Suggestion box

Jo · 2005-09-05 08:09:29

Deeper wrote:

It's a guy thing. We always wonder if the thing we aren't seeing is something we're missing. Probably one of the reasons men are so fascinated by the female orgasm is that so much of it is internalised. All we have to go on is facial expression and vocalisations and so we end up inventing the so-called "dead-giveaways" like body spasms, hyper-secretion or "post-orgasmic nipple". Something like a mental tick-box which says, "ok we've had 4 out of 5 telltales, so I'm willing to believe it was real"
At the risk of gross generalisation, I'd say that most women view these clips on the undestanding that the orgasm is real and thus empathise with the *emotion* of the sharing, rather than getting off on the mere *fact* of the event.

Just want to add, that, although beeing a man, I do NOT belong to the above mentionned sort of telltales-judgers, but to the emotion-emphatizers...

I hate facts, cause they kill any imagination, and exactly that's what I like here!

msnevil · 2005-09-05 18:30:31

Wow Deeper just Generalized me pretty good.

Just the facts, mam!

(I can't take this site on Faith, but keep wondering. Is it for real? Or just facial acting.? Where is the Vaginal\Uterine contractions, the Abdominal breathing, legs quivering, etc.)

johnp54 · 2005-09-05 19:27:01

I know, it's hard to tell sometimes! I suppose that a certain percentage of the agonees submitted are either acted or faked. No matter what they claim them to be. I still find it erotic, no matter what. I also wonder if it would make any difference if they had the heads blocked out and show the rest of the body (clothed) instead while they are going on about the business of pleasuring themselves. Then how will we know if it is for real or not. Should we have to analize each and everyone submitted using the "obvious" tell-tale signs of sounds,contractions,quivering leg spasms, etc? I have had the priviledge of viewing some videos from abbywinters and the entire body is visible, face and orgasm including all the signs of a real one. So I suppose if one is inclined to go elsewhere for more exposure, go to the competition.

msnevil · 2005-09-06 04:56:52

Really, If I wanted to see Female "fake orgasms". I would watch a "porn video".

There are some that absolutly believe "porn vids" are for real. They "feel" it is right, and no amount of evidence is going to prove them wrong.

But really there is no much difference between the above mentioned and this site. Both Can be acted to appear real. From a quiet Lip tremor to a "oh-my-God".

And from experience. There is not much difference between orgasm "faces" and constipation "faces".

Perhaps the person is not having a "orgasm". But instead is having a BM.

And we all would think its real. And the joke is on us all.

Jo · 2005-09-06 08:12:14

msnevil wrote:

Perhaps the person is not having a "orgasm". But instead is having a BM.

Excuse my naivity, but what is a BM???

al · 2005-09-06 16:21:40

I suggest that if and when you arrange another session with someone who is prone to throw back her.. (alright, or "his") head, a second camera could be arranged which would not allow the precious expressions to be lost for us.

gvalencia · 2005-09-07 18:34:10

I like the site very much. Very sexy and erotic. However I will like to do a suggestion in the future. You can ask the people that already participate to do a second agony but now showing full nudity. (not all of them will agree but it would be very sexy because we already see them in a sense and to have the complete vision and doind the same will be a huge hit

johnp54 · 2005-09-07 21:33:36

I don't agree, gvalencia, that full nudity is a necessity at all. I would be perfectly happy to see a female, fully clothed sitting on a chair pleasure herself to an orgasm.

johnp54 · 2005-09-07 23:03:18

By the way, msnevil, I have "been" a member of hiddenjane as well. Found the quality to be lousy at best and switched back to BA and ISM.

msnevil · 2005-09-08 02:30:05

Johnp54 you are entitled to your opinion. But Respectfully, There is a difference between a "professional made movie". And a Week-end made "B" Movie.

I really don't care for the quality of the "clip". But on the "Reality" of the story. If it is real or not.

Taping "liberal" college kids in a professional Artisitic endevour. Is one thing. Its another to tape Amatuer Jane Doe or John Doe. Ages ranging from 18 to 99.

Usually with non provided "good Video Cam". With a less likly chance of a "Acted performance.".

