Reviewers Recommend Tres Vias - review by Captain Jack Starring: Christian Clay, Alex Jones, Blake Blossom, Azul Hermosa, Madi Collins, Matthew Meier, Melanie Marie, Sky Wonderland, Eve Sweet, Rikako Katayama, Vixi Rafi. Read review
An interesting thread - thanks to the pros who have taken the time to respond! If it's not too much of a stretch within this topic: - does getting a boob job usually change the performance rate? For instance, does a small chested performer always get the lesser rate, and a large chested performer get the higher rate per act? - does having tattoos add to or detract from the average rate you get? and finally a question about features: - in normal films, directors who (for instance) have a nude scene in the film will often shoot it first to ensure the film isn't partially filmed and the star backs out or refuses to do the nude scene. With a porn feature film, will they shoot the most taxing/difficult scene first to ensure their main star will be there through the whole shoot and not back out of their most extreme performance?
^ That's true. What about Black women that don't perform with White guys? Somehow they're not racist? This is very confusing politcally correct bullshit. I'm a white male but how come only white males/females can be racist? There's serious double standards here. Why are white people the only "racists" on earth?
^ OK first of all, there are no black females who refuse to work with white guys. None. Second, racism is very much related to power/privilege, so it's not a complete coincidence that most often the cries of racism are directed at white people in our culture. Not "on Earth", as you say, but in our culture. If you were somewhere else, a similar thing would happen with whichever race/ethnicity is the dominant culture there.
I'm not in the porn biz and can't be sure but I would think a girl getting a boobjob wouldn't get her a larger rate per se but would allow her to simply get jobs she would've been able to get before and perhaps attract fans she didn't have before. A boobjob would more than likely result in more money for a girl but I don't think the boobjob alone would result in her getting a higher rate unless it made her much more popular and bigger draw for fans. But I could be wrong.Good question. I'm willing to bet that it doesn't effect rates. Clearly some fans don't like what they consider to be too many tattoos and claims it turns them off but I don't think most girls in the biz have enough tattoos make that big a difference with their audience. I think someone like Janine would/could come close but she's so popular and her newer work so scarce more fans who don't like tattoos would be willing to put up with her excessive tats.Interesting question. It's hard to say. First off, in most features it's mostly only the contract girl/star of the movie who has multiple scenes. You have to figure that contract girls are probably legally bound to do the movie and can't just flake and not do it. Secondly, since she is a contract girl the studio will be protective of her and not try to do stuff that might upset her. The only thing close to an example of this would be the Janine/Rocco scene for the feature EMPEROR where it was reported that Rocco was rougher with Janine than she was comfortable with. But I don't that wasn't planned to be a "rough" or difficult scene. I have no idea what the shooting order was but it kinda doesn't make any difference. If the scene was too difficult Janine would've have just walked (I don't think) they would've just made Rocco back off or shoot it with another male performer and make the movie. It's porn. The script isn't so important that it can't be changed and performers/performances replaced. I'm sure there are scenes that the performers have a harder time getting through but I'd have to think the director is there to help them get through it and will accomodate the performers so they aren't so turned off by it and are able to go to the next scene. My guess.
I'm assuming that your example refers to the star of the picture so a big name star. If a mainstream star signs a contract where she has to do a nude scene then I can guarantee you that she will do that nude scene no matter when it's filmed. We aren't talking about a porn girl who flakes the day of the shoot here but an actress that was paid a large if not to say huge sum of money to do the film and she's quite aware of all the things she'll have to do in said film. To refuse to do a nude scene that was agreed upon prior to filming would mean a breach of contract and that's where stars don't get paid and can get sued by the studio. Not too mention that they can get black listed. I don't think directors schedule the nude scene(s) at any specific time. I think they create a scheduled based on the story boards. The one thing that is often different for on a nude scene is that the amount of on set staff is very small so that the star is more comfortable. A porn girl that flakes the day of the shoot might get a second chance to shot another time or quickly gets replaced by another girl. She definetly gets black listed and that is why you sometime see a hot girl dispear from the porn radar.
