She was a versatile performer and everything she did, she did well. I'll admit that I would be fascinated to see what she would look like without the back piece. She had beautiful skin, and I have a thing for women's backs. But it was just something that went along with Jandi and it didn't diminish her in my eyes.
I'll just say what I always say when talking about tattoos. I've seen a few tattoos that were tolerable (mostly ones that were small, cute ones like shooting stars) but I've never seen a tattoo that made the girl look better than she would without it. Personally? I'll buy the argument that it's their business if that's what they want but this is a make or break issue for me. If I see a girl who's perfect except that she has a tattoo I can't stand, I'll have to reluctantly move on. They can wear any tattoo they want but they'll have to realize that when you do things that drive people away, you're going to lose at least some business. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/15/2011 3:05:31 AM
Gravity as Curved Space: Bootymeister's Theory of General Relativity 1589 Posts 11/08
Posted - Jul 15 2011 : 11:18AM
^
I agree and I am against tattoos. Also, I do not like her front tattoo, but she is beautiful and I watch every scene she does.
Most ponrstars have ink somewhere, including my favorite Marie Luv, and it hepls when you actually like the tattoo. The main problem is that a tattooo is hard to change. I would have a hard time trying to name my favorites which have absolutely no tattoos, then someone might point out a tattoo I missed.
This is one of the biggest reasons why you don't see many posts from me in the "Name your 20 favorite porn stars" threads. I generally look for the kind of porn I like first and then try and find the movies with the fewest tatts and implants. Since it's virtually impossible to find a movie with no tatts or implants, I skip the scenes that have them. I would normally look for the hottest girls but since I don't like tattoos, I don't have that luxury. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/15/2011 4:06:59 PM
Agree 100% I'll say it again for the cheap seats and because I can. The girl's body is their selling point. Tacky, cheap, skanky, unattractive tattoos on beautiful flawless skin are like dents and scratches on a brand new car. Personally I wouldn't buy that either.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Jul 16 2011 : 1:24AM
I was in the grocery store today and the cashier was talking to the woman in line in front of me and mentioned something about a touch up. It turns out the cashier is going to go over to the woman's house for a tat touch up because its a lot cheaper than going to a studio. I can only wonder how many of the girls in porn do the same thing.
it REALLY cracks me up how once the alt.porn thing started to get big, non-alt girls in the industry started getting full sleeves. (I mean, yeah, Janine was getting all that done before Burning Angel showed up, but didn't Janine say it was partly because she thought it would keep from coming back to the business?) makes some of your more generic girls more interesting to look at, in my opinion. . . . but the alt girls still have better tattoos, because they're not walking into some shop and having a bunch of flowers put on their arm to look "edgy". Edited by - cm37564 on 7/16/2011 4:04:15 PM
Keeping an eye on the intersection of Pop Culture Blvd. & Porn Culture Ave. 151 Posts 7/11
Posted - Jul 16 2011 : 6:31PM
Great post about which I agree 100%. My question is why managers and agents, when they are dealing with fresh talent that is not tatted up, do not teach these newbies that if they want a long and lucrative career then staying tat free is the way to go. It leaves open a much larger array of career oportunities to the performer. But then long-term (even medium-term) thinking is all to rare in the adult business. Does anyone imagine,to use one of your examples, that Bree Olson would be on the cover of the current Playboy, if she was all tatted up. The even remotely plausible chance that she might have some mainstream oportunities would not exist if she had tattos and/or a poor quality boob job.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 16 2011 : 11:58PM
Maybe they just don't give a shit? They are doing porn after all, if they were too worried about what others thought of them or their 'long-term' they wouldn't be in porn after all.
Keeping an eye on the intersection of Pop Culture Blvd. & Porn Culture Ave. 151 Posts 7/11
Posted - Jul 17 2011 : 12:02AM
^ Not just the starlets. The managers and agents should be telling their new clients how to actually manage a career. I think all to many of the managers and agents take a short-term, unprofessional view of their clients. The ones that make money of the long-tern are probably the ones that are best at getting their clients to make money over the long-term.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Jul 17 2011 : 1:56PM
Oh please. Rachel is on the cover of Playboy for one reason and one reason only. I'm going out on a limb by saying anyone who buys the issue off the shelf is buying because they don't watch porn and have no idea who she is other than being a "Goddess."
