/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.844444]

I'm planning to make a web sketch comedy, but first I have to see if I'm funny. I beg you to read this and tell me if I'm wacky enough to start screenwriting on web?

-----
Teacher: well today we're going to start a new lesson. Pornography and Erotica. open your books. page seventy nine please. yes Brooks?
- What's the difference between a facial and a cream pie?
- Yes we all know that you pre-study everything. there's no need to objectify it. please sit down and listen with the other studetns now. there are two kinds of porno, softcore and hardcore. in softcore pornography, depiction of vulva, penis and breast is precluded...
- Sir I've seen some on the cable that show breasts.
- Well some of them, do yes. and hardcore, which in, intercourse is explictly shown. the latter includes cunnilingus, fellatio and different kinds of foreplay that will help the viewer prepare himself for masturbation and self-pleasure. since we've discussed masturbation last month, would you... Harrington?
- Yes sir?
- What is the first rule in masturbating?
- Self-preservation?
- Why don't you study more? Jones?
- Synchronization.
- Yes. an asynchronous masturbation can be very harmful for your sex life. which a bad porno can cause it.
- How we know that a porno is good?
------

[Anonymous No.844453]

not funny

[Anonymous No.844457]

-----
- That's what I'm intended to teach you for now. one, a gorgeous actress. two a good setting. three, no condoms used during the coitus...
- Sir what about STDs?
- Shut up Wilkerson I don't need you chiming in while I'm teaching... alright. these were the easy stuff, you must know theories of making a good porno too.
- But sir..
- Sir it's hard.
- I was not directly included in editing this book, so take your complaints to the writers. first choose the setting, should it be a bed, a stairway, a car, a bathroom, a tub, then the orientation, regardless of your own taste, and prejudices. choose the actors and actresses...
- Based on what criteria, sir?
- Well Wilkerson, just test them for STDs. [class laughs]. But I'm now going to show you some examples that indicates a good, a bad and a mediocre pornstar... first one, as you see, has a photogenic face and rigid vulva. second one... would you care to wake up, Handersen? that's why you shouldn't both text and twit simultaneously until the dawn. next, a bad one. she's not beautiful, some of you may call her horrible. her vagina is loose and shrunken. that won't attract any of the people who are looking for a decent masturbation material. and a mediocre one, that is, between these two.
- Sir what about breasts?
- I was hoping that someone would mention that. breasts are usually the same between porn actresses, because they're all young and I don't think it really matters.
[bell rings]
- Alright your homework assignment for this week is making an amateur porn clip between 10 to 15 minutes length. remember the sex arousal and intercourse art from the last year. good luck and see you next week.
----

[Anonymous No.844459]

that's it?

i did not even smile.

[Anonymous No.844463]

>>844453
You didn't even read it did you?

[Anonymous No.844468]

>>844459
Well I think because it's a screenplay... I bet you won't laugh at Year One's screenplay either.

[Anonymous No.844471]

wait what bit was the joke ?

[Anonymous No.844491]

>>844468

no, i think it's because it's not funny. Yeah the idea of schools teaching students about porn is odd, but it's not funny in and of itself. The situation itself is just weird, there's nothing amusing about it.

[Anonymous No.844493]

Right place, wrong time.

[Anonymous No.844524]

This is not even mildly amusing.

[Anonymous No.844549]

>- What's the difference between a facial and a cream pie?
Stopped reading here.

[Anonymous No.844635]

pythons did it

Monty Python's Meaning of Life, about 15 minutes into the movie, check it out, OP

[Anonymous No.844640]

Not funny.

[Anonymous No.844647]

Sorry bud, not funny at all.

Comedy is hard though, you have a mildly interesting idea, but the jokes aren't really funny at all...if you meant to have jokes. I mean people really do study this stuff at university, my friend had a class on porn and culture, and this seems just about as funny as that class did... probably a little less so, since he had to watch gay nazi porn, which would be funnier than this.

[Anonymous No.845863]

overwritten and you're obviously trying to be funny. try and shorten it significantly

[Anonymous No.845890]

not funny at all

[Anonymous No.845902]

>>844635
>>844635
>>844635
this, a thousand times. how did none of the other posters mention it first?

[Anonymous No.845934]

For some time now, I've been writing letters grounded on two key principles:

- there is no compelling moral or economic reason why Mr. Charles Darwin should help impractical ruffians back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof, and
- he maintains a cozy relationship with fickle megalomaniacs.

Before I begin, let me point out that he once said that hanging out with the most vainglorious tax cheats you'll ever see is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that Darwin insists that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. In the long run, however, he's only fooling himself. Darwin would be better off if he just admitted to himself that he once had the audacity to tell me that his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. My riposte was that it is mathematically provable that his ballyhoos make about as much sense as jumping off a building and hoping you'll sprout wings on the way down. I'm not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn't understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What's also quite believable is that Darwin holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who install a puppet government that pledges allegiance to his self-pitying camp.

[Anonymous No.845937]

Although Darwin is trying to portray himself as a great philosopher on par with Wittgenstein or some such personage, his victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Darwin's subordinates, who loudly proclaim that anyone who disagrees with Darwin is a potential terrorist. Regardless of those lousy proclamations, the truth is that he is still going around insisting that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that I'm sure he wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his conversations. So why does Darwin want to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion? Let me give you a hint: His opinion is that there won't be any blowback from his dragging men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrating them. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Darwin wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey his every command. To produce such an army, he plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach he takes, Darwin relies heavily on "useful idiots", that is, people who unwittingly do Darwin's dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, Darwin would not have been able to conceal the fact that his bookish assistants like to shout, "Let's undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. That'll be wonderful. Hooray, hooray!" But that won't be wonderful. Rather, it'll pander to brain-damaged hell-raisers.

[Anonymous No.845943]

There is a simple answer to the question of what to do about Darwin's objectives. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must tell Darwin how wrong he is. On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must suppress people's instinct and intellect. Darwin does that even when his liberties aren't being threatened. To some extent, his suggestions are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. His fulminations, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, can no longer brook his censorious, inaniloquent hastily mounted campaigns. That's the sort of statement that some people assert is unbalanced but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Darwin-hater out of you. First off, I'm not afraid of him. However, I am concerned that Darwin claims that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. I profess that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that I find Darwin's cacoëthes loquendi most irritating. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the statism-prone manner in which he has been trying to encourage a deadly acceptance of intolerance. As a final, parting thought, I assert that we must subject Mr. Charles Darwin's false-flag operations to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted, but if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a world in which people are no longer afraid to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature.