Hi futureofporn,
I am so grateful to Steve and Jewel for allowing me to capture that kind of sex. As Joey Silvera once said about bizarre or different scenes, "Yeah, man, this is going to be some guy's FAVOURITE scene ever!"
(Interesting answer to the question, by the way.)

Thanks!
Brandon

[Link]

Shylock

[Link]

I thought of this on the way home.

It probably won't tip the scale much, but if she swallowed 55+ loads of come then she's taken on at least 55 'pounds'. Does she rub her belly and hold up a sign that says "55 'pounds' heavier"?

Rob Hammer

Edited by - RobHammer on 4/16/2003 9:16:48 PM

[Link]

CC

[Link]

Cyberchicken: The girl will remain a mystery. Part of the hype, you understand. She is kneeling for each and every well-aimed cumshot into her gaping mouth. She is filled to the brim several times. She ingests it all.

Enjoy!
Brandon

[Link]

For what it's worth, I'm responding to "I LOVE IT ROUGH" in fragments.

Having enjoyed scenes 1 and 2, I skipped over scene 3 last night to see scene 4 with Julie Night and Manuel Ferrara. I had mixed feelings about this scene.

On the one hand, I think that Julie Night is incredible, and it was interesting to compare the nature of her sexual energy with Ashley's from scene 1. As lindi perceptively observed in her ADT review, a large component of Ashley's performance was her seeming enjoyment of the pure athleticism of the sex with Nacho, as if she were reveling in the strength and flexibility of her body apart from any particularly acute feelings of eroticism. For me, Ashley personified "physical energy", whereas Julie specifically projected "passionate energy".

Both scenes involved rough but consensual sex, but the Julie/Manuel scene was much more dominant/submissive than the Ashley/Nacho scene (which felt more bi-laterally rough to me). Julie seems more in touch than Ashley with her sexual/emotional nature. There is a certain indefinable purity to her: she appears to be quite open and vulnerable yet strong; submissive in a very assertive way that cuts against the typical dominant/submissive polarity.

Like my reaction to Ashley's looks, I love Julie's physical naturalness -- no boob job, she goes with what she's got, which is plenty wonderful (sweet face, adorable little breasts with pert nipples, great legs, and a fantastic, curvy-tight butt).

Manuel Ferrara's performance, on the other hand, left me somewhat cold. Although Manuel certainly knows how to be a porn uber-stud, I was not that impressed with his emotional presence in the scene. His roughness seemed casual rather than passionate, and he struck me as distant and somewhat jaded. I also could have done without the choking and face-slapping.

The videography in the scene is great (from my perspective better than the first scene, but just different from the second). Again, nice tease at the beginning and a good, seamless transition from outside to inside. Ultimately, the scene was a huge turn-on for me, but it was almost solely because of Julie's sincerity and heat. She is just so expressive! Such passion in her! Manuel gave her a big, hard dick to fuck and she seemingly did the rest herself.

Once again, Brandon, thanks for the great work!

Edited by - Bob on 4/17/2003 4:46:29 AM

[Link]

P.S. If you like Julie Night, you can see her in my June release getting DP'ed by Michael Stefano and me. There were some moments of glory in this one!
P.S.S. My prediction for 2003 is that Lana Coxx will sign a contract with a major studio. This girl is amazing. Wait till you see her bubble butt in shorts that have no seat in them! Perfection does not begin to describe what this beautiful woman is packing in her caboose.

[Link]

Girl You Did Your Scene With In ILIR#1 Will You Be Working

With Her Again? I Liked Her

The #1 Thing A Girl Could Say "My Pussy Needs Cream Filling... Can You Fill Me Up?"

[Link]

RE: the girl I worked with in I LOVE IT ROUGH #1. Her name is Claire Ryder. She lives in the U.K. I agree that she is amazing. When Platinum X Pictures goes to London to shoot soon, I will call her. Instead of flushing her head in the toilet, as she did in Vegas, she will be flushed down the "loo" instead.

Thanks!
Brandon

[Link]

In light of your responsive response to my thoughts on scene 4 with Julie and Manuel, I'd like to clarify a couple of things that I said:

First, it was obvious to me that Julie was enjoying herself thoroughly and that's why the scene was so hot for me, despite any shortcomings that I may have felt were present in Manuel's performance.