+1. I agree with you and I would just like to add that it's a sure sign that Playboy is in deep trouble when they feature a pornstar taking her clothes off. They did the same thing for Sasha Grey and i thought that was pathetic but to repeat it with another porn girl.
If you guys hate porn so much, what are you doing here? The people who are complaining about tats and boob jobs are trying to improve porn. All I see here with the last few posts is people taking pot shots at the porn biz.
I don't see it like that, to suggest that they hate porn is going a bit far. Being tattooed myself I understand the prejudices that come with being tattooed. Luckily for me being tattooed doesn't interfere with my ability to earn an income, I don't rely on what I look like for money. Not watching porn with tattooed girls is the same as not wanting to watch trannys, IR, gay porn, anal, S&M, I could go on. It's all personal preference. If people don't want to watch a scene with a girl with tattoos in it, so be it. I'm still going to watch scenes with Mason Moore and Teagan Presley in them because I think they're both fucking stunning girls and if I can't fuck them I'm going to jerk off over them. At the same time I'm going to bust a nut over Lisa Ann or Nikki Benz because they're gorgeous too and I love to watch them fuck. Everything about watching porn is the viewer's personal preference. Why do people keep questioning this?
I don't think anyone is questioning this. But it is pretty obvious that when a girl goes overboard with tattoos and cosmetic surgery (which almost never looks natural) that her days are usually numbered. I believe this is one of the main reasons why most people get so excited over new girls. It's not because people get bored with girls they've already seen. It's because the girls they used to like changed so much after they got popular for having a certain look. I usually don't get bored with girls I like. Though I do have a wandering eye, I tend to keep the girls I like in mind when looking for new material. I only stop watching them when they've changed so much they're nothing like what I fell in love with when I started following their work. A girl who comes into the business without a bunch of tatts or a boob job is not going to be able to keep the fans who liked her for her relatively natural vibe if she goes and gets a bunch of stuff done. She MIGHT make new fans who either don't mind that stuff or actually have a fetish for it but why would anyone want to purposely run off the fans they already have and then have to work harder to make new fans? And in addition to that, they're putting something on their body that's going to be a pain in the ass to get rid of if they change their mind. I want them to enjoy themselves and their success and above all, I want them to be free to do whatever they want. I hate to be the guy out here saying "Well, if you do this, I'm not going to be watching you anymore". But what else can I do? The only control a customer has over the product is the brand loyalty. Repeat business. You keep buying a certain product because you're satisfied with it. And if you keep buying it, the people who make it are going to assume you're satisfied and will never change a thing until the money stops coming in. It's a harsh way to deal with a problem that involves someone's personal choices but it's really the only way to do it when customers keep complaining and nothing is changing. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/18/2011 5:13:01 AM
^I'm not sure if you thougth I meant that it was pathetic for a porn girl to appear in playboy but I meant that it was pathetic for the magazine to feature a girl who's primary job is having hardcore sex on screen as their celebrity (couldn't think of another word) nude girl. It's a great gig for the girls because it gives them some serious exposition and doesn't involve them doing anything more than taking their clothes off.
Keeping an eye on the intersection of Pop Culture Blvd. & Porn Culture Ave. 151 Posts 7/11
Posted - Jul 19 2011 : 12:10PM
^ You may not have to wait to long. Jenna Jameson's been on Oprah. Bree Olson has been on 20/20 and Dateline (although not really featured). Sasha Gray has been on more than a few mainstream outlets promoting her recent book. It's just a short step to a 60 Minutes feature.
Gravity as Curved Space: Bootymeister's Theory of General Relativity 1589 Posts 11/08
Posted - Jul 31 2011 : 11:01AM
^
In porn viewing I have a tolerance for both boob jobs and tattoos. But in real life I would be willing to get involved with the holder of a bad tattoo, but not at all interesed in getting invloved with the holder of even the best boob job. Piercings are totally out of the question, even at Starbucks.
Introducing Lady LorReign
Posted - Jul 14 2011 : 1:37AM