on here of people shitting on each other and eating it? so who cares about some fake drug use?
-
why not allow it. we may be missing out on some great porn just because we have our heads stuck up our asses. aren't there videos on here of people shitting on each other and eating it? so who cares about some fake drug use?
I agree, and if people do not want to be confronted by illicit drug use, either fast forward or don´t download the file
-
At this moment 168 votes have been cast against. I am surprised the voting majority are casting against. As a friend used to say to me "It's just a little prick, hopefully the smallest prick you have tonight." I guess I understand the argument that it might draw unwanted attention due to the legal issues but we are downloading here & though I like to keep myself ignorant of some facts I am pretty sure most of the files we share amongst ourselves are decidedly not in a legal gray area. Fortunately this material is available elsewhere, unfortunately I am a little disappointed it seems it will remain off-limits here because the masses are afraid of a little prick.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the authors who is clearly a degenerate butt pirate.
"Have you been the unAmerican, just you and your idol singing falsetto, about leather leather everywhere and not a myth left from the ghetto?" - David Bowie
EDITED - raphjd
-
Poll is closed but hopefully Admin takes into consideration that by a slim majority (7.2%) the rule as written is agreed upon which discounts the fairly large percentage of poll participants who seem to think adults are able to make informed decisions. :bighug:
-
I think as long as consenting adults are doing it - i.e. no one underage and no one being forced - it shouldn't be banned. For the record i think IV drug use is moronic but every adult has the right to ruin his/her life if she pleases.
Since we are going on record here my life has not been ruined but I guess that could be my moronic judgement skills.
-
As far as I'm concerned, it crosses the line of basic common decency, which is why we banned it in the first place.
How does it cross the line of basic common decency?
-
Aren't these people being exploited, hence non consent, because of their addiction to IV drugs?
If we look at rape laws, intoxication quite often invalidates consent.
Our rules are already based on the "universal" non consent mandate. We don't allow stuff that violates this; ie kiddie porn, bestiality, torture, etc.
The US generally has freedom of speech, but you can't scream "fire" in a crowed theater. Freedom of speech, despite popular belief, doesn't apply to private property (such as homes and businesses).
As for allowing IV drug use videos, as long as they are labeled as such, after 8+ years of trying, we know that it will never happen. We still get complaints from users about videos with no description, with invalid names, placed in the wrong category and pictures that have nothing to do with the video at all.
But who is to say that they are addicted to IV drugs. Now if these people are being exploited it still doesn't mean that there is non-consent.
-
"Common decency" is more typified by general community assessment rather than being a personal subjective opinion.
A case in point:
Frequently, arguments about not censoring certain material are qualified with "as long as it's between consenting adults," but what if some users are sexually excited by non-consensual material such as pedophilia, bestiality, snuff, blood sport and torture? Isn't this qualification of consent an infringement on censoring personal interests and therefore should be considered invalid? I mean we could simply have these things labelled, right? And allow others to chose to watch or not. . .
Certainly this does not involve an issue of legality. If we relied on the legal precedent of protecting the rights of others in a non-consensual manner, torrents of IV drug use could be dismissed because of a near universal illegality of intravenously consumed substances. So if not legally based, where is this qualification against non-consensual activities coming from if not from some collective assessment of "common decency"?
How is this non-consensual principle a justifying concept with the anti-censorship folks if it violates, at the same time, some users' personal interests, the predominant issue of anti-censorship?
Almost sounds like the slippery slope argument. If we allow this item then we will have to allow these items as well.
I don't think it is an issue of "consent" but more of one of morality. Pedophilia (which btw is not illegal), bestiality and snuff all have moral issues attached.
-
I think it should remain banned. For me, it's a simple question of legality. I'm not in support of the gaytorrent team making moral judgements on our behalf – but I do encourage them to make the most sound legal judgements they can for themselves. Bottom line -- if the video depicts illegal behavior of any type, it shouldn't be allowed (based on the laws of the country governing gaytorrent.ru). Drug use, beastiality, incest, REAL rape ... these and so many other things are already forbidden and should remain so. If a line needs to be drawn (and it DOES) then let it be dictated by the law.
Call me selfish if you must, but I happen to enjoy gaytorrent.ru and I'd hate for it to get in trouble or even hassled because of the content it features. The risk, IMHO, is unnecessary.
But incest is allow on the site. You even have the pseudo factual depiction of incest, rape, child molestation and all those are allowed.
-
"Pseudo factual depiction" translates to "fantasy". No one is actually raped, molested in their sleep, etc, etc. There is a huge difference between "pseudo factual depiction" and real factual depictions. "Pseudo factual depictions" are video where the massive screaming queen pretends to be straight and has never messed around with another guy, but has no problem taking a massive cock up his ass.
TRUE, pedophilia (sexual feelings toward children), in and of itself, is not illegal. It's acting upon it that is illegal. That being said, I'm sure you understood the context it was used in, but decided to play a word game.
I can't think of any laws that don't have moral reasons behind them. This does not invalidate them, as suggested.
The slippery slope argument is a valid argument here. If we give on 1 thing, then people demand 30 more things, rinse and repeat….............. It's something the staff, especially the senior staff have to deal with every day.
Unless you can show otherwise, say by a statement from the various websites that produce these videos, we will have to assume that anyone shooting up IV drugs is a drug addict. In Pennsylvania, for example, it's considered rape if you exploit a person's condition (ie drug addiction) to get sex. As with alcohol, sex while on drugs can be deemed as rape, because the person can't give informed consent. The UK and Australia have similar laws. That's with me only doing a quick google check.
JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, THE DECISION HAS BEEN MADE AND FINALIZED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION IS POINTLESS.
