My brother told me I would be called <raincoater> in West. I heard that word, even know where term comes from (old cinema theatres), BUT:
I do not like Ass to Mouth, not really gapeing, no gag-factor sex, no spitting, no slobbering, no male-rimming. I dont care for girls swallowing, I am fine with old facials and cum flying somewhere different once in a while.
On ither hand I sure want all 3 holes of girl fucked if possible, I more and more like double penetration (especially of girls ass - DAP), I adore gangbang-movies, I want 100% condom-free films. I like sometimes hard S/M-sex play, fake-rape settings (only IF it is clearly fake) and piercings and tattoos. Even forced blow-job can be hot at times.
Only <raincoat?>-fashion I fellow is DAP-fashion I belive. Does this make me a raincoater?
I don't think there is a clearly defined definition of a raincoater shameless. We had a very long discussion about this in the chatroom a week or so ago, Denverdon may have the transcript or remember our conclusions better than I do.
I guess in todays world a raincoater is someone who admits to enjoying porn for the purposes of getting off and doesn't hide their fetish behind art settings and mainstream-like production values.
Essentially what I am saying is if you buy/rent porn to whack off, your probably a raincoater.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Mar 23 2003 : 9:27AM
shameless,
You are correct that the term raincoater came from the old cinema theaters that showed the porn movies. The old, or original term came from guys that went into the theaters and wore a longer, heavier coat (raincoat) so they could hide the fact that they were wanking off in the theater (which was not allowed).
That's the origin of it, but now it has transfered to not really mean the person, but more the type of film. That is, forget any plot or long involved setup, just show me the sex and only the sex. So the majority of gonzo or wall-to-wall porn movie would generally fall into the category of raincoater material. It doesn't have to involve dap, dpp, a2m, but it certainly can.
In short, the movie or presentation tries to throw as much sex at you in the short duration of the movie to get you excited.
Ishamael, you make me sound like an expert on it. I'm not, I'm just depraved.
Thank you for link, but I am even more confused. Only thing I know is this <banned user Druber> has just very strange and selfish Westerner idea. Attitude I hate, and thouht already to meet with US-companies paying <our> girls small fee for good acts.
I think this has nothing to do with raincoater fan-ship. I hope!
Me, I have problems fellowing all new porn trends. But maybe raincoater or not is not important. Yes, important is just enjoying porn. And off course I want wank off to porn. What else?!
Let me get this straight, I'm not a raincoater 'cos I like Dorcel's in my porn menu, mmmmmmmm interesting!
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Mar 24 2003 : 8:04AM
LOL Wally,
Raincoater is a generalized term. Now days usually aimed at the genre of film, not the viewer.
I watch Dorcel and Andrew Blake, but I also watch 'raincoater' material.
Actually, I think that raincoater is an outdated term that has been diluted and obscured over the years, but no other term as come up to replace it yet.
I think after 1 month of considering it, me too, I am definitely no raincoater. There is my liking of those Dercel-styled girls and settings, there is the statements of that <banned user> Druber-poster, that crude selfishness in getting anything out of the girls and not caring for them at all.
But finally I am glad I did not read that term even more than 1 time maybe all last month.
I told my brother to sneek more often into ADT to adjust his terminology. But all he is interested is his foot, latex etc. fetishes at the moment, I guess. Well, as long as he keeps throwing his parties with all those open attractive girls, I dont mind how he calls me...
Although Denver Don pointed out above that "Raincoater" currently is a genre description, it understandably has a negative connotation if it's regarded as a viewer label. Aside from the fact that no one wants to be put into a box, few guys (me for starters) would want to imagine themselves in a seedy porno theater, surreptitiously jacking off under a heavy rubber raincoat -- much less analogize their private porn viewing to that kind of shame-filled behavior.
On the other hand, some women might enjoy imagining themselves attending the same theater (with their imaginations helpfully editing out any odd smells, upholstery spotting, or lurking men) and jilling off with unabashed gusto -- the heavy rubber raincoat adding some naughty couture kink to the fantasy scene.
Women, am I right or wrong on this one?
If I'm right as far as some women go, that might lead back to the question of the different ways that men and women experience shame (and liberation) around their sexual feelings. Interesting stuff.
I used to work in one of those places and am unable to mentally edit the place to make it less unsavory.
My duties upon closing down at 1 a.m. were to check the restrooms to make sure there wasn't a guy hiding back there waiting for me, and then pick up soggy, wadded tissues on the floor, before sweeping and locking up. Nobody was assigned to cleaning the seats, so they never got checked or cleaned.
I made a tongue-in-cheek closing comment in my review of Beautiful Girls 9 that used the term raincoater. In my opinion it is the difference between 'watching men and women have sex' and 'men watching women have sex' (previously stated by me in the Lesbian vs. Gay thread). It is primarily applied to straight male viewers and movies that are presented in this way. With that definition Christoph's work falls into this category. If a movie or your take on it is 'wow, this sex is really hot and these people look like they're really getting into it and each other and that's what really turns me on' then that is not raincoater. If a movie or your take on it is 'wow, that girl looks really hot and I don't believe the things she will do and just looking at those pussies is gonna make be bust' then that is raincoater. I make no moral judgment and view movies in both modes.
In other words, if you are watching a movie just to see girls do nasty things that get you off, you are a raincoater.
to me, every man (or woman that can squirt), when i think of "raincaters", it makes me think of someone coating me with their cum(rain), which i have no problem being on the recieveing end of, i love it! but thats just my thought of what it could mean....=)
It confuses me as to why spankin it isnt allowed in theaters. Whats the point in paying to see a porn flick if you cant spank it? Maybe thats just me but in my opinion thats like opening a bar and banning drinking. Anyone else have any thoughts on this matter?