Posts made by eobox91103

I, too, am mildly annoyed by some endless stream of comments. Sometimes, when the number of comments reaches six or so, I'll add one suggesting that if people want to pursue the matter, they create a forum topic on it. Sometimes this works, but alas, a large majority of users do not use the forum at all.

@raphjd said in Forum Topic/Post Bonus:

it's a mixed blessing as it added posts in the forums, but it also added a lot of forum spam.

If it adds topics of interest to the forum, that's a big plus, as traffic has slowed down in the last few years. But spam posts simply to harvest seed posts are a pain in the ass for everyone.

@gabisev Waiting is about the best we can do. If nothing happens in a week or so, you might try it again, and then abandon the cause. Users who have (or have deleted) the material don't want a "please re-seed" note every hour for a month. (OK, that's a little bit of an exaggeration.)

Also, I think you meant to say "zero seeders for a long time." It's seeders who have the material, and you'd like there to be several of them so you can get the material. (This has something to to with "swarms" that I don't fully understand, but that can be the topic of another thread.)

@cp2000 Thanks for your interesting post.

Somehow I had in mind that these videos took place in Rhode Island, but I don't recall how I formed that idea. The accents are clearly northeast US, but hard to localise further.

"Vinnie" might have used bait-and-switch, but not with every lad. My favourite (Tony) must have at least ten cum scenes (in addition to sucking Vinnie several times), so he'd have to be profoundly naive if he thought this was part of a straight porn casting. Some other guys, though, seem fixated on watching straight porn while being wanked or sucked, so perhaps they were baited.

It's a good series, and I'm glad this thread brought me back to it. The only thing I would change in the scenes is to not use the porn-standard "stop sucking before he cums so we can see it shoot," rather than having a cumshot into a closed mouth. I find that sexier, and frankly more real.

@johnmartinez-0 I don't know the back story of the "Sneek Peek" series, only that the 30-ish military guy "Vinnie" seems very adept at finding 20-ish lads to suck off...almost all with a full bush.

I suspect cash is involved, and none of the guys come across as being particularly bright. I can't tell if drugs or alcohol are involved. I see some scenes with poppers, and a beer can on the night table, but no other indication. The guys seem fully conscious. I don't remember a scene where a lad says "I don't want to go that far," but perhaps I missed it.

My favourite is "Tony," who often giggles a bit after he cums. (I had a BF who would do that.) Tony even returns the favour a few times.

I don't recall any of them looking drugged...although some were clearly bored and simply awaiting their paycheck.

(Note that these films are not to be confused with the "Sneaky Peek" series of posed voyeur clips.)

@ianfontinell-0 said in Who is in this meme? Does he make content?:

@gringle that's Bastian Gate, and oh boy he makes content........

and he would make me consent......

I see that this video is now Freeleech for the next week.

My guess would be that it's a preview from "The Best Little Warehouse in .L.A." (1982), which is on here at https://www.gaytor.rent/details.php?id=fb10a56d9b2119783f627acd8bc2072f793e473c076adaf7 with three seeders. I didn't see the particular scene you showed, but I could have missed it. You might want to give it a try.

@blablarg18 said in Luigi Mangione:

Do people find other psychos hot?

I saw the following photo on the cover of a tabloid and I thought he was handsome:

Then I read that he was one of the Boston Marathon bombers, and he became much less attractive to me.

@blablarg18 Note that those words I used were applied to concepts, not to specific people...although I grant it would take above-average reading/grammar skills to notice this.

Note that the preceding post uses "you," or a derivative, seven times...demonstrating my point.

@blablarg18 Once again we see the childish dynamic of, "If you can't discuss something rationally, call the other person names."

As for "comments of value," in this thread there are plenty from PedrocaWest...but replies to them are just old, worn-out copy/pastes from the Anti-Trans Playbook.

Here's an exercise for the reader: Do a search on "you" on this page in your browser. See how many times it shows up in the anti-trans replies? That's clear evidence that, when confronted with facts, the anti-transists simply start calling names. That makes a mockery of the forum--which should be about ideas, not personalities.

@raphd: Perhaps we can create a new board called "Transphobia" (perhaps a subset of "Politics and Debate?" for this kind of discussion.

@Ignatius Welcome! While I think most users here are North American (I identify as Canadian), it is wonderful to have people from all over the world.

Your English is very good, but feel free to post in Portuguese (or your own native tongue, if different), and with GoogleTranslate we can probably figure out what you mean.

