Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I seem to recall consenting provided I got a few bob when the pictures inevitably ended up on the internet.
Awesome. Which one is you?
(In the large photos there you'll be able to tell that the guy on the cover has dirty bare feet. Woof.)
-
Heh, also in the interests of full disclosure I should mention that I got this interview in the most Kiwi of ways. Suraya is an old friend of an ex-flatmate of mine, and like Corset-Making Jo, she's ex-KAOS. I'm starting to think that organisation is actually GOOD for people.
-
I think Singh may be from New Plymouth, not Palmy.
(Don't want the `Naki to feel .. umm .. shafted ..)
Oh shit, you're right, it says so right there. I'll go fix that. And, um, put it down to the fever I'm currently running.
Interesting point about what chicks dig, physique-wise.
Yeah... sometimes I have to remind myself I'm not a heterosexual woman and I shouldn't be speaking for them, probably. What she's talking about seems to be more James Marsters than David Boreanaz, and they both have their fan bases, straight and gay. But traditionally, men in erotica (even Mills and Boon covers) have tended to be more of the Boreanaz type. (Except all that long hair those men traditionally have? Do make their faces look longer and more feminine.)
-
Wasn't there a theory that Playgirl was never in fact aimed at women but rather at gay men, and that the proof was in the advertising?
Ah, big gay fan base... I believe for a while Playgirl was the only source for naked man pics, ergo I'm sure it got picked up by gay men. They did move to having online forums though, which were populated by women, and to making porn films, which were heterosexual.
-
And not too sure about niche magazines being recession proof.
I'll defer to people with more industry experience on that one. It was what her research seemed to show, though as she said (I have screeds of great stuff from Suraya I couldn't fit in) there wasn't really anything doing what she wanted to do in the market, ergo nothing to compare with.
-
I just threw myself on the first vagina I came across. Right as rain in two minutes flat.
Heterosexuality: you're doin' it wrong. It's meant to last twice that long.
You realise I'm filing these away for later use, right?
(I had to. We were on 799 comments.)
Actually, I can back Craig up on this one. I had consolatory straight sex with one of my girlfriend's friends after things went particularly pear-shaped. Oddly, it didn't teach her a lesson.
-
Is there a PA style guide?
Yes. It says, in its entirety*: "Don't be a dick".
*Open to moderator interpretation. Judges' decision is final. No correspondence will be entered into.
-
so we cannot call someone a murderer until they're convicted, ergo we cannot yet call it a murder
I am not Graeme but... I believe that's not the case. Can't a coronor pass a verdict of 'murder by person or persons unknown'? If not, a lot of British crime drama has shamelessly lied to me.
-
It's so conventional to pigeonhole those older than us as somehow knowing less than we do, when as you say, they've pretty much seen it all.
Yeah, having lived through a depression and two world wars did not in any way interfere with my grandmother's being a judgemental bitch.
OTOH, I do get slightly annoyed by the assumptions people make about my mother on the basis of her age. She has more gay friends than I do. So I guess we're left not being able to draw conclusions about individuals on the basis of their age?
the youth-correlated demographic shift towards not giving a toss about people's sexuality
That'd be a side-effect of young people all being so self-centred and out for themselves, right? They actually don't care.
Okay, I'm off for some tongue/cheek surgery.
-
Taking such a myopic view of religion isn't becoming.
That's a really strange thing to say. This thread isn't about religion, it's about gay marriage. Religion has only been discussed as it relates to discrimination against gay people. Tess's presence meant the emphasis was going to be on the Catholic Church, and its legitimacy as a moral guardian, its right to dictate who is and isn't suitable to raise children.
You can call that myopic if you like. Or you could consider the phrase 'on topic'. I haven't even discussed my own religion's attitude to homosexuality - because it wasn't relevant.