Lounge of Tomorrow

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)
-   Lounge Lizard (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=11)
-   -   YouTubery (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=5167)

Ghoulish Delight 06-01-2009 07:18 AM

Just because there are no genitals doesn't make it work safe. What does that video look like to a coworker who happens to walk by and see it out of the corner of their eye?

SzczerbiakManiac 06-01-2009 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 285566)
Just because there are no genitals doesn't make it work safe.

I understand that, but how is "not work safe" generally defined? I'm not trying to a d¡ck* nor argumentative, I'm asking because I genuinely want to know so I can appropriately flag material and not get anyone in trouble.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 285566)
What does that video look like to a coworker who happens to walk by and see it out of the corner of their eye?

It looks weird. It looks like a guy getting splashed with milk. (Though I doubt it's actually milk, I suspect it's some kind of whitewash because milk isn't that opaque on film.) Is it his expression? Would a happy expression make a difference? It it because he's attractive? Would an ugly guy getting the same treatment be okay?

I am ignorant. Educate me, please.

P.S. to my previous post, I meant to say "thank you gift".


*it just comes naturally

Not Afraid 06-01-2009 11:30 AM

It looks like a guy being splashed with milk - in reverse. The title is the only suggestive thing about it and I think the title is pretty non-descriptive of what's going on.

Ghoulish Delight 06-01-2009 11:31 AM

You yourself described it as "bukkake". I would think it pretty self evident that something that can be likened to "mass ejaculation onto someone's face/body", even if simulated, might be considered not-work-safe.

Tref 06-01-2009 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight (Post 285587)
You yourself described it as "bukkake". I would think it pretty self evident that something that can be likened to "mass ejaculation onto someone's face/body", even if simulated, might be considered not-work-safe.

Bukkake is the key word here. Complain all you want but you opened a clip with bukkake in the title. Here is an idea -- when at work, stay away from bukkake clips.

SzczerbiakManiac 06-01-2009 12:21 PM

I would have zero apprehension letting a supervisor see that clip, so I guess I just don't get it. Yeah, I labeled it "bukkake", but that was in jest and not meant to suggest the real thing. Sorry for being to thick-headed.

But if someone would be so kind as to give a good definition of "work safe", I would be most grateful.

Ghoulish Delight 06-01-2009 01:08 PM

Sorry, to my eye, that clip is one small step short of a simulated sexual act. You may have been joking when you said "bukkake", but had I viewed that at work and someone walked past my cubicle, I would not have been too happy.

Strangler Lewis 06-01-2009 01:12 PM

Of course, if the title had been "Zachary Quinto in a Suit and Tie," and the video showed Zachary Quinto in a suit and tie, you'd still have some explaining to do.

Gemini Cricket 06-02-2009 12:29 PM

Sex with Ducks
 
I think this one might get CoasterMatt to chuckle...
:D

JWBear 06-02-2009 02:59 PM

Is it work safe?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.