@hotmuscletwi I don't know what film it's from, But the electrical outlets and switches look American...so it's odd that it would have English subtitles (unless it was made in Quebec, which is not a big porn production center).

The words in the subtitles are hilarious. If the whole film is like that, I'd watch it for the subtitles alone!

@tnar I can't vouch for the accuracy of the article. It would be interesting to hear from a "creator" whether or not that 80% figure is true.

As for the top five creators listed, I haven't heard of any of them...and I'm not curious enough to search any of them.

https://variety.com/2025/digital/news/onlyfans-porn-site-sale-talks-8-billion-1236408046/

"OnlyFans owner Leonid Radvinsky has engaged in discussions to sell the massive porn-centric content creator site at a price tag that would value the company at around $8 billion, Variety has confirmed. ..."

The article notes that "creators" get 80% of subscription payments, which is higher than I would have thought.

Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber in late a990;s) was also easy on the eye.I wish they had sentenced him to be my houseboy, rather than to get the needle.

@cp2000 Thanks very much for the historical perspective, which I didn't address. "Baiting" wasn't a thing 10+ years ago, and while the system is slow to adapt to the rapid pace of technology, it is indeed getting there.

There is also the ethical side to all this: I think it's rude and inconsiderate to violate the privacy of complete strangers for one's own gratification. If this is something that appeals to people, there's enough fantasy porn out there that simulates this--I'm thinking of sites like sleepingmen.com, czechhunter.com, sneakypeek.com, and others in the past.

This thread raises a number of legal issues. Here’s my two pence on three topics—admittedly a simplification.

The laws here vary by country and, in the US, by state, but they’re reasonably consistent around the “free world.” If something’s different where you live, feel free to share.

Privacy: It is generally against the law to make a recording (audio, video, and/or still photo) of a person who has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” That phrase can be subject to interpretation, but some situations are clear: Someone in a locked toilet stall clearly has an expectation of privacy; someone walking down a public sidewalk doesn’t. Laying out on a public nude beach? Probably no expectation of privacy, but IMHO it’s rude to photograph someone there. A hookup you invite into your bedroom also has an expectation of privacy, so keep that hidden video camera off. Note that the privacy rules here don't require that there be nudity or sexual activity: A person in a locked hotel room with the curtains closed has an expectation of privacy even if they are fully clothed while reading newspaper. Violations here are generally misdemeanors, which can be punishable by 6-12 months in prison and or $1000 in fines.

Consent to Distribute: Even if another party knows that you are viewing or downloading a nude or sexual image/video of them, it isn’t legal to further distribute that media to other people unless there is consent from the person(s) being recorded. The law gets quite technical here, but this applies to “bait” material and other private interactions, like Snapchat. (Some jurisdictions include these laws under a heading of “Revenge Porn,” even if there wasn’t a “revenge” motivation. Violations here are also generally misdemeanors.

Under-age porn: Even though the age of consent to sexual relations varies around the world (and from US state to US state), there’s a fairly universal prohibition of media showing nudity or sexual activity of a person under 18. (Definitions of nudity can vary—in some places, showing buttocks are considered nudity, in other places, not. Some jurisdictions consider an obvious erection underneath clothing to be nudity.) Be very, very careful here: While the maxim of the law in most “free world” jurisdictions is that one is innocent of a crime unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors, judges, and/or juries often unconsciously shift the burden of proof to the defendant—you prove that the subject was 18+, or we consider you guilty. Violations of under-age porn law is generally a felony, which can involve multiple years in prison, public sex offender registry, etc. Even if you’re attracted to younger guys, use the maxim “if in doubt, throw it out.” The graphic from @cp2000 is a good general guide, but everyone’s different. Consider also that there’s no way to be certain about the age of a toilet stall or “bait” video subject. Most 12 year olds can operate a mobile phone camera. I’ve seen toilet stall spy videos where I suspect that the subject is a minor.

Sorry for being verbose; I dwell in a world where a document called a “brief” can be hundreds of pages long.

Disclaimer: This represents my own opinion, not that of this website. Do not consider this formal legal advice for any situation in which you find yourself. If you need such advice, contact a licensed attorney.

This used to work, but I suspect that the domain urlrw.com was bought by someone with a different business model. There are some other de-referrer sites that could be used here, but many browser security packages prevent moving from one site to another without the user's specific consent.

When want to go to an offsite link, I just copy the link as posted here as text, and then manually enter it into the address bar of my browser. It's a little clumsy, but it avoids these scammy third-party sites and still hides gt.ru as the referring source.