Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Porn Industry Tiptoes Into 3D Video

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the been-there-seen-that dept.

Media 292

itwbennett writes "The 3D porn experience is coming (eventually) to a home theater near you. Most adult filmmakers are moving slowly toward 3D video because of higher production cost, the small number of 3D TVs in the home, and, of course, the glasses. Rob Smith, director of operations at Hustler Video Group says he hopes that market penetration of 3D TVs in the home is high enough that 'by the fourth quarter of this year it will be at the point where we can justify doing a 3D product.' The average adult movie costs around $25,000 to $40,000 to make, and 3D movies cost about 30% more, says Ali Joone, founder of Digital Playground. But Joone thinks the biggest hurdle for 3D isn't so much the cost as the glasses: people don't want to be encumbered by eyewear when viewing a film, says Joone."

cancel ×

292 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Penetration (5, Funny)

telchine (719345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756710)

hehe, he said "penetration"!

Re:Penetration (1)

Montezumaa (1674080) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756884)

That caught my eye as well. Oh, the humor found in such places.

Penetration height?! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30756908)

Rob Smith, director of operations at Hustler Video Group says he hopes that market penetration of 3D TVs in the home is high enough that 'by the fourth quarter of this year it will be at the point where we can justify doing a 3D product.

WTF kind of retard is Rob Smith?! Even your average Slashdot user knows that penetration is measured in terms of depth, not height. The irony of it is that Rob Smith has probably had more pussy than the entire Slashdot userbase put together. *sigh*

Fuck, let's slashdot Hustler [hustler.com] !

MOD PARENT UP, I MEAN, ERECT PARENT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757068)

+5, Insightful!

Re:Penetration height?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757204)

Even your average Slashdot user knows that penetration is measured in terms of depth, not height.

I don't know... I tend to measure it more in terms of length.

Re:Penetration height?! (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757494)

Are we back to the old joke about the mathematician and the physicist trying to measure a flagpole [jokelibrary.net] again?

Re:Penetration (1)

jrob323 (931808) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756924)

3D will certainly allow the market to feel as though they're being penetrated.

Re:Penetration (2, Funny)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756954)

Yeah, but there's more. He also said "the experience is COMING" and it's "moving SLOWLY". That suggests to me that the way it's envisioned, 3D will meet the prerequisites for the female of the species (an increasingly large demographic).

Re:Penetration (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757200)

the female of the species (an increasingly large demographic).

Like... oh god, I can't help it... like yo momma.

Re:Penetration (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757028)

hehe, he said "penetration"!

I'm a lesbian you insensitive clod!

Re:Penetration (4, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757314)

I am surprised that he did not mention the market penetration into both traditional porn markets, and high tech early adopters. That type of dual penetration could be highly profitable.

Re:Penetration (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757350)

+1 Fanny

Oh God (3, Funny)

svendsen (1029716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756740)

Think of the "money" shot...shudder.

Re:Oh God (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756754)

I prefer creampies you insensitive clod!

Re:Oh God (1)

spun (1352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756762)

Think of the "money" shot...shudder.

It's coming right at me!

Re:Oh God (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756992)

It's coming right at me!

*bang*, *bang*, *bang*, *bang*, *bang*

Sorry, been watching too much South Park lately ;)

Re:Oh God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757444)

No you haven't, or you'd have got the quote right. "It's coming right for us!"

Re:Oh God (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756930)

I always skip that anyway. Really, why would I want to see that?

Re:Oh God (1)

meclamar (668862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756980)

You'll poke your eye out!

Re:Oh God (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757016)

Thats why you wear 3D glasses.. safety device.

Re:Oh God (1, Funny)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757344)

My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

Re:Oh God (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757106)

  I had a projection TV in my house (and kickass sound system to match). The screen was 10 feet wide, and 6 feet tall (more or less). I simply couldn't bring myself to watch porn on it though. Huge breasts would be entertaining, but it may make me feel insecure about my 8 inches, when I see a 6 foot penis on the screen.

    I was on the phone with it on HBO one day, and was totally distracted when the Dukes of Hazard movie was on, and they panned up Jessica Simpson's legs. I was simply speechless. The person I was talking to asked if I was ok, and it took me a minute or so to form coherent sentences. Once I described what I just saw, they were very understanding. :)

    Ya, if there was a money shot towards the camera in 3D, I'd probably puke on the spot. It may not be too bad on a regular TV, but think of what would appear to be gallons of it flying at you. eeeeewwwwwww.