On a mainstream film I don't think it's so cut & dried. Certainly we have films where big name stars got sued by the production company for bailing on a film due to nudity (Kim Bassinger dropping out of Boxing Helena is an example of this). The kind of thing I'm more talking about is on independent film (think Roger Corman or Golan/Globus) where there is a nude scene required, but if they aren't careful and shoot it later in the film, they may have the actor refuse to do them and the production company has a choice of recasting the role or losing the nude scene. I can't right now think of a specific example of losing a nude scene like this (wish I did ), but I did recently read about Natashia Kinski's full frontal scenes shot for Cat People that she begged to have removed from the film due to being shot by her then-boyfriend director, and they were removed.
^ I really don't think a simple nude scene is enough to make an actress bail on the rest of a movie. There have been time when actresses say they were tricked into shooting stuff that went further than they wanted to show but that was after the movie was done. An example would be the famous scene in BASIC INSTINCT where Sharon Stone claimed she didn't know the director was going to show a flash of beaver (but people generally don't believe her). Or the close up shot of Bijou Phillips barely covered muff in BULLY that Bijou claimed she had no idea the director had taken. Actresses doing a nude scene in a typical Hollywood movie don't usually back out of a movie just because of a nude scene but usually request that there are as few people on the set as possible and some are very specific about how much they actually show.
[Link]
Solar4 Deactivated User
183 Posts 10/10
Posted - Dec 3 2011 : 8:20PM
Well if there are Black women who don't perform with white guys they wouldn't make much money given the racial demographics of the industry, so obviously they're rare. Furthermore, while there might be some women who have a "preference" to only work with Black men, economically they don't have that luxury. Which is why virtually every non-white woman in the industry does IR with whites, because they have to.Actually if a person only works with x and y race because they're racially motivated to do so then that would possibly be racist. Now I'm sure you don't wish to accept that for your own reasons, but it's true. As for Black women only working with Black men, if they did so for racial reasons then it would possibly be racist as well. The problem however, is that determining someone's motives for who they work with is difficult since no one admits to racism. And since there is such difficulty in doing so, the best way to determine such a thing, would be to look at someone's actions and words. Edited by - Solar4 on 12/3/2011 8:30:12 PM
[Link]
Porn Scout Deactivated User
3735 Posts 10/02
Posted - Dec 3 2011 : 8:47PM
I would be interested in hearing some numbers around total production budgets, both for complete DVDs and for individual scenes shot for websites like Brazzers. Along with that, it would be interesting to know what the total product lifecycle and long term revenue for a scene/DVD looks like. Obviously, that would vary from company to company, but it would be good to hear some examples.
The first film that popped in my head when I read your post was Boxing Helena. I didn't read too much into the story but I know that Kim had to pay some serious dough. Her Wiki page says that she got a judgement agaisnt her where she would have had to pay the studio 8.1 millions dollars but a later appeal dropped the amount to 3.8 millions. That's a lot of money for refusing to do a movie and must be hard to deal with when you consider that the movie had a final budget of only 2 millions. If there is one actress that refused to do a nude scene for Roger Corman then I'm certainly not aware of it. I've seen and own plenty of his movies because I think the man is a genius. Many of them had nude scenes and they weren't necessarilly the topless kind either. I'm not sur where you read that Natasha had issue with the nudity in Cat People because I've never heard anything about that. It has been many years since I saw it but I've always seen the version with her being completely naked. I don't know why she would have issue with the nudity in that movie when you consider that she had already done a full frontal nude 6 years before.
Corman certainly got a great deal of nudity in his films, but I know I've read of films where nudity was compromised in a film because the budget was low and the actress who had agreed to do something refused and too much money was spent to reshoot. I'll have to look around and see if I can find more concrete examples, but I don't think nudity is the non-issue that we as porn fans might think...It's detailed in the book Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood. She shot much more nudity including explicit full frontal that wasn't included in the film.
That sounds like a great idea! Women who fuck donkey dicks (which cause an increased risk of injury to cunt or asshole) get more than those who fuck an average-size dick. Of course anal would pay more than vaginal due to the increased risk and preparation time. How about $200 an inch per scene for the women, if a woman fucks Lexington Steele she would make out like a bandit (my estimate is that Lex is about nine inches, that is $1800). If she performs with dinky dick she still gets $600 or so. Of course you would add $200-$300 or so for oral in addition to the vaginal or anal. Men would also be paid differently depending on the complexity of the scene, a normal vaginal and oral scene would pay less (maybe $600 or so) than a double-anal or a double-penetration of female talent (say $1200 for this example). Run of the mill anal would be toward the middle of this scale. I won't attempt to bring BDSM into this example other than to say that if penetration were also part of the scene there would be an additional charge on the submissive's part. Gay (male on male) porn would also pay more due mainly to the much higher incidence of AIDS in that performer group.
The problem with paying by the inch is that is quite common for women to limit the size they will allow a big dick to penetrate them so who exactly is going to measure how much went in?
Well it's easy, the girls can measure the guy herself while his erect and perhaps have someone else control that it's accurate. It would give an incentive to the girls to take bigger dicks =) I mean if a girl gets payed the same rate for taking an 7 inch dick and a 12 inch dick in her ass, I guess that 99% would go for the smaller one.
I've always wondered if the harder sites paid more because of the presumed intensity of the scene. Specifically I'm thinking of Facial Abuse, where clayra had her nightmare experience. There is hardly a scene on their site that isn't clearly the most intense scene that each particular performer has done. Typically a girl gets slapped continually, forced to barf (again, continually) on cocks, whipped with a leather strap that leaves an imprint of the word "slut" on their asses" and the gets the living shit fucked out of their asses and pussies. It's really intense shit. So do they get paid more for this? Do girls even realize that they are going to a much more intense shoot and agree, because they know they will be paid more? Or is the intensity a surprise? I know that a lot of the girls do a "spermsuckers" shoot first... you get the impression that they are talked into doing the facial abuse shoot after the tame spermsuckers shoot... I had the same question about old max hardcore shoots. So many of these girls were one-and-dones, leading me to believe that that had no idea what was going to happen to them, and the experience cured them of porn forever. My understanding was that Max would lead them through before the shoot exactly what was going to happen, but how many of these girls knew that they were about to drink an old man's pee, get his fist in their pussy, and be forced to vomit on his cock before they showed up at the door? I can only assume that they were offered more money ahead of time, without knowing necessarily what that entailed... Does anyone know whether the elderly cockmaster with the yellow couch paid more?
Kink.com shoots are intense and pay very well. FA scenes pay the same or less, and aren't worth it because there's maybe 10% the amount of concern for safety and consent involved.
So before your FA shoot, did you "know" what you were getting into? I mean clearly you didn't expect to be injured, but did you expect it to be as brutal as it was (injuries aside?). How did you book the gig? Was it made clear to you ahead of time (both at booking and/or just before the shoot) how it was going to be? I'm thinking specifically, did someone tell you that you were going to barf on a guy's johnson? That's got to be weirdest conversation in the world to have with someone... Kink seems to go so far above and beyond and making it clear what they're gonna do and that the girls are always in control and able to stop at any point... but I just don't even remotely get that vibe with FA. I mean obviously people can say no and stop it at any point, but with FA you sense that the entire vibe of the set is to provide massive amounts of unspoken pressure to compel a girl to keep going no matter how crappy they feel, whereas kink seems like kind of the exact opposite...
No, I didn't really. I'd shot for Kink and was told it was no different. A porn girl who shall remain nameless set the scene up for me and assured me it was all just an act. She said they might try to "get in my head", but that THAT was the extent of my worries. I knew that there would be gagging BJs and rough sex, and that wasn't an issue. Getting hit hard enough to receive a bloody nose and burst blood vessels in my eyes was what I ACTUALLY got, and that certainly wasn't outlined in the contract. In fact, the "contract" wasn't more than a standardized release form. The girl was high as a kite the entire way there and during my shoot, and she was getting paid a finder's fee. That's really all she cared about. There was a lot of pressure to complete the scene. Even when I called it done, they kept pushing until I agreed to let them shoot pop shots so that the footage was at least usable, and my rate got cut to almost nothing. With Kink, the scenes are still VERY rough. I walk away each time with bruises that last for days, but usually in places like my tits, my ass, or other parts that make sense. They know my rules (no spitting on me, no hitting me in the face) and they enforce it. I cum a lot when I shoot for Kink, and I'd gladly shoot for them all the time because they get that rough sex can and should be about MUTUAL pleasure.
