Real poop behind 2G1C, US obscenity law, and 'net security.

Discuss

39 Responses to “Real poop behind 2G1C, US obscenity law, and 'net security.”

  1. Tenn says:

    I’ve avoided this meme entirely except for a few unfortunate OH SHIT (pun not intended) stills-stumbles. Like back in the Tubgirl / Goatse days.

    Really though. Good on all of you for recognizing security issues and the willingness of these people to debase themselves for 12 bucks and some crack but what the real issue is here is this;

    WHAT IN HELL IS WRONG WITH HUMANITY?

    That is all.

  2. Jake0748 says:

    Thanks Tenn, I was wondering the same.

  3. Cochonerie says:

    Bah, I watched the video a couple of times and I don’t think it’s real. Without wanting to get too graphic [warning], I’m pretty sure the woman was “stuffed” and then told to push it out. Then a different cup of “stuffing” was given to the women for them to eat. It’s still gross, but not the real deal.

    I mean, think about it. Given that the producers were so intent on shocking people, they wouldn’t have cut between the “pushing out” and the eating if they didn’t have to. Why would they do that?

    To get an idea of what I mean, compare 2G1C (if you’re willing to see it) to the final scene in John Waters’ cult hit, Pink Flamingos. There’s no cut in John’s shot, which is what makes it so shocking and revolting.

    Amazingly, if you have never seen Pink Flamingos before, you can see the final scene on Youtube – lol.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOMrslEMp94

  4. Takuan says:

    WHAT IN HELL IS WRONG WITH HUMANITY?

    nothing new. Just pay attention to the good stuff, the other isn’t important nor is it going away.

  5. Tenn says:

    I usually do. Except when it interferes with the chocolate mini bundt cake I was just enjoying. Emphasis on the ‘just’.

  6. Sister Y says:

    One thing is that the government needs to force the porn industry to treat porn performers as employees (eligible for worker’s compensation) rather than letting them treat them as independent contractors and externalize the cost when they get HIV and such.

    Okay I am going to stop being serious and academic now and go watch Nightwatch.

  7. Anonymous says:

    you know, for their willingness to completely debase and humiliate themselves in front of millions of people, the girls that made that movie either got paid thousands and thousands of dollars, or like $12 and a fistfull of crack rocks.

    there’s no middle ground.

  8. romwell says:

    Heh, that was actually the way I saw 2G1C =) I immediately thought that they have substituted chocolate or chocolate ice cream, for two reasons: 1)to keep my sanity =) 2)by placing myself in the place of the director: just makes so much easier to find actors/film/etc. Way more practical. As for puking, well, that was for real.. but that’s not as disgusting, since the vomit goes through mouth anyway.. Agh, introducing a measure on disgust is a hopeless/useless task anyway =)

  9. Anonymous says:

    I can tell you that is NOT real poop. Poop looks way different, and does not come out like that, (I speak from experience :P). It looks like a foam kind of poop come out from an aerosol can or something – perhaps put inside the girl’s an*s (a small one with compressed foam takes up little space) and then when squeezed it comes out or something. Do you really think they would EAT poop – it would kill them, certainly 100% death/disease is imminent. You see when she eats the poo and shows it on her tongue? It is oval shaped, round and has a form. THAT IS NOT POOP. Poop is shapeless and textured differently (I am a poop specialist). I can assure you 100% that that is NOT real poo. Guaranteed, and I hope you all feel a bit less sick now that’s cleared up.

  10. kristofer says:

    I’m probably in the minority here, but I’ve never seen this… and I believe I’ll be happy if I live the rest of the my days NOT seeing it either.

  11. Sam says:

    So is it poop or not?

  12. Halloween Jack says:

    Tying the film to malware sites is a modern extension of the old badger con; in order to protest the invasion, you have to be willing to admit what you were doing there in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that a lot of fetish sites rip off their paying customers for just such a reason.

    As for the whiners who blame BB for defiling their eyeballs, puh-leeze. You’re just trying to hand off the remorse that you feel, once your curiosity is sated, onto someone else.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I think there was a cut between the defecation part and the parts where they eat it.

    Thus, it could have been:

    1. The real deal all the way;

    2. Real fecal matter defecated; phony fecal
    matter eaten;

    3. Fake fecal matter defecated and eaten;

    4. That “shit” was digital!

    Nevertheless, they were still puking whatever the substance was up and into each other’s mouths.

    People have been doing stuff likes for eons; just read the Marquis de Sade’s work. There are probably some hieroglyphs with similar subject matter.

    We will probably never know with exact certainty what happened, since it’s a movie, and you can’t trust it’s makers to tell the trut.

  14. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    If shit is so awful, why are so few of you talking about the security implications instead?

