Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Jun 4 2017 : 6:42PM
Couldn't you just watch ANY scene and when the camera is pulled back far enough from the action pretend that the girl is getting it in the ass? Also, what director is going to pay a girls rate for anal and then NOT show it? And please don't say that the girl got so into the scene she didn't know she was being fucked in the ass without her permission or being paid her anal rate. I don't get this.
^Maybe he thinks that performers love to get fucked in the ass in porn and that's why they are okay with a guy doing it and since it's not visible then they don't need to get paid a lot more money. In the OP's defense there are plenty of performers who repeatedly push the narrative that they love to get fucked in the ass and especially in a porn. I don't know about anyone else but the more I think about those two Raw 30 scenes. The more pissed I am at Manuel and Jules for at the very minimum implying that both performers got fucked in the ass. It's even written in such a way on Jules site that it would be more than normal to think that both women did get fucked in the ass and I don't give a rats ass that they may have really gotten fucked in the ass because the scenes were shot in such a way that Manual could have had a limp dick pretend fucking and no one would be the wiser. I thought we had seen the last of the good old bait and switch anal scenes that used to be really popular two decades ago.
Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Jun 4 2017 : 9:29PM
I agree that some performers push that they love to be analized but how many of them then say that they were fucked in the ass in a scene but you can't see it? Makes no sense. If the OP wants to fantasize that girls are getting reamed in the ass, hey, go for it but there aren't any professionally shot scenes where a girl is getting fucked in the ass and the director is not going to show it/shoot it. And while I don't dislike Manuel I can't watch any of the Raw series. I know that the point of the scenes is supposed to be just him and a girl in a room alone but I need better camera work than what's in those scenes.
What exactly are you trying to say? Have you seen the RAW 30 scenes in question? There's no doubt Eva is having anal sex and it also isn't very well shown. Those things are pretty well accepted by anyone who has seen the scene so what exactly is your point here? The reasoning in that scene is very clear, Eva has a 'first anal' showcase booked and can't do some very blatant anal scene before that. It would be very similar in the other scenes mentioned. The girls in question don't have "anal rates" because they don't do anal yet. They want to do it at a very driven up price as part of a showcase or similar. And the idea that they couldn't possibly just want to have anal but not destroy there opportunity for a huge payday or showcase is not crazy at all. You seemed to dismiss that possibility but not really on the basis of any evidence.
Nina North Woodman scene. The anal is blurred out, but she's saying "it's in my ass" during the scene and you can fairly well tell it's anal.
[Link]
JB_X Deactivated User
addled 1500 Posts 10/12
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 3:49AM
No it's not. The scenes weren't advertised as anal scenes, and were shot to intentionally obscure anal penetration. There's no bait and switch, because there's no bait. This outrage is so laughably phony.
I agree. The text on Jules' website about the DVD only says: "Eva Lovia doesn't mind being creeped on, in fact, it makes her want to do dirty, nasty things." That is supposed to say she is doing Anal? In marketing speech, everything is "dirty, nasty things", e.g. licking his asshole or whatever. They could have made that a lot clearer to do "bait and switch", as Pat says. "Gina Valentina gets her holes filled in a hotel with the man himself." It does NOT say "ALL holes" which would be the clear code for anal. So, I disagree with Pat.
I assume you didn't visit Jules website because if you had then you would know that they were in fact advertised as containing anal. I copied the excerpt describing the action. "Eva Lovia doesn't mind being creeped on, in fact, it makes her want to do dirty, nasty things. and Gina Valentina gets her holes filled in a hotel with the man himself. This is homegrown porn-star gold!" Now maybe you can argue that using the phase "dirty nasty things" to describe a basic b/g vaginal scene is normal but for me that particular phrasing usually means that it will have to be more than basic vaginal. It's a lot harder to defend the phrase "gets her holes filled" to describe a scene where a performer does not do anal. About the only time you see that kind of phrasing and there is not anal is when the producer is doing a bait and switch anal scene just like Jules did. Edited by - pat362 on 6/5/2017 10:35:40 AM
I agree with you. No performer is going to brag about doing anal on a porn set where no one can tell that she is getting fucked in the ass and even less since she didn't get paid for it. It wouldn't just make no sense but would be incredibly stupid because she would lose the opportunity to sell a first anal to a studio.
Pierre did so much to promote anal sex during his time with Private Media. He also provide us with beautiful talents and their first (anal) scenes. I really appreciate his work allthough it´s partieally bad shot and he is not the most attracive performer by far.. Maans, over all I appriciate his work. But the so called anal and the way he tried to justify is so rediculous. He really fell off.
Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 2:59PM
If really believe all that then there is nothing I could say to change your mind. Maybe all this "hidden anal" that is now coming to light is part of some grand scheme by the Bilderberg Group to lull us into complacency while they take over the world.
[Link]
erik2690 Deactivated User
367 Posts 3/12
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 5:06PM
If I believe what? I watched the scenes. It's pretty obvious. It's not a weird conclusion at all. Have you seen RAW 30? I kinda doubt it.
Seen it. Leaves me right to the next thread about the turn offs in porn.... Simply makes no scenes to do anal and do not show it (clearly). Can´t help and do not understand the hype about it. I am glad we have a visible anal scene with Eva by a coincidence or not.
Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 6:28PM
Yup, I saw it. Bored the fuck out of me but I saw it. I didn't see any anal though.
[Link]
JB_X Deactivated User
addled 1500 Posts 10/12
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 6:56PM
I read the scene descriptions and it's just the usual standard porno boilerplate. If it were intended to be a bait and switch don't you think they would at least mention the word "anal"? I mean it would be a big deal, getting the first anal scene from two very popular performers, right? What incentive would they have to downplay it that much if they were trying to deceive fans?
Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 7:08PM
^ But according to erik2690, theamof510, and onlybalogna there's hidden anal all around us. Maybe Jules Jordan is part of this nefarious cabal that is trying to keep it hidden from us.
[Link]
JB_X Deactivated User
addled 1500 Posts 10/12
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 7:17PM
^ It's not something I care about, particularly, so I haven't posted in this thread before, BUT I have watched every Raw scene in the series, and there is "hidden anal" that's obvious in a number of the scenes. Off the top of my head - Kendall Karson and Kalina Ryu. It's obvious in Gina's scene from the latest volume, but I won't speak to either of Karlee's scenes because I didn't notice it. Believe it, don't believe, I don't really care. I feel dumber for having engaged in this discussion in the first place.
I don't want to belay the point but it couldn't be a bait and switch if they had used the word anal in their text because then it would a complete lie. For me the use of the phrase "all her holes" automatically means that the performer will have anal sex in the scene because I never consider the hear canal or nostrils as possible orifices that can be fucked and therefore that leaves the mouth, vagina and ass as the three possible holes. if they had wanted to be honest about the scene then they would have written it in such a way that there would be no ambiguity. What Jules did may not be technically illegal but it sure as hell crosses the line of decency and good business practice. I wonder how many people read the description and bought that movie thinking that at least one to possibly both women would be performing anal.
[Link]
erik2690 Deactivated User
367 Posts 3/12
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 9:04PM
Ok.....? That has no barring on what happened in the room or what is reality. Many companies don't show squirting either and yet we know squirting has happened in some of those scenes beyond any reasonable doubt. Your boredom has literally nothing to do with what you were originally saying. I could not care less about what scenes you liked but you tried to imply the reality here was instead me and others being stupid or insane.
Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 9:24PM
^ Oh my god. You can't see the anal BUT you KNOW there was anal. Whatever dude. So, the girl will let herself be fucked in the ass, give up her anal fee (which part of that fee should go to her agent if she has one) AND it's not actually shown in the scene, only inferred? Do you have any idea how the industry works? Anal scenes sell better (for the most part) than regular scenes. The girl getting fucked in the ass makes more money for doing that act. The agent of the girl (if she has one) gets a larger fee for negotiating the shooting of the anal. If it's a FIRST anal the fee could possibly be even higher. But all that is thrown out the window because it's Manuel and the RAW series? Oh, okay. I once watched Ava Devine take three dicks, a crowbar, an 80's style cell phone and an eggplant up her ass all at once and the director didn't show it, BUT I know that happened by the look on her face. It was pretty obvious. LMAO
Edited by - PornStarNamedBuckNaked on 6/5/2017 9:31:01 PM
It's like that Bill Maher routine "I can't say for a fact that it's true, I just know that it is!" As in: I can't say for a fact that Jeff Sessions leg moves when you scratch him behind his ears, I just know that it's true.