[Link]
IDBY Deactivated User
6 Posts 2/12
Posted - Feb 23 2012 : 2:31PM
"I cum a lot when I shoot for Kink, and I'd gladly shoot for them all the time because they get that rough sex can and should be about MUTUAL pleasure" Huh! Most employees don't go to work expecting to have an orgasm. Porn is a job. You aren't paid to orgasm. You are paid to excite the purchasers of your product. Mutual pleasure is a big bonus not a "standard". And please don't get me started on kink.com. You sugar coat.
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Feb 23 2012 : 5:37PM
The guys are paid to orgasm. The girls -- as actresses -- are certainly expected to act as if they are having an orgasm. But, in one way you're right: No one, expect possibly the girls themselves, actually cares if the girls have an orgasm. Of course, viewers (i.e. the "purchasers") overwhelmingly prefer it when they think they see the girl having a genuine orgasm.
First of all that sounds like some horrible stuff to watch...but to each his/her own. I'd have to think different girls get different rates in some cases. For example if they ever wanted an A-list girl to do a shoot like that it would take a bigger money offer to get her to do it than a much lesser known girl. If a site like that did have a "one size fits all" pay structure I'd be very surprised if any big name girls ever worked for them. But I'd have to imagine they'd have to pay girls more overall because otherwise they'd have a fairly hard time getting girls to work for them taking that type of abuse if a girl could make the same amount of money on a far less violent shoot.Again just guessing but I'd bet Max didn't pay his girls much at all. He seemed to get them very early in their careers and many didn't ever work with him again. If the pay was better than normal one would think he'd have more repeat girls. Max seemed to mostly work with the girls very new to the business or girls who were mostly unknown lower level porn girls or the girls who actually liked doing his brand of porn. All of which probably worked out just fine for him because I think for most of Max's regualr audience it wasn't as important who the girl was as much as what was being done to her.
Ugg. That's pretty awful. It's amazing that more companies haven't tried to follow the Kink model (at least in the way they treat talent) because it seems to go a long way to mainstreaming them and making them successful. What other company in America has their workers getting the living shit slapped and whipped out of them and those same workers turning around and saying how much they loved the experience because it was all up front and they were always in control? It seems to me that the FA stuff is way funner to watch when it's folks like Tory Lane--who has a history of crazy assed shit--come there clearly knowing the turf and take it on as a challenge. Clarya's known as one of the smarter cookies (or nerdier!) in the business and if the way things worked at FA was a surprise to her it's definitely a surprise to the majority of the talent that shows up. And that's fucked up. I've seen way more intense stuff on kink sites--(Bobbi Starr jerking off Marc Davis by shoving her fist in Alysa's ass and grabbing his cock inside of Alysa while Alysa's being fucked in the pussy comes to mind--yet it's pretty clear everyone was cool with what was going on. What's so wrong with having the same situation at FA? Edited by - joeblow123321 on 2/23/2012 10:51:21 PM
[Link]
IDBY Deactivated User
6 Posts 2/12
Posted - Feb 24 2012 : 11:52AM
What are you talking about??? Kink.com specializes in porn where the male "stars" are not allowed to orgasm. What happens in porn is for the enjoyment of the viewers, not the "stars". If the audience gets satisfied and incidentally a specific "star" gets off then bonus for the "star", but that's not why the "star" is getting paid. It's absurdly entitled for the "star" to think otherwise. Most of the porn audience are straight males so that's why you see more blowjobs and facials than you will ever see cunnilingus and pegging. Porn is not sex.
