HoustonDon made the point in another post about raincoaters needing an endless supply of extreme sex acts to keep us happy.
There have always been different segments of porn catering to differnt tastes. Ten years ago you could get anal on video, but it was nowhere as prevalent as it is today. You can get fecal, S&M, monster dildo (Denni O), lactation and pregnancy, beastiality, and other subject material on video that is either illegal or should be. The definition of raincoater I have in my head doesn't include any of the acts I've just mentioned.
My definiton of a raincoater is as follows: One who really enjoys seeing lots of anal sex, gangbangs, and oral cumshots. Preferably all in the same same movie.....NEVER SAY NEVER TO ROCCO RULES!!!!
So my fellow raincoaters, is HoustonDon right? Are gapes and double anals giving raincoaters a bad name? Forget that last question...I don't believe I actually typed that.
Rocco, a raincoater movie is simply one designed for people who don't want plot, acting or the other window dressing that high end companies supply. All raincoaters aren't the same and not all of them NEED Circus Act sex to get off. I like raincoat movies myself...
That said, one niche of the raincoater crowd seems to need increasingly gross acts to get off. Others are happy with hot sex alone. still others seem to like the playfulness of Andrew Blake's works...(which often have little sex these days).
So, let's not make this about how I define raincoater vs how you'd like to define what I've said. Start a poll: What do you consider Circus act sex, what do you want to see in a porno, etc... Thanks!
I care little for labels such as raincoater etc, but I don't really care for plot in porn (unless it's really well done, but on that score I am still waiting). Let's just get to the point, dammit...
I like some of what I have seen from Andrew Blake, by the way, it's sheer quality. But "quality" is really what I want to see - hot girls, hot action: these are the important things. How you define "hot" is a moot point, depending on taste, but I am talking about lust, passion commitment or at least a convincing portrayal thereof.
Extreme sex acts, if one must describe them as such, are really not that important in their own right. They can't make a good movie without performers who really appeal. Would one of those German Oma videos with grannies fisting and peeing do it for you? If so, keep that to yourself!
But that's getting away from my point, which is about double anal/vaginal etc... From my perspective, just imagine this - you're getting it on with your dream girl (select porn star of your choice here), and you're thinking "How could this get any better?" When along comes another guy and inserts his member in there, right along with yours. AAAAAAAHHH Noooo! Fantasy ruined!
I shall leave it up to Jean Pierre Armand and David Perry to rub dicks together inside some poor starlet's asshole. Not for me, Monsieur!
So in a nutshell, go for whatever you like and forget about labelling it!
PS Haven't raincoaters ALREADY got a bad name? It's not something you'd put on your business cards. "Hi, I'm Jon Doe, Raincoater at your service"...
Gabriel, I agree. Consider that the term "raincoater" originally refered to those men who wore raincoats when they went to the theatre (before the advent of VCR's mostly) to cover up their public masturbation. The term has evolved a bit but currently, regardless of what SOME people think, it is used generally to describe all sex movies and those who enjoy them.
I harbor no animosity towards you. We have differing opinions and I accept that. I refuse to go all over these boards and snipe at you. I was not trying to do that in this posting. I want to read opinions and state my own. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you in any way. I've gotten out of hand sometimes and I've looked within my self and seen where I was wrong and tried to make amends for that. I'm hoping from here on my comments won't be taken as any sort of personal attack. In fact, I realize now that my comments in this post could have been just as effective without using your name and I'll make note of that in the future.
I'm not sure what a "raincoater" is. I read the various definitions, and I know they change over time. I do know that "circus tricks" are of little interest to me. The reason is that what makes porn enjoyable to me is seeing beautiful women (or at least ones that I find attractive, beauty and attractiveness don't necessarily go together) get really into the sex. I want to see them have some sort of rapport with their male co-stars, and that's difficult when there are many guys present, and/or when the men are scumbags. This is why I keep having good comments and reviews for Nacho movies. He and Rocco, and their buddies such as Franco Roccaforte, Tony Ribas and Alberto Rey, are strong, healthy, assertive men who usually turn on the women they work with. I can believe that the woman doesn't have to fake arousal (at least not too much), and you can often see her excitement as she stares into the guy's eyes. I usually have no use for a plot, I want to get to the action. That could qualify as "raincoater" to some. But I want that action to be about 2 (only occasionally more) people blowing each other's minds, as well as bodies. I think that many times circus tricks are used as a replacement for unattainable intimacy, and I want that intimacy, even if it is during a hard and fast buttfuck!
Good point. I feel the same way about having more than a male and a female in a scene. Jean Yves does a good job in his vids of having guys line up....this way you get a gangbang without the crowding you see in other vids (the Gangbang Girl series comes to mind). DP's tend to get screwed up alot also.
Rocco, I didn't take your original posting as hostile but I felt the need to respond and clarify a few things. Others on this board are a bit more hostile towards my views and my tone may have expressed a bit more than I was shooting for too. If so, I apologize.
Likes and dislikes in porn are among the most subjective of experiences. What is "very warm" for me, may be "tame" for someone else. What constitutes a "circus act" for me, may well be a regular practice of some of you. Circus acts, to me, are those acts that are seemingly designed to appeal to the tiniest of groups or to the "did she really do that" crowd. Seeing them once in awhile is okay but as a regular event? No thanks!
Porn makes for a majority of one. That means the specific kinks each of us have rule what we desire to see/do. My tastes run more along the mainstream porn (attractive women having hot sex) but I won't begrudge someone their kink. Again, if I seemed hostile, it's more a result of some of the grumpyheads getting upset over silly stuff than what you said here. Take care!
