Allie Sin

That being said, Allie is one of my new favorite girls. While I do think she should get some tattoo's removed, as i think she has too many, I agree that it would be a lot of effort and money to get rid of all of her's.

[Link]

I know but I have never seen anything this bad before. In the past with girls like Holly Woods or Cynara Fox, companies always had them in poses for boxcovers that hid their tattoos. And if you look at the other boxcovers with Allie Sin you can see that other companies are doing that with her. However, not Lethal Hardcore. They just airbrush them all out. I have never before seen such a massive airbrush job on tattoos than this one.

Edited by - tscfan317 on 12/1/2004 7:01:44 AM

[Link]

Allie's breasts are all natural as you can see by watching that first clip. She really has a beautiful pair of breasts. And I know from reading your posts that you appreciate a nice set of breasts. Allie also has a very pretty face. When you consider Allie's natural beauty it's no surprise that a company would want her on the boxcover to help sell the video. However, from the company's perspectve all of those tattoos are a problem because they take away from the girls natural beauty. The boxcover of I Was Tight Yesterday 2 describes Allie as "young natural Allie." She doesn't seem as young or natural if you see all those tattoos, so the company makes the decision to airbrush them out. After all, the company's first objective is to sell the product and a pretty all natural covergirl is the main selling point.

Is it going too for a company to airbrush a girl's tattoos? I don't think so, but I would prefer if they didn't do it. As a fan I prefer to see the girls as they are so that when I buy or rent the movie I know exactly what I'm getting. Fortunately, Allie is a very pretty girl, so I think most fans will be able to overlook all that ink on her body.

[Link]

First off, I wasn't sure either way about Allie's breasts. If they are real, I was mistaking natural firmness for implants. Now...

I appreciate your post but I think you are going way too easy on the company, completely rationalizing what is in truth false advertising and an intentional attempt at misleading the consumer. They are just trying to sell a product so doing something like this is perfectly fine? Hell no it isn't. The pursuit of capital at any and all cost is the whole reason that the quality of porn has been slowly diminishing over the past couple of years (making porn that supposedly sells, ie following trends and contributing to the massive homogenization of gonzo, as opposed to making porn you yourself would want to see). The girl has tattoos. Fine. Don't put her on the cover then or put her on the cover and see if you might attract a slightly different demographic with a girl covered in tattoos on the cover. And don't see you how ludicruous it is to airbrush the tattoos and then call her "young and natural"?

Allie Sin is an extremely attractive woman, tattoos and all. That girl on the cover of I Was Tight Yesterday 2 though? She doesn't exist. How is this any different from bait and switch? I see that girl on the cover and buy the DVD. I put it in and watch it and see that she is actually full of tattoos. "Hey, what the fuck? I want the girl on the cover." Will people be able to get over it? Some will, as you very optimistically point out, and some won't. They shouldn't even have to be in that situation though.

Perhaps I am being too idealistic, as Bill's brief post showed a more seasoned complete lack of surprise. But damnit if we just sit here and take it they are going to keep doing it. Then again, what fucking recourse do we have? All I can do is engage in a completely meaningless boycott of Lethal Hardcore, which will inevitably end when they cast a Piper Austin or Penny Flame or some other new girl I just have to see. Now that I think about it though Lethal's generally crappy product lately is doing a good enough job of deterring me already so maybe a boycott would be easier than I think.

They used to put erroneous lengths on boxcovers. Most compilation tapes still suffer from that error. They used to list girls in casts who actually were not in the title. They used to title a tape to make it seem like it will be one thing when in reality it is something else. I'd say nowadays we have it a lot better in this area but with guys like Stoney Curtis still around, he of the oh so manipulative Fast Times at Deep Crack High series, the problem is not gone. I won't be checking out I Was Tight Yesterday 2 and I just consider this thread a buyer beware warning on that title.

But I digress...

Edited by - tscfan317 on 12/1/2004 7:29:05 AM

[Link]

Edited by - jimmy lifestyles on 12/1/2004 7:50:19 AM

[Link]

You make good points and I don't disagree with you. The boxcover of I Was Tight Yesterday 2 is misleading. And I don't approve of it. I was merely explaining why a porn company would find it desirable to airbrush the tattoos off the covergirl. Airbrushing is a common technique and the people in the porn industry are not the only ones who use it. The models in the fashion (like Cosmopolitan and Vogue) and fitness magazines are airbrushed and computer generated to create a perfect image in order to sell clothes, makeup, fitness products etc... Again, I'm not justifying airbrushing. I'm simply explaining why it's done.

However, despite my disapproval of the practice, an airbrushed covergirl isn't going to stop me from buying a movie if I like the girl. I love heavily tattooed babe Ryan Star, and despite the fact her tattoos have been airbrushed out of every boxcover she's been the covergirl on isn't enough of a reason for me not to buy what are otherwise good movies. In my opinion, it is a far greater offense for a porn company to have boxcover pictures that depict a certain sexual act (like a dp) that in actuality is not in the movie. Or even worse, a boxcover that pictures a girl who isn't even in the movie. Any company that routinely commits those kinds of offenses will not get my business. But an airbrushed covergirl is just not enough of an impediment to keep me from buying a movie if I like the girl. You obviously feel stronger about the issue of airbrushing then I do, and I'm sure many people feel the same way you do. I just don't think airbrushing the covergirl is enough of an offense to warrant boycotting an otherwise good movie.

Edited by - Delaware on 12/1/2004 12:25:11 PM

[Link]