    Good on those who are.

  15. Benny says:

    @#3: heh heh heh.

    Well now I’m really curious, is it poop? I always thought it looked… froGOD I CAN’T BELIEVE I’M TRYING TO DISCUSS IT!!!

    You know, do all the nasty shit you want, as long as everyone consents, everybody wins!!!

    Except for the poor bastards and bastardessess that inadvertently watched it.

  16. nex says:

    Tying the film to malware sites is a modern extension of the old badger con; in order to protest the invasion, you have to be willing to admit what you were doing there in the first place. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that a lot of fetish sites rip off their paying customers for just such a reason.

    There may well be sites that rip off unsuspecting customers, but that this isn’t the case here; the ‘malware sites’ either don’t have the video at all (just pretending instead), or show an illicit copy. The original producers aren’t actively involved in that.

    I feel compelled to point out that linking directly to sites distributing malware is an extremely bad idea

    The only people that do that on purpose are those who set up the malicious web sites in the first place; i.e. in comments to blog posts who talk about the ‘real’ video. They already know what they’re doing, and do it anyways, and others who propagate these links unwittingly don’t even know they’re linking to sites that distribute malware. So, it kind of is worth pointing out that this is bad, but there isn’t really anyone to whom you can point it out ;-)

    and also improves the Google PageRank scores of the sites listed (effectively increasing the likelihood that they’ll appear in Google searches for the foul videos in question.)

    You can link to something without increasing its PageRank; it’s done by setting the ‘nofollow’ attribute. However, if more posts about the video would actually link to a good copy of it, then these good copies would become the top search engine hits and displace the more malicious links.

  17. Michael says:

    At this point, the humor has sort of taken on a life of its own. Thank God I read the Cliff Notes before searing it into my hypothalamus for life.

  18. Andrew Denny says:

    I looked for the original, because I was starting to wonder if it was an art project. Perhaps, I thought, the scat video didn’t exist, but you could get people looking for it, and creating tributes. For example the ‘granny’ expressing shock might have been an actor.

    A bit like wondering what’s under the Scotsman’s kilt.

  19. BIZKeT says:

    You will never know what is under my kilt. Only my girlfriend knows.

    And all those people at the bar when I was hammered and wanted to express my real feelings about Bon Jovi.

  20. Scoutmaster says:

    If it’s not real and inspires people to try it. My god, the irony!

  21. kingmu says:

    This topic _is not wonderful_. It’s sick like a bad fever or food poisoning. This is not good BoingBoing material.

  22. Anonymous says:

    i saw a terrible one with a bunch of asian chics in a bathroom shitting on one asian girls face n peeiong on her..omg i was gagging..that shhhh is real.PUN INTENTED

  23. Xenu says:

    Looks like the shit has hit the fan!

  24. Mitch says:

    I really hope it’s fake. Thinking it might be
    fake won’t make me able to watch it without
    dry heaving, though.

    It kind of reminded me of the show Fear Factor.
    Cn y drnk th cckrch smth wtht
    rtchng? Can you watch 2 girls 1 cup without
    getting sick?

  25. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Guys, I’ve disemvowelled a few passages. It’s not that I necessarily disapprove of them; it’s that some of the people reading here don’t want to be stuck imagining any more chocolate pudding pictures.

    Scoutmaster (8), I don’t think anyone tries that stuff who doesn’t already have the inclination. All the video can do is tell them that they’re not the only one in the world who’s got that kink. That isn’t a bad thing. It might avert a few suicides.

    Kingmu (9), you must get past the shit to see the security issues.

    Squashy (13), no, probably not, and stop trying to gross out Kingmu.

    Kip (16), would you like me to tell you it’s fake? I can even tell you that I have a recipe (you know I collect odd recipes) for making a suitably convincing product out of normal kitchen ingredients.

    Cochonerie (19), it’s no use putting “warning” in front of a description if you enclose the word in carets, since that just makes it invisible. I’ve taken the liberty of changing the carets to square brackets so it’ll show up.

    Mitch (22), I could have gone my entire life without reading that second paragraph.

  26. nex says:

    [#19] Given that the producers were so intent on shocking people, they wouldn’t have cut between the “pushing out” and the eating if they didn’t have to. Why would they do that?

    What on earth makes you think the producers made any cuts? I’m sure the original video has no such cuts; the famous version probably is a teaser released as promotion for the entire product. Also, the assumption that they were intent on shocking anyone is not a given, but completely wrong.

    [#21] As for puking, well, that was for real.. but that’s not as disgusting, since the vomit goes through mouth anyway.