^ Do you hear yourself? Maybe you do, but I'm guessing not. You've got one part correct: Porn is not sex. It's the illusion of sex. Real sex is something closer, more passionate and far less staged. I'll give you that much, but then why are people watching? Well, because they want to see sex! Goo real sex typically involves two people engaging in acts with their sex organs until they both orgasm or agree that they've had enough to sate their desires. People want to see that, so we performers give that too them. In real sex, guys don't want to have to stop every six minutes and wait for someone to move the lights before they get into a new, uncomfortable position in order to resume fucking. That's not easy to maintain an erection through, even with the little blue pill. Girls certainly don't want to wait around either, but I admit that we've got the easier end of that problem. So we fuck, and if the director gives us long enough takes, we all get to cum AND enjoy it. For the guys, a good shoot is more than just popping. There's something that goes a long way in sex knowing you've made a partner come, and porn guys are not immune to its power. Are the girls paid to come? Sometimes, yeah. Hell yeah! After all, as you point out, it's about the enjoyment of the viewer, and THAT is what the viewer wants to see! Or maybe you don't. Maybe you prefer just watching guys shoot loads. Cool if that's your thing, but then why do you care so much about hetero porn? Unless, maybe, you just like to see people getting abused and hurt. If that's the case, there's a revolution on in Syria. Go watch footage of that instead of porn. But I'm curious: What about seeing a girl cum turns you off so much? Is this really just some feint on your part to try and convince everyone that all they need is M/M gay porn? Because it sure sounds like it to me. [mod edit: quote removed. please do not quote the post directly above your own. just use an "up arrow". thx.] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 2/24/2012 9:01:58 PM
[Link]
IDBY Deactivated User
6 Posts 2/12
Posted - Feb 24 2012 : 4:21PM
^ Your insults are tacky and unprofessional. Porn is primarily for straight guys and like most guys the majority of time I am watching solo not with my GF. In short, the primary use of porn for men is masturbatory. Thus I really prefer to watch you dropping to your knees and draining an erection like you did in Gloryhole 7, and NOT you flirting, going on a date, kissing, being eaten out, getting PIV'd and finally coming. So unless I'm spending my precious money/time at a site called "HowtocurlClayraBeaustoes.com" it's all about me the consumer and what gets me off. That's why you get paid and all of us do the paying. Trying to shame me into liking "erotica" by calling me gay is great way to collect fans. The reason there is bathroom fellatio porn, and even eye glass jizz porn is because it is about us the male watchers, not about you the performers. Cum on your own time and your own dime! And for the record I am not aroused by pain porn (e.g. Kink.com nor facialabuse.com), but I'm not so arrogant as to tell other people that they shouldn't like it. [mod edit: quote removed. please do not quote the post directly above your own. just use an "up arrow". thx.] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 2/24/2012 9:02:40 PM
"You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10
Posted - Feb 24 2012 : 7:00PM
I'm "talking about" your flat-out statement you made: (The part I quoted, and you omitted in your reply.)You did not target and/or limit your remark to Kink.com. I'll give you pass this time, as you may think you did. Often, people think what they write conveys what they are thinking in their heads. FYI, in case you have any doubt, I have zero interest in discussing Kink.com with you or anyone else.
[Link]
IDBY Deactivated User
6 Posts 2/12
Posted - Feb 25 2012 : 1:46PM
^ Seriously?? I expect the person with whom I am corresponding to be able to follow along without a giant thread history inserted in each and every response. There is no insidious intent nor result from my refusal to overquote. Do you respeak during normal conversation too? just sayin' And I mention kink.com because.. 1. it is porn. 2. the males don't cum. In other words it proves you are wrong. Porn guys are NOT paid to orgasm. They are paid to perform for the viewers. Sometimes this means the male talent will be paired with an obese/unattractive (to the talent) partner. Sometimes this means the male talent will be pegged, spat upon, and denied an orgasm. And sometimes.. even oftentimes... this means the male talent gets to deliver facial to a hottie. Whatever the customer wants is what male talent is paid to do. Edited by - idby on 2/25/2012 1:50:20 PM
^ I'm convinced of a six things right now: 1. This guy is an idiot who has never seen a Kink.com shoot. I was drenched in cum in my last shoot with them. 2. He really does just want to watch dudes jerk off, but through some weird quirk (self loathing?) he has decided that girls having orgasms has NO place in porn. 3. He thinks that HIS tastes (guys jerking off) are the tastes of everyone. 4. He thinks girls should be submissive, permissive, and quite. Well, fuck you too buddy. 5. He's not ACTUALLY a troll, he's just too dumb to realize he's trolling. 6. He believes that no one is paid to get off in porn, and that anyone who does is just lucky. Wow, so... Do they let you have a whole hour on the internet there in the group home, and do they make you keep the padded helmet on the whole time? Just a question.