Re:Oh God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757176)

but it may make me feel insecure about my 8 centimeters

FTFY

Re:Oh God (0, Flamebait)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757252)

    Only if you're looking at my pictures on a small screen. But hey, I'm sure most AC's only troll on here and then go look at porn in their mothers basement, so you've probably seen me more than once, and cried because you're so inadequate, and I'm getting the hot chicks you can only dream about.

Re:Oh God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757322)

but it may make me feel insecure about my 8 decimeters

FTFY

That doesnt work, because you are converting Imperial to Metric.

Speaking of money shots... (4, Insightful)

maillemaker (924053) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757132)

Speaking of money shots, why is it currently in vogue to finish all sex scenes by having the man ejaculate in the mouth and all over the face of the woman?

Does anyone find this a turn-on? To me, it's gross and degrading. I love looking at nekkid women, but I'll pass on the blowjob and cum-on-the-face scenes. Lack of empathy, I guess.

Re:Speaking of money shots... (5, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757298)

Does anyone find this a turn-on?

No, absolutely nobody at all finds it hot. There's simply no explanation for it.

To me, it's gross and degrading.

Darn skippy it is. All right thinking people prefer their porn to be clean, hygienic and a respectful paean to the mortal incarnation of the Earth Goddess. In fact, I'll only watch procreative missionary sex between a husband and wife. Fully clothed. Shot in the dark.

Re:Speaking of money shots... (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757336)

Speaking of money shots, why is it currently in vogue to finish all sex scenes by having the man ejaculate in the mouth and all over the face of the woman?

Does anyone find this a turn-on? To me, it's gross and degrading. I love looking at nekkid women, but I'll pass on the blowjob and cum-on-the-face scenes. Lack of empathy, I guess.

Not to mention that it would kinda put me off the "kiss and cuddle" part they seem to like after...

Re:Speaking of money shots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757428)

Speaking of money shots, why is it currently in vogue to finish all sex scenes by having the man ejaculate in the mouth and all over the face of the woman?
Does anyone find this a turn-on? To me, it's gross and degrading. I love looking at nekkid women, but I'll pass on the blowjob and cum-on-the-face scenes.

This. This and run of the mill scenes without any passion, affection or fun. It's just Blowjob, Doggy, Reverse Cowgirl and the the chick has to hurry to get on her knees in time. Bonus points for having a cut right before the finish. I don't want to see that, 3D or 2D.

Re:Speaking of money shots... (1, Redundant)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757466)

Same here, it's definitively a turn-off. But it's not because it's degrading; I simply only enjoy scenes where the woman is getting pleasure. Men are a necessary annoyance in porn.

Re:Oh God (1)

Tiger4 (840741) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757280)

Some technology, man was not meant to play with.

and if you do play with it, you'll go blind.

Market Penetration (1)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756742)

Isn't that what his whole industry is based on?

(Read 'market' as a verb).

Huh? (4, Funny)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756764)

But Joone thinks the biggest hurdle for 3D isn't so much the cost as the glasses: people don't want to be encumbered by eyewear when viewing a film, says Joone

That's certainly what people fear most: getting caught wearing glasses while watching porn.

Re:Huh? (1)

shankarunni (1002529) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757090)

That's certainly what people fear most: getting caught wearing glasses while watching porn.

No, I think what people fear most is what the previous user was doing when wearing it..

Re:Huh? (4, Funny)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757160)

"encumbered by eyewear"

I have never, ever done anything while watching porn that would have been encumbered by eyewear. I can't speak for everyone though.

Re:Huh? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757508)

If you watch a bukkake [wikipedia.org] scene in 3D you might instinctively want some eye protection.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757166)

you do get 3D TV without glasses. has not hit the mainstream though.
A sheet of tiny lenticules is fixed onto a high-resolution LCD display in such a way that each eye sees a slightly different view of each image pixel. The effect is akin to those 3-D plastic postcards that look a bit like a hologram if you view them at the correct angle.
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/gadgets_and_gaming/article5054247.ece

Re:Huh? (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757512)

The "correct angle" part is the key. Most home theater setups won't work too effectively with such screens.

Been done (3, Interesting)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756774)

1969's The Stewardesses [thestewardesses.com] ("See the lusty stewardesses leap from the screen to your lap") "is the most profitable 3-D film in history" (Avatar may now have beaten it).