    You’re deluding yourself, bt y’d stp tht rthr qckly s smn pt bwl f fcs nd bwl f vmt n frnt f y nd tld y t pck n ;->

  27. Toestubber says:

    Spammers love to say “LOL.”

  28. dissist says:

    @kingmu
    The subject matter of the clip may not be wonderful, but internet memes (as a category), and the tangled web from which they spring forth, are.

  29. Anonymous says:

    I have not looked for the clip described here, but the description makes me wonder if this is edited from a file called SWAP.AVI which was described at length on the somethingawful.com website…

  30. Squashy says:

    “This topic _is not wonderful_. It’s sick like a bad fever or food poisoning.”

    I was wondering about this. Isn’t that exactly what you’d get from eating real poop?

  31. nex says:

    Recently I’d come across a comment thread about such malware below a blog post. That post had a headline which implied you could watch the 2g1c video there, but in fact you couldn’t. Below, one of the comments promised a proper link, but linked to some malware, and another comment pointed exactly that out to possibly unsuspecting readers. At the time I didn’t think twice about that and just surfed on; to me such an attack is trivial and I’m usually not around people who would fall for such a trick. Most people I know don’t even have an OS or apps that could possibly be affected.

    But now that I consider it again, actually this is one more reason why, if you have to talk about that stuff (and I really don’t care one bit whether you do), you should provide a proper link to the subject of your post. Apophasis is an asshole tactic anyways, however I didn’t see it that way when Pesco and Xeni did it, because their intentions certainly were good, and if you really have to see the videos, they’re easy enough to find with a simple web search. The link to the stupid reaction video was too much, however. When you google for “two girls one cup” today, you only get reaction videos and ‘fake’ links in the top 20 results, and you can end up downloading some malware rather quickly.

    One page I’d come across was really creative: It had an Active-X applet embedded inside a screenshot of exactly the frame that is around videos on YouTube. My computer doesn’t do Active-X, but I guess what this applet does is show the video with the nasty shit in the foreground and pull off some even nastier shit in the background.

    So, it is bad to post about stuff without linking to it. This includes mentioning, in an unrelated post, that you’re not talking about a certain video, which people should not watch. Really, why mention it at all, then? Of course, a major reason why doing this is not nice is that cencorship is not nice. Sending people on a time-consuming search is usually rather harmless, as it’s their own fault, but when they end up downloading malware … not cool.

  32. Antinous says:

    Please assume that the above is a malicious link.

    I’ve reported it for removal.

  33. Anonymous says:

    Isn’t it funny that the “Can’t see the video? Click here” ad for theITroom.com is right under the 2girls1cup article. A moment of web juxtaposition zen.

  34. hatfactory says:

    I feel compelled to point out that linking directly to sites distributing malware is an extremely bad idea – it risks damaging the computers of naive users who click on the links, and also improves the Google PageRank scores of the sites listed (effectively increasing the likelihood that they’ll appear in Google searches for the foul videos in question.)

  35. kip w says:

    “Soylent Brown is People’s!”

    The concept is bad enough, but I might be a jot happier knowing that the unholy grail is a fake. Then again, I still know too much, and can never unknow it, even without watching the POS. Seriously, I’m sorry it was ever even mentioned.

  36. spokes says:

    it’s no pink flamingos (but it’s still disgusting).

  37. monkz says:

    I’m just waiting for someone to make a video for “Two Girls, a Cup and a Pizza Place”

  38. hanoverfiste says:

    I am surprised by the “big deal” made about this “movie”.

    In fact it isn’t even the movie but the trailer that someone has repackaged as Two Girls and a Cup.

    I read in reactions/reviews people thinking MFX 1209 is some kind of cryptic name in the vein of THX 1138,

    The number is actually a catalog number for the series. The correct name of the film is MFX 1209: “Hungry Bitches” and and runs and 1:01. Probably more than most people could stomach.

    Interesting data about MFX/Marco Fiorito. It subtracts a lot from me to learn the trade secret that the poop is fake.

    I’ve seen a couple of his movies and there are quite a few. The cleverest one to me was MFX 1156: “I shit in your Ass”.

    ftr mssy fstng sssn Brzln lsbn n trn tk dmp nt th thr grl. Search for Scat and Brazil as well as visits to various torrents sites should produce the actual movies.

    Interestedly, the majority of the fetish films are either German or Brazilian.

    And it tends to get ruled obscene by the US government. In 2001, a company was forced to forfeit girlspooping dot com (there is no site now at all it is owned by the US Department of Justice.) The site marketed videos of girls on the toilet, no sex.

    Ironically, in Japan scat and bukkake films are legal and yet straight intercourse films are illegal.

  39. Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator says:

    Be wary of anything posted here in future, too.

Leave a Reply