On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:35:56 -0400, Clive <Clive@Outdoors.Com> wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:56:50 GMT, mjello <non.compos@ment.is> wrote:
>
>>Tarkus@here.com wrote in news:83fls9968qbk3dft5t2emkntn81ofmoibd@4ax.com:
>>
>>> alt.porn vs. alt.notporn debate.
>>
>>It sure would be nice to hear some other voices....
>>
>>It's not exactly what you're talking about, but "sleazy" was part of my
>>vocabulary decades ago and it meant cheap, disreputable, sordid, shabby,
>>etc., i.e., it had nothing to do with salacity or eroticism. Hotels could
>>be sleazy. Some characters were sleazy. Movies were not sleazy, but they
>>might be about sleazy characters in sleazy hotels.
>>
>>It sure would be nice to hear some other voices....
>
>I agree that more voices on the topic would be nice and thanks to you
>both for you input. I don't think I'll ever have anything that meets
>the 60-70 grindhouse, unless of course I've gotten it here. I'm fine
>with not posting here, so long as those who do post know that I
>appreciate all they do and would post if I could...
I don't think there needs to be lock out of anything post 1979 but at
the same time simply because there is a lesbian scene or a boob shot
hardly makes it sleaze these days.. ;)
Ie: TFE seems pretty sleazy to me.
|
|