Re:Been done (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757178)

Box office mojo and other site's don't break it down by version of the film but both UP and Avater totally dominate that at $293M and $440M and there are 9 total 3D movies with revenues over $100M.

I see an Increase (2, Interesting)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756788)

In POV porn.

Re:I see an Increase (1)

jddj (1085169) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757218)

is that "Pee on Viewer"? Sorry, I don't keep up with all the fetishes...

Re:I see an Increase (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757474)

Point of View.

Triple D (4, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756792)

And here I thought that Double D was more than enough.

Re:Triple D (1)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756942)

No when you add another dimension you raise the power so its Quadruple D

Re:Triple D (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757070)

What's the fourth dimension? Time? Are you suggesting that you have a time traveling boobie machine? Does it need to reach 88 MPH before you can see boobies from years past? Please tell us more ;)

Re:Triple D (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757300)

1.21 Nipplewatts are required to fire up the Fux Capacitor.

Surely more could have been done with this title! (1)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756794)

Like "Porn Industry Vigorously Enters 3D Video Market"

Or maybe timothy has a foot fetish?

He underestimates me (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30756822)

people don't want to be encumbered by eyewear when viewing a film

I watched a whole porno crosseyed [wikipedia.org] , you insensitive clod! Glasses are a small price to pay for a larger picture and less eyestrain...

Seriously? (2, Interesting)

Evets (629327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756830)

Who in their right mind would actually buy a 3D tv that required you to wear glasses while viewing. That's absurd.

Re:Seriously? (5, Funny)

Zerth (26112) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756864)

I already need glasses to see just a 2d tv, you insensitive clod!

Re:Seriously? (1)

angiasaa (758006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757224)

Talking about dimensions, All TV's are 3D, except perhaps those that are depicted on planar surfaces.. :|

Re:Seriously? (1, Informative)

laron (102608) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757360)

+1 Insightful.
Nobody seems to make 3D goggles for people who already wear wear glasses. Or does anyone know a source for them?

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30756896)

Millions of farsighted people buy books that require glasses. Why should TV be any different?

(Kidding)

Re:Seriously? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756900)

Who in their right mind would go see a movie that required you to wear glasses while viewing? That's absurd.

Wait - how many people went to go see Avatar? I lost count.

Re:Seriously? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756956)

I went and saw Avatar. Twice. Neither time did I wear glasses. Though on the second viewing I did discover that my local theater adds subtitles to the movies on Monday nights. A courteous thing for the hearing impaired to be sure, but if I'd have known ahead of time I'd have probably skipped that showing. It gets distracting because if there's text there my instinct is to read it rather than watch the picture.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Doctor Faustus (127273) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756918)

Watching a Blu-Ray movie is already the only time I put on my glasses in my living room. It doesn't really sound like a stretch.

Re:Seriously? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756976)

I think the intention is that 3D TVs are not significantly more expensive than ordinary TVs -- all the display needs is to be able to update at 60FPS (for a 30FPS 3D movie).

The glasses synchronise with the image source, to flicker in sync.

A story about PS3 3D games recently said that some existing retail TVs can display at 120FPS, such that 60FPS 3D games are possible.

Re:Seriously? (2, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757048)

30FPS with shutter glasses was too much flicker for some people.

Pretty much all of the upcoming 3D TVs are in one of two categories:
1) Alternating polarization of each line, so half resolution in 3D mode
2) 120 Hz TVs with shutters. Right now this is the approach NVidia is backing. Problem is that apparently a lot of the 120 Hz TVs out there only do internal "mocomp" processing of 60 Hz inputs, and don't allow for native 120 Hz input.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757256)

You forgot option 3), RealD tech on regular TVs. Uses an alternating circularly polarizing overlay (aka, ZScreen) and regular circularly polarized glasses, with the whole rig running at some high framerate (RealD normally runs at 144hz). Samsung has licenced the tech.

Re:Seriously? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757324)

    I get a headache with a CRT monitor at 60hz (60 refreshes per second, for the oblivious), I can imagine what 30fps flickering glasses would do.

I think (3, Funny)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756842)

The need for glasses with straps holding them to your head would be a requirement.
You know.. with all that shaking going on the glasses will come right off.

Re:I think (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757020)

Comes off, you say?

Re:I think (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757210)

Goes off is more like it.

