Home › Forums › Archives › Community Center › Forum Support › Bug Reports › Squashed Bugs › Staff Room › [Review] Dogging
Tagged: dogging, luke, richard, riddell, threadaway
- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 6 months ago by Doris Kenney.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 19, 2009 at 6:29 am #31326sexyonjeansMember
[FONT="]Aspiring journalist Dan expected so much more after graduation…but with no job, little ambition and a girlfriend seems more interested in her boss than him, life is not exactly as he planned.
In a bid to get his life back on track and coerced by his womanising flatmate, Dan is introduced to the risqué sex scene that is DOGGING. Encountering an array of weird and wonderful characters looking for the ultimate high, it’s quickly clear that the scene is ripe for a journalistic exposé, which could kick-start his career.
Dropping his inhibitions in the name of research, Dan quickly becomes a regular player in the DOGGING online community. Under the pseudonym “East Of England 8 inches” he meets fellow thrill-seeker “Horny Geordie Lass” and the totally unexpected happens… he falls in love.
Simon Ellis’s debut feature is a heartfelt screwball comedy, which contains sharp observation on love with all the perils, pitfalls and wrong turns it takes to find ‘the one’.
October 19, 2009 at 11:57 am #175991NessaParticipantMoved this to staff room for review.
This coming from the “Viagra” ad we had recently for discussion. What do you guys think of this?
It is a movie type promotion/review however you want to see it but it’s a very risque movie.
Allowed or not?
October 19, 2009 at 4:58 pm #175987Jeff HesterKeymasterI don’t have a problem with it, personally. The movie deals with adult themes — the only thing might be a note to that effect.
October 19, 2009 at 6:24 pm #175990detn8rParticipantI watched the preview — to me seems like a Rated R film for nudity.. a “poor mans porno” — I’d vote with caution and say no.
I don’t have a problem with the film though, it self *thumbs up* :p
October 19, 2009 at 10:02 pm #175992PolarBearNPRParticipantIf this were posted by, say, Graham or Nessa, or any other *established* member I’d say give it a whirl. Looks like an interesting film – and sort of relevant to this forum. However, the preview is a bit more than I’d want my kid to see (and yeah – oh Eggy one, I know you’ve seen more) but, that’s my take. Thinking no-ish here as well.
October 20, 2009 at 8:38 am #175994PhilipModeratorI’m going to say No too.
October 20, 2009 at 1:13 pm #175988Jeff HesterKeymasterOk, but just sayin’…. the same stuff is here on iMDB, and on Facebook, and on Yahoo! Movies.
Is BigBlueBall that different? Do we need to be? Are we being a little too cautious, deciding what is appropriate for the eyes of the BigBlueBall visitor?
Maybe we should do a demographic survey to get a better idea of the age of our visitors, but even then, it’s already on Facebook, iMDB, Yahoo, and a million other sites. We don’t really make any claims to be “above” Facebook or Yahoo (morally speaking) do we?
Just sayin’…
October 20, 2009 at 6:51 pm #175995Doris KenneyParticipantIt doesn’t bother me personally.
Here’s the way I see it. Users don’t just happen upon BBB. They have a problem or they are looking for IM info, they come for knowledge/help. Hopefully they find other areas of the site interesting enough to stick around and check it out.
Any user who is instant messaging enough to have a problem or need additional information, and who is smart enough to be able to search for answers to those issues has likely seen/read far worse than this movie review – regardless of how old or young they are.
October 20, 2009 at 10:49 pm #175993PolarBearNPRParticipantOne other point here… in order to get to the *bad* (or good) stuff, you gotta click a link, then one more click for the trailer. So it’s not really on this site, also – it’s sort of this poster’s opinion, and we really shouldn’t censor that.
I just know that I wouldn’t want my kids to see it – whether or not they have through any other forum or medium.
Just sayin :p
October 20, 2009 at 11:33 pm #175989Jeff HesterKeymasterIf I had younger kids, I wouldn’t want them watching it either. But I also know that they’re getting exposed to it here, there and everywhere. They need to be aware (as I do, as a parent) of what’s out there, what’s appropriate and inappropriate to be clicking on.
There is a downside for us if we selectively censor posts like this. We either have to censor rigorously and absolutely, or lightly. If we set an expectation with our audience that ALL links from BigBlueBall are “safe” (whatever that means; it’s subjective), then what happens when someone is offended by even ONE link? Or heck, even the title of a news article? (Those who have been around a while will remember that this happened!)
I would prefer to keep the language reasonably clean (90% of the time) 😉 and keep a light touch on the censoring of posts. We can always add our personal opinion as a comment to the post (i.e. “Yikes! I wouldn’t want my kids to see that!”). People reading will get the idea.
Come to think of it, if I were a kid, and I saw a comment that said “I wouldn’t want my kids to see…” I’d click the link before I finished reading the rest of the post! 🙂
October 20, 2009 at 11:54 pm #175996Doris KenneyParticipantMy opinion –>> At some point, users must take responsibility for their own clicks.
I vote for censor lightly. However, to be fair, I’m not easily offended, and I tend to give my teenage male offspring a lot more internet independence than is generally considered normal by most parental standards – so I’m probably not the best one to ask :p
Undoubtedly, the fastest way to get a kid to read a post is to put “NSF work/kids/whatever…” or “Explicit” in the title. It’s also the fastest way to get me to read ’em too! 😉
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.