I don't want "Fantasy", I want reality. Simply stated.

johnp54 · 2005-09-08 03:36:24

msnevil I too prever reality to staged performances. But look for quality as well. It's kind of useless to look at a clip and not know what you are looking at!

msnevil · 2005-09-10 08:27:30

To simply state. Collage Girls remind me of my Daughters. And That kills Eros every time.

Buy Yes, I have thought about buying a "real" cam for some of them. Thier perty in a pixalated way.

Deeper · 2005-09-10 14:28:06

A new suggestion:

ANIMATED thumbnails. You can do that with gif files, right? 5 or 10 frames?

Maybe not on the whole main page, but the free sample perhaps and overkills for sure.

al · 2005-09-10 14:53:57

Hehe... kind of robotic...
I don't know what the agonee in question would say about that...

lauren · 2005-09-11 23:14:31

animated gifs sound like fun xo

salsasalsa · 2005-09-11 23:28:24

Jo wrote:

Deeper wrote:
It's a guy thing. We always wonder if the thing we aren't seeing is something we're missing. Probably one of the reasons men are so fascinated by the female orgasm is that so much of it is internalised. All we have to go on is facial expression and vocalisations and so we end up inventing the so-called "dead-giveaways" like body spasms, hyper-secretion or "post-orgasmic nipple". Something like a mental tick-box which says, "ok we've had 4 out of 5 telltales, so I'm willing to believe it was real"
At the risk of gross generalisation, I'd say that most women view these clips on the undestanding that the orgasm is real and thus empathise with the *emotion* of the sharing, rather than getting off on the mere *fact* of the event.
Just want to add, that, although beeing a man, I do NOT belong to the above mentionned sort of telltales-judgers, but to the emotion-emphatizers...
I hate facts, cause they kill any imagination, and exactly that's what I like here!
;)

Facts do NOT kill imagination, except to people so devoid of imagination that they can't see the poetry in facts ...

al · 2005-10-01 02:14:13

I venture to guess that this place aims to be rather an orgasm site than a masturbation site. And if so, the question arises: Could the masturbation be eliminated while the orgasm preserved?
Of course this is another revolutionary suggestion, just like the "full body" thing, but I feel that this is less in conflict with the "philosophy" or "trademark image" of the site than that one.
The only problem is how to realize this idea. Sorry, no clue.
Other sites have a specialist or a team(gang?) to handle the target person. We all know they usually fail to present the ideal outcome.
I'm inclined to prefer a situation where an excited woman in a team situation is asked to look at the camera when she climaxes. And I really fancy an upright position. I guess this is due to my first encounter with a female agony in a porn movie. It was a decade ago.
It's interesting, she didn't even establish eye contact. What thrilled me then was the way she kind of "elevated" her body. Like a long, deep inhaling. Ah, enough of these disturbing memories.
I think this site is best just as it is!
Thumbs up!

al · 2005-10-07 14:49:21

How about a preview function of forum posts?
Is it intentionally unavailable to discourage "text graphics" freaks?

Last edited by al (2005-10-07 15:10:40)

roman · 2005-10-07 19:39:28

Hi Richard,Lauren
This site is the best. I love the the "full body experience" and I wanted to suggest that maybe it could be a once a week feature.
As long as they "cover up" I find it just as erotic if not more than from the shoulders up, and it would still be within the spirit of the website.

erdna · 2005-10-08 04:29:24

Jo, what do you think imagination is? It seems to me imagination is the unconscious memory of events one has seen and events are facts. Then contrary to what you say, facts are food for imagination. You cannot have imagination if you never have seen anything. Having seen a lot of different events, objects, situations... and being able to make a relation between them provides you with imagination. Imagination doesn't come from nowhere.

salsasalsa · 2005-10-08 12:56:44

erdna wrote:

Jo, what do you think imagination is? It seems to me imagination is the unconscious memory of events one has seen and events are facts. Then contrary to what you say, facts are food for imagination. You cannot have imagination if you never have seen anything. Having seen a lot of different events, objects, situations... and being able to make a relation between them provides you with imagination. Imagination doesn't come from nowhere.

Hear, hear! I write poetry, and couldn't agree more.