Encumbered by eyeware? (5, Funny)

gnutrino (1720394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756858)

Surely people who watch porn regularly will already need glasses

Re:Encumbered by eyeware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30756890)

No, just moist towels.

Re:Encumbered by eyeware? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756920)

Is this spin on the "touch yourself and go blind" myth?

If so its pretty clever.

Re:Encumbered by eyeware? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756964)

It can lead to blindness...
if you are not wearing protective eye wear, have bad aim and poor reflexes.

Re:Encumbered by eyeware? (1)

gnutrino (1720394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757018)

In all seriousness(ish) this is an issue - a girl I know very nearly went blind in one eye from getting hit at point blank range. Just a warning to be careful where you put it :)

Re:Encumbered by eyeware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757146)

Well, there goes one of the last virginities I still didn't take from my wife. What other holes or approximate holes could I try?

Re:Encumbered by eyeware? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757282)

Have you tried aural?

Re:Encumbered by eyeware? (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757374)

    You should get a good copy of the Purity Test, and see how many points you can lose. It may take a while, but it's worth it. Depending on the test, my score is down around 19%. No gay, children, necrophilia, piss/scat, or animals. Pretty much everything else is fair game. :)

When did they ask? (2, Interesting)

EriktheGreen (660160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756876)

I'd have said the same thing before going to "Avatar" in 3d. The usual litany of anti-3d excuses would apply:

  • The glasses give me headaches
  • The colors aren't right
  • They'll rub on my nose/ears and hurt
  • They'll distort the screen

I think this is mostly due to hollywood/tech companies chasing the holy grail of 3d for a long time. Many, many vendors have sold products based on claims of "true 3d images" including some spectacularly bad products like the virtual boy or NVidia's attempt at 3d with LCD shutter glasses.

But with the current crop of tech, they've finally made it useable. The glasses I used actually improved the colors, and the film was bright enough not to notice the slight darkening due to the glasses.

After the first 15 minutes of viewing Avatar with the dark glasses (RealD 3D) on, I wouldn't want to watch it any other way.

If you haven't seen Avatar in 3D, do so. Very worth it, and I hope other films are made that way soon. I actually made a joke about wanting to see a 3D porn film on the way out of the theater ("we'd be ducking every time the male lead stood up facing the screen").

Erik

Re:When did they ask? (1)

tygt (792974) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756978)

I saw Avatar 3D - and it was interesting..... but really:
  • I got a headache - most definitely eyestrain
  • Colors were fine, I'll grant you this
  • Glasses were uncomfortable and definitely limiting (this is apart from the eyestrain headache)
  • The screen's not distorted but 3D seems to reduces the resolution of the film

I still intend to see it in 2D; I expect that it'll be better than the 3D, at least for my visual aparatus.

Personally I didn't see that much 3D about the film. Yes, there were seed pods floating around a bit and embers floating but most of the film didn't show substantial 3D aspects more than my own mind typically infers from a 2D film.

Re:When did they ask? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757302)

All valid points save for this:

The screen's not distorted but 3D seems to reduces the resolution of the film

That it most certainly does not. You were seeing a regular 23.976 framerate (maybe 24, not sure what the precise RealD rate is... ostensibly it's 144hz, which means a 24 fps playback rate) film at normal digital film resolution.

The tech does, however, significantly impact brightness (since each eye is only seeing half the photons, give or take).

Re:When did they ask? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757274)

Avatar gave me a headache, the 3D felt gimicky, and was distracting. I would never watch another 3D film after that experience.

Re:When did they ask? (1)

McBeer (714119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757362)

Avatar gave me a headache, the 3D felt gimicky, and was distracting. I would never watch another 3D film after that experience.

I actually didn't have any of the traditional complaints (headache, blurry, gimmicky, etc) with Avatar in 3d. My only issue comes from me forgetting that it wasn't actually 3d, trying to focus on items in the background (or any place where the camera wasn't focusing) and finding that it wouldn't work. Most the time I naturally looked where the camera was focused, but when I didn't it was a strange sensation. In the entirely CG scenes without a traditional camera focus this issue was greatly decreased.

can't these guys do two screens, dump the glasses? (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756892)

porn stars don't like guys wearing silly 3D glasses. project onto one back screen and one semitransparent front screen, and put the 3D in the theater, not the cranium.

Re:can't these guys do two screens, dump the glass (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756922)

You have to separate the two screens for your eyes. Otherwise, you just see double.