[Link]
erik2690 Deactivated User
367 Posts 3/12
Posted - Jun 5 2017 : 9:45PM
^^ You are genuinely just being condescending at this point. Anal happened in that scene and no I can't prove it to you without any shadow of doubt but I mean that's a stupid standard when something is fairly obvious. You can't prove that it didn't happen so where do we really get with that lack of critical thinking? The notion that you must see clearly for something to have occurred in a scene is one of the stupider hills to make a stand on. There is no logic in that at all. Everyone in the other threads who saw the scene seemed to notice this fairly easily and yet you are just too intelligent so you must be the one who is right. I'm done, it's like arguing with a brick wall with even less nuance. Thinking every scene goes by the same rules and there can't be deviation ever for any reason is silly. I'm not suggesting these scenarios happen often but to outright deny what many others see as fairly obvious based on convention is just hard to understand. Edited by - erik2690 on 6/5/2017 9:48:28 PM
Nina is trying to protect her first anal payday. Pierre won't say anything one way or another. He never does. I've seen the scene though. I'm convinced he fucked her in the ass. Later on in the scene you can tell her asshole got used.
At the risk of jumping in what is clearly a heated argument, I'd like to add something I consider one of my own personal Porn Proverbs: "Proof of Anal: If I don't have it, anal is not occurring." Maybe that puts me on the 'Too Stupid to Notice Anal" team, but it's simpler to think of it this way. I mean, porn is visual. If I can't view it clearly, then what good is it to me?
[Link]
erik2690 Deactivated User
367 Posts 3/12
Posted - Jun 6 2017 : 12:33AM
Yeah but the "what good is it to me" thing would apply to if you will like the scene or whether the anal part would matter to you. What would that have to do with the reality of it happening or not though? What I was debating the notion that it can't possibly have been anal that wasn't shown, I think that is a silly stance to take.
Yeah they were having anal sex. All factors besides amazing visuals point to that in 2 RAW 30 scenes. I don't understand the resistance to the fact that was a possibility. Like what is the theory that after 15 years Manuel is suddenly pretending but just slightly to be doing an anal scene for some reason? That's the opposite of his MO in the business and makes no sense. The alternatives make way less sense than the notion they are having anal sex. I still fail to understand why that is such an unacceptable notion to at least 1 poster. Edited by - erik2690 on 6/6/2017 6:12:50 AM Edited by - erik2690 on 6/6/2017 8:51:29 AM
Welcome to the team. I don't think stupidity is at the core of the issue between the two sides. I think most agree that the performers may have done anal in the scene but our side keeps arguing that since it can't be seen or the shot is so bad that you need to pause, take a screen shot and enlarge it to see that Manuel's dick may be in the girls ass then is it really worth saying that it's an anal scene! In fact Manuel and Jules don't use the word anal anywhere to describe the scenes. I have a major issue with the words Jules used to describe the scenes because he may not use the word anal but he sure as hell implied it with his choice of phrases. I'm old enough to remember when that was very common in porn and in those days you only found out after you started watching the VHS tape. In the end this thread will die as soon as both women have done an actual visible anal scene. We have one down with Eva's Tushy scene so we only have to wait for Gina.
MOD: If you aren't going to help the OP try to find what he or she is looking for than why are you posting in this thread. I see nothing in the OP's thread about lets bitch about what we don't like and question why the OP wants what they are looking for.
The OP requested "...scenes ... where they do anal but it can't ... be seen but you [just] know it's anal." I think people are trying to tell the OP that it is not possible to "know" it's anal if you can't see it. One might "suspect" or "feel" that anal occurred, but cannot "know" that it occurred. Any rational thought would come to this conclusion. If the OP had requested "scenes that don't claim to be anal, but appear that they might include anal sex" or "scenes that don't show anal, but that the performers later confirmed were indeed anal" --- those would be entirely different requests. It seems to me that the only rational answer to the OPs request is, "Dude, you need to rethink your thought process. What you're asking for is impossible."
[Link]
erik2690 Deactivated User
367 Posts 3/12
Posted - Jun 6 2017 : 7:28PM
That's certainly not what I was arguing. I don't care if anyone ever says 'that was her first anal' or anything at all how people remember it. I was arguing purely about the reality of what happened. It seems quite clear they had anal sex, that's literally all my point was about. Not about how it's labeled or thought of.
[Link]
JB_X Deactivated User
addled 1500 Posts 10/12
Posted - Jun 7 2017 : 6:54AM
If you dislike the series and think it's dumb or whatever, I get it, but if you watch the scenes I mentioned and aren't convinced there's butt stuff going on, you're either functionally incapacitated or being totally dishonest. I'm still not sure why it matters, either, since the scenes weren't shot or marketed as anal scenes and it only came up on this thread as a harmless private thrill for some folks who are into it.