OK I think everyone needs to calm down in here. IDBY is trying to make a very academic point that is a bit obscure, but I guess technically it is true. IDBY is trying to say that porn performers are paid to do whatever the director wants them to do. If the director wants them to cum, then they'll cum. If the director doesn't want to cum, then they won't. He's saying that despite the fact that 99.9% of the time directors do want the male performers to cum, the fact that there exist some shoots where the directors don't want the men to cum proves that they're not being paid to cum, they're being paid to do what the director wants (which is usually to cum, but not always). BUT IDBY also thinks that the only shoots kink.com does are divinebitches and meninpain. That's why he/she claims that "Kink.com specializes in porn where the male "stars" are not allowed to orgasm". He/she has clearly not seen the sites boundgangbangs, sexandsubmission, trainingofo, or publicdisgrace. All of the latter feature males cumming, whereas often the former feature males not cumming. AND IDBY is further complicating matters by insisting that because you are paid to do what the director wants, you will therefore not enjoy yourself. He/she seems to misunderstand that the two things do not have to be mutually exclusive. IDBY, there is no reason that someone can't enjoy themselves while fulfilling the consumer's fantasy. Will they always do so? Not necessarily. But you seem to be insisting that they will never do so, which is equally untrue. To make matters worse, you are telling a porn performer who has had an orgasm while working that she has not done so. Which means you're calling her a liar. Can you understand why she would be getting angry? Everyone, let's get this thread back on track, and drop the insults and connotations.
I think Clayra is geting unfairly criticized. Is being a porn actress/actor considered a job? Well the definition of a job is "a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid". So technically it is. I imagine its not an easy job sometimes. Well I have a job, I enjoy it 90% of the time. So why can't a porn actress/actor enjoy thiers? I believe that there are some that don't and just do it for the money. I don't think that is the case with Clayra. I prefer to watch a scene where I know the woman is enjoying herself. I also believe that some people are forced or hurt. It is not just in the porn industry, it happens in other professions too. I believe Kink treats thier actess and actors with respect. It is rough, but if you don't like that sort of thing, don't watch it. But in the case with FA, if they are hurting people, then you need to make a choice to by thier product or not. I will NOT purchase any of thier stuff. I like the comment that Clayra wrote: "Porn is not sex. It's the illusion of sex". I tell my wife that I can physicaly have sex with any woman but I can only make love to her. Porn is a fantasy, we use it to enhance our sex life. I have alot of respect for the actress and actors. They get a bad rap in society, and I think that is wrong. Thats my 2 cents worth. Mike
[Link]
IDBY Deactivated User
6 Posts 2/12
Posted - Feb 26 2012 : 11:03AM
Pardon while I set the record straight. I've been nothing but calm and yes I'm correct, but my point is not academic at all. Does a gynecologist get paid to finger women? Nope. Does it count as sex because he makes genital contact? Of course not! The distinction I reference is no less applicable to porn than it is to pelvic exams. The false belief that the industry pays male talent to cum is a sentiment that too often accompanies a performer mindset that what pleases them, the performer, supersedes what pleases the paying customer. Thus we see the entitled complaint that porn should contain character development, buildup, hotter guys, and more female orgasm etc., etc rather than gonzo cocksucking or pov. This attitude exhibits a complete disrespect for customers, their turn ons, and what they want for their dollar. I mentioned kink.com because it, like several other not mentioned companies, produces genres of porn where the male talent does not orgasm. I am fully aware of Kinks other domains. But the other porn they make and the fact that meninpain.com is defunct is inconsequential to this discussion. As far as "talent" not enjoying themselves AT WORK… you are putting words in my mouth. Bonus for them if "talent" has an awesome time…. but to expect it, to demand that your customers pay for the enjoyment of the performer, to belittle us (in this case with homophobic insults) for acting like patrons. Well that's another thing entirely. Once again. Porn is not sex. In other words it not about what the "stars" want to do, it's about what the predominantly male viewers want to masturbate to. And the real reason that said porn performer is so upset is the same reason musical performers get so mad when itunes lets everyone buy one song rather than the whole CD. I didn't call anyone a liar. That's a complete misread and weak excuse for such an attitude. Edited by - idby on 2/26/2012 11:05:14 AM