Re:can't these guys do two screens, dump the glass (1)

gnutrino (1720394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756950)

That wouldn't give proper 3d though - just a separation of foreground and background....

Good ol' VeiwFinders (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30756982)

I think that would look a lot like these:
http://www.theamssite.com/images/viewfinder.jpg

I think people want more from 3D than just two 2D images separated by space.

lol, the CAPTCHA disagrees with me: nonsense

I have the title for the first big film! (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#30756910)

Avatard: Sarah Palin on Pandora!

Re:I have the title for the first big film! (1)

tcjr2006 (966458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757404)

Or the scat version, Avaturd.

Uh, why... (3, Funny)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757012)

Does anyone really want Peter North cumming at them in 3D?

Re:Uh, why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757450)

Some might, but they would certainly appreciate having those glasses on.

What is the difference (0)

Exception Duck (1524809) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757038)

Between a normal tv and a 3d tv (that you have to watch with 3d glasses)

Article tags (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757066)

What no porn?

why would it cost 30% more to make porn in 3D? (2, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757072)

why would it cost a massive 30% more to make porn in 3D?
Apart from the initial investment in a stereoscopic camera, isn't every other production cost the same? Especially if you're using digital not film. I mean its not like you need to cut/splice the left and right eye-tracks differently.

Re:why would it cost 30% more to make porn in 3D? (4, Informative)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757242)

If you had RTFA you would know that in addition to the equipment cost, filming takes longer because of the set up/tear down of twice as many cameras, and the post-processing does actually take more work to make sure both tracks are synced up properly. Also until people get used to filming in 3d there will need to be extra redos to get the actors' limbs in the picture instead of being cut off at the side of the 3d picture, which TFA says and I can imagine would be disconcerting.

Re:why would it cost 30% more to make porn in 3D? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757352)

Also these are LOW (think sub 100k) budget. So an additional 10k in hw/setup/time/etc on a 40k movie is 30% more.

They do low low low budget as they only press maybe 5k-10k total units. With a 'high budget of 50k movie they only need to sell 3500 or so to ROI. Everything else is gravy. If they get a 'hit' with one they can just press more. It is an oversaturated market. As any dope with a video camera can make one.

Who cares about eyeglasses!? (1)

KharmaWidow (1504025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757094)

Forget about the cost of popcorn and soda... The biggest ripoff in the theater today are the 3D glasses. You have to buy them EVERY time. Even when you watch the same film twice! Getting a pair of 3D glasses is no problem... As for being seen wearing them, is that really an issue? People get off smelling and licking dirty feet! A pair of 3D glasses will probably just add to the turn on and sex-with-3D-glasses-on will become another fetish.

I want 3D boobies!

Re:Who cares about eyeglasses!? (5, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757266)

I want 3D boobies!

We've had those for a while now. They're called "women".

Wait why are they Tiptoeing? (1)

jocabergs (1688456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757104)

Why are they tiptoeing, I say "tally-ho, brave porn providers".

Is it a coincidence? (1)

flabordec (984984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757186)

That the only comments (so far) which have been modded up are funny? Is it that as something mixes with porn the potential to make fun of it approaches 1?

Misery, Suffering and Addiction in 3D! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757238)

Wow. Now the fantasy can be even more real! Men can squander their lives away in fruitless masturbation in a world of even greater pain!

Penetration (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30757246)

Heh, he said penetration. Heh, heh heh!

30,000-40,000???!!! (3, Informative)

Loomismeister (1589505) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757320)

The porn that I've researched seems to have been made on a sub-$1,000 budget, how are they spending so much money!?

The porn industry needs to stick to fundamentals (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757452)

You know, like keeping the camera in focus and not moving around and getting the camera guy to shut up?

People will come around on the 3D glasses... (1)

Count Scrofula (612774) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757460)

Pretty soon your average bukkake video will be so realistic, you'll need protective eye-wear anyway.

domain rush (1)

drougie (36782) | more than 4 years ago | (#30757506)

Now's the time to beat the squatter rush and register 3d fapping-related domains before The Man grabs them all. I came up with 3dfap.com which I could use, I suppose, both in case I decide to "reenter" the scene or alternatively for regular emailing as people who know what it means would not be offended by it and those who don't know what it is don't know what it is and 3dfap's nice and short, nice ring to it.

Any ophthalmologists care to weigh in on whether chronic eye crossing is risky? And if so any lawyers want to weigh in on whether 3d fapping sites should post health risks warnings?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>