Last edited by salsasalsa (2005-10-08 12:57:28)

Jo · 2005-10-09 00:11:03

salsasalsa wrote:

erdna wrote:
Jo, what do you think imagination is? It seems to me imagination is the unconscious memory of events one has seen and events are facts. Then contrary to what you say, facts are food for imagination. You cannot have imagination if you never have seen anything. Having seen a lot of different events, objects, situations... and being able to make a relation between them provides you with imagination. Imagination doesn't come from nowhere.
Hear, hear! I write poetry, and couldn't agree more.

salsasalsa, what's the matter with you, that you laugh with gloat on me, while I am beeing criticized? Criticize me by your own if you like to do so, but don't jump on an already moving train!

Erdna, what I wanted to mention is the following point:

deeper wrote:

It's a guy thing. We always wonder if the thing we aren't seeing is something we're missing. Probably one of the reasons men are so fascinated by the female orgasm is that so much of it is internalised. All we have to go on is facial expression and vocalisations and so we end up inventing the so-called "dead-giveaways" like body spasms, hyper-secretion or "post-orgasmic nipple". Something like a mental tick-box which says, "ok we've had 4 out of 5 telltales, so I'm willing to believe it was real"
At the risk of gross generalisation, I'd say that most women view these clips on the undestanding that the orgasm is real and thus empathise with the *emotion* of the sharing, rather than getting off on the mere *fact* of the event.

I think we have a different definition of the word *FACT* and not of imagination...

I totally agree to you that imagination is built by a memory of passed moments, situations, thoughts,... (or call it facts if you like). And I do NOT dislike these *facts*. But what I dislike is the above mentionned *telltales-thought*, cause here is only judged by some orgasm-indicating-FACTS instead of believing that the shown orgasm is real. And in THIS case, I think, facts kill imagination!

Understand me now?

erdna · 2005-10-09 03:49:58

Jo, semantics is our problem. Only a good and honest exchange (of words) will solve that and Jo, that's what you did. Thanks.

But, when you speak about Salsasalsa who as you said "is climbing on a train already moving" don't worry about that since our moderator does that too when she doesn't like a comment.

Coming back to agonees orgasm, I believe them but I want to see (signs, a lot of signs) unlike a sect believer.

al · 2006-07-14 16:29:37

The other day I was tempted to make a comment in the overkill section.
But I chose not to do that. Why give hackers half the information needed to grab my account? (I'm talking about putting my username on display.)
So, I can imagine a system, where only members can initiate making a comment, but they can make it using their forum account. It would feel safer to me.

richard · 2006-07-15 13:42:57

al wrote:

The other day I was tempted to make a comment in the overkill section.
But I chose not to do that. Why give hackers half the information needed to grab my account? (I'm talking about putting my username on display.)
So, I can imagine a system, where only members can initiate making a comment, but they can make it using their forum account. It would feel safer to me.

The Captcha code makes it impossible for hackers to run those kind of scripts, so there's no security problem there.

#101 2005-09-05 08:09:29

Re: Suggestion box

#102 2005-09-05 18:30:31

Re: Suggestion box

#103 2005-09-05 19:27:01

Re: Suggestion box

#104 2005-09-06 04:56:52

Re: Suggestion box

#105 2005-09-06 08:12:14

Re: Suggestion box

#106 2005-09-06 16:21:40

Re: Suggestion box

#107 2005-09-07 18:34:10

Re: Suggestion box

#108 2005-09-07 21:33:36

Re: Suggestion box

#109 2005-09-07 23:03:18

Re: Suggestion box

#110 2005-09-08 02:30:05

Re: Suggestion box

#111 2005-09-08 03:36:24

Re: Suggestion box

#112 2005-09-10 08:27:30

Re: Suggestion box

#113 2005-09-10 14:28:06

Re: Suggestion box

#114 2005-09-10 14:53:57

Re: Suggestion box

#115 2005-09-11 23:14:31

Re: Suggestion box

#116 2005-09-11 23:28:24

Re: Suggestion box

#117 2005-10-01 02:14:13

Re: Suggestion box

#118 2005-10-07 14:49:21

Re: Suggestion box

#119 2005-10-07 19:39:28

Re: Suggestion box

#120 2005-10-08 04:29:24

Re: Suggestion box

#121 2005-10-08 12:56:44

Re: Suggestion box

#122 2005-10-09 00:11:03

Re: Suggestion box

#123 2005-10-09 03:49:58

Re: Suggestion box

#124 2006-07-14 16:29:37

Re: Suggestion box

#125 2006-07-15 13:42:57

Re: Suggestion box

Board footer