When you mention "performer" in this context, are you exclusively (or perhaps overwhelmingly) referring to male performers? Because I certainly don't see any performer mindset coming from the females that what pleases them supersedes what pleases the paying customer.Are you confusing performers with directors? Because as far as I know, it would be directors that make all of these decisions, and not performers. (With the possible exception being the grey area of POV porn, where the director and performer are often - though not always - one and the same.)I don't think anyone is doing what you say they're doing. In fact, often people pay exclusively for the female talent to not enjoy themselves (see facial abuse, Max Hardcore, Khan Tusion, etc.), and they get it in spades.And usually they get it. What the male viewers often want to masturbate to (I say "often" because there are no absolutes here) is a male performer getting off. Because they want to picture themselves getting off.I think the "real" reason she's upset is because she said that she appreciates that kink.com makes every effort to have the performer enjoy themselves while giving the audience what they want, and your response was that they do this in spite of what the audience wants. But I think that she's right. kink.com does seem to be appealing to what the audience wants (their audience). They want to see rough sex that is enjoyed by all. In fact, as you yourself asserted above, many porn fans are asking for more female orgasms, and kink.com delivers. So why shouldn't she want to work for a company that wants her - and the audience - to enjoy themselves? She has every right to do so, and I don't think she is taking anything away from porn by enjoying her work for them. Note that kink.com isn't the only company she has worked for, she has worked for many companies that ask all sorts of things. She has even worked for a company that worked their ass off to make sure not only that she didn't enjoy herself, but that she had as awful a time as possible. In all cases, she gave what the director asked for. What else would you or anyone else expect of a performer? Or any employee? Do what you're hired to do. I think you may have a problem with what many directors are doing, but I don't see it as being a problem with the performers, or any attitude they may or may not have.
[I understand what you're trying to get at and perhaps it's true in certain types of porn but it's not a true statement for all porn or all performers. Porn guys are paid to orgasm. It's a vital part of the job. If a guy couldn't or refused to orgasm how much work do you think he'd get? Sure there are some performers who don't have to or need to orgasm like some of the Cuckold guys or some of the guys doing bondage, facesitting, or torture stuff. But in most "regular" porn the male orgasm is not only expected but demanded. That's why a director will patiently wait for it. That's why it's always present in 98% of "regular" porn scenes. That's why some people complain if it is too small, doesn't land where they want to see it, or takes too long to happen. Simply put: If a guy isn't paid to orgasm why is the orgasm always present (in regular porn) and totally focused on? If you're trying to say that performers aren't paid to enjoy themselves then again, you're not 100% right either. I imagine some directors don't care if the performers are enjoying themselves but I have to imagine the better ones actually want the talent to enjoy themselves. Why? Because it will come through in their performance if they do. Porn isn't assembling a widget or typing reports where you aren't into it, it has an effect on the job at hand. If the performers weren't having a reasonably good time during the entire shoot it would very likely make for a bad scene unless that's the intent. The performers personal pleasure isn't the be all end all of what they're getting paid to do but the goal should include their pleasure if at all possible. And I'm pretty sure the best performers enjoy themselves most of the time. And since that enjoyment will likely translate to the audience I'd think it would be a part of their job description if possible.And in most cases what the customer wants is performers who are enjoying themselves. Perhaps in many cases it's an illusion or act but if it is and isn't convincing the customer won't like it. If you notice not one person here complaining about a girl who looks like they're having too much fun. People complain if the performance looks "fake" or "over the top". Most people don't the performance to look like a performance...hence, it's better for all involved to actually enjoy themselves.
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Feb 26 2012 : 8:13PM
IDBY, I realize this post is likely a fool's errand, but please read - and take to heart - the Forum Etiquette you agreed to when you activated your account. Thanks.
Thanks for the pic. Is a pic find worth the BS that inspired it? That sounds a lot like a pornstar asking herself how much she would charge to get plowed and slapped. Since I only skimmed the text, that one pic is enough for me. Someone who slogged through that whole mess may want more pics, such as wall-to-wall titties.