^^ The problem is that it's misleading. A lot of people actually care about whether a girl does anal - obviously - and putting that information out there makes them more prone to do something like pay for a preview of the movie to see if the claim is true. In this case, I paid for a preview as I like both Eva and Gina, and while Gina certainly seems to have taken it in the ass (even if the camera angles are unclear at best) and seems to say so, which makes it not hidden at all, I saw very little evidence that Eva did - and none of it was visual. I don't blame the OP for the money outlay. Ultimately it was my decision. But the info provided certainly influenced it, and I like to think of this board as a credible source on porn. If we're really just estimating angle of cock approach as a means of proof - or not being "functionally incapacitated or totally dishonest" - then we're setting the standard very, very low for something that is valued enough to get the girls an extra payday. On a side note, I don't see how Manuel benefits by paying these girls for anal and then not showing it. And I see less reason for the girl to allow him to do something they could get paid much more for in a film that actually shows it. I just don't see any solid motivation for "hidden actual anal" in porn. I can't think of any scenes with "hidden anal." I know there are a lot of scenes where the girl says "fuck my ass," and there's no actual anal, though. I see no more reason to believe this Eva scene was actual anal than I do with those scenes. That's all.
In case you are still wondering why it's a problem then read assfreak's above post about paying for the scene because he certainly thought it had anal in it. Ultimately the scenes should never have had any anal penetration in them because they were never meant to have it, were never honestly marketed (I still claim they lied about the description on the site) as containing anal and it's so hard to see what's happening that it will always be an he said/he said argument that is really pointless because no one is going to buy the movie so they can masturbate to the anal portion of the scene.
Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Jun 7 2017 : 2:52PM
AGAIN: I've watched the scenes and I DID NOT SEE ANAL! If in your eyes that makes me functionally incapacitated or totally dishonest I'll just have to get over the crushing blow that somebody on a porn board thinks that about me. Heavens to Betsy I don't know how I'll be able to live with myself anymore knowing that JB_X thinks that about me.
[Link]
erik2690 Deactivated User
367 Posts 3/12
Posted - Jun 7 2017 : 5:23PM
This comment is super confusing. You first say you think Gina was having anal sex and trying not to show it, but then say hidden anal doesn't happen.......what? Not everything needs to be visual to be pretty well understood even in a visual medium. What they are saying to each other and how they react shows us a lot in any scene. I just don't understand the logic in saying Gina's scene is a case of this but then acting like it's so far fetched that Eva's would be as well. I'm so confused by the people in this thread who watched that Eva scene and think there was no anal happening.
I watched Raw 24 but imo nothing happened. He rubs his dick against her asshole around 33:55 but didn´t enter. It appears as anal thanks to the angle it is filmed.
Erik2690, allow me to clarify. It appears as though Gina does anal for two reasons: 1. She basically says that he's fucking her ass, and 2. It appears as though there is visual evidence of anal penetration, though the scene is so poorly shot the glimpses are very brief and I wouldn't exactly stake my life on it. So this doesn't exactly qualify as "hidden anal," just poorly shot anal. Eva's scene has no evidence of anal whatsoever except that a few guys on this board seem to be convinced that it happened for some reason dealing with the cock's angle of approach and how she behaved in the scene. I thought it was understood that these are performers, so putting any stock in how they "react" during a scene as evidence of which hole is being penetrated seems the most far-fetched thing of all. Being rational, they get paid extra for anal, and the movie makes more with anal in it. Why on earth would they hide it? It's ridiculous to even suspect such a thing. But that's just my $0.02.
[Link]
erik2690 Deactivated User
367 Posts 3/12
Posted - Jun 8 2017 : 12:41AM
Really? No they are definitely trying to hide it, that's why you don't see much of it not b/c it's poorly shot. Like really? Just like they try to hide it in Eva's scene, they just did it fractionally better in that scene. Instead of no clear shots you get a couple 5 second peaks in Gina's scene. That's really the determining factor in your mind that makes 1 scene possibly anal and another scene not? A couple 5 second peaks? That makes no sense. Just as example as to how I know the Gina scene isn't just "poorly shot" not only does he several times say 'they won't see' or variations on that but when they are in spoon and he rubs her clit while fucking her (in the ass) he makes sure her legs stay shut. I can tell you from viewing experience that is not normally how Manuel does that position. To me there are only 2 even close to logical options. They had anal sex and hid it for several reasons (anal showcase already booked, etc.) or you think Manuel is after 15 years faking anal scenes but in some very vague/subtle way. Not yelling "I'm fucking your ass" or hyping it for show but just faking subtle tells. I mean the fact that your argument is 'he was just using bad angles' is wild. They did like 2 or 3 anal positions in Gina's scene. That was 1000% purposefully obscured not some oversight of camera/body placement.
Posted - Jun 4 2017 : 4:02PM