Second, when I say "shortcomings", that's not a negative comment on Manuel's looks (he's a handsome guy), his professionalism, his actual chemistry with women, or his sexual skills (he clearly can get it up and keep it up, and handles all the rest of the daunting "technical" requirements for porn-stud-dom with ease). I set a relatively high bar for him because "I LOVE IT ROUGH" is ambitious (and successful) in its intention to explore rough sex in a number of ways (through the quick intro and inter-cut interviews, with the more formal Max Hardcore dialogue, and via the different kinds of sexual/psychological scenarios presented). "I LOVE IT ROUGH" has the most meaningful and thought-provoking "extra-porn" content of any gonzo video I've ever seen.

Whereas most porn focuses only on the woman or women, and the guy(s) are often little more than headless dicks (and I generally pay very little attention to the guys, unless they do something that bothers or upsets me), your video really brings the guys, and the interaction between the girls and the guys, to the fore.

In this context, comparisons between the guys in terms of their ability to exchange sexual energy with the women are almost unavoidable -- and here, Nacho sets a very high bar (again, I haven't seen you in scene 3 yet). Manuel did not seem to be relating to Julie in the focused way that Nacho related to Ashley, that's all. When I wrote that Manuel seemed casually rough, that's not to say that I felt he was brutal or unfeeling, just that he did not appear to be especially passionate or "carried away with himself" in his sex with Julie, in stark contrast to her abandon, expressiveness, and "into-it-ness" with him.

You wrote:

You wrote:

Edited by - Bob on 4/17/2003 3:46:54 PM

[Link]

Comments, good and bad, always welcome at brandoniron_99@yahoo.com.
For those who enjoyed ILIR#1, ILIR#2 will be coming out soon.
Jasmine Lynn, Maggie Star, Lana Coxx, and Sarah O'Neal take on Manuel Ferrara, Erik Everhard, and me. Jasmine does a triple penetration, but Manuel is the only guy in the scene!
Erik fucks Sarah in Prague. Lana learns to respect Manuel's cock. And Maggie finds out the meaning of doing "hard time" as she gets violated in a prison by me...then has 55+ "prisoners" dump loads into he gaping mouth. Again and again, she is filled to the brim before sending it down. No dodging. No faking. Just swallowing.
Enjoy!
Brandon

[Link]

I never saw Rocco: Perversions in Paris. What happened in that movie? Maybe I'll buy em both!

[Link]

Okay, now I have to get this off my chest:

-We have people complaining about seeing slapping and choking in a movie titled I Love It Rough. Are you serious? When you rented or bought this movie, didn't you know this type of action would be in it? You would have to be a total moron not to know that there would be choking, slapping, spitting, etc..
-If there is not going to be slapping, spitting, choking, or hard and fast fucking, don't put ROUGH in the title, without those featured, it's false advertising.
-Those of us that like to watch this type of action have no other series where this is going to be featured on a consisitent and regular basis, so if you don't like that type of action DON'T WATCH IT, and don't ruin it for those of us that do like it by complaining to the director about the slapping and choking. Go watch a run of the mill porn instead, there's tons of that around, but leave our rough sex movies the way they are, don't change them for people who don't even dig that action in the first place. It's hard enough for us to find this type of movie, leave all the rough stuff in the movies, it's what tmake them unique.
-Brandon, don't take the good stuff out of this series becuase one or two people complained, they are not true fans of the rough sex genre.
-And Manuel is cool, he knows how to fuck the girls rough, hard and fast when need be (see The Fashionistas club scene he did, awesome), keep using him.
Thanks for listening, GO LEAFS!

Edited by - M.B. on 4/21/2003 12:33:22 PM

[Link]

Other than that, we all have our own preferences on what we prefer to see, at various places along the spectrum. Some of my thoughts on the subject can be found in this article, which is more about attitude than specific acts.
---------------------------------------------------------
edited to update link

Edited by - lindi on 5/25/2003 3:15:10 PM

[Link]

As far as the rougher stuff, I like harder edged, dominant and intense sex (although by no means do I like it to the exclusion of all else). If roughness is included in it that's ok too. I look to series like this to provide me with that kind of content, and from the comments on this thread, I'll definitely be checking out I Love it Rough at some point. However, I don't think it's unfair of me to express the things about this "genre" that I DON'T like for reasons that I believe transcend personal taste, which pretty much confines itself to choking. Some say, "if you don't like rough sex, don't watch it"... well the thing is that I DO like it (principally for the psychological and more intense emotional aspects of it) and I'll continue to watch it. That doesn't preclude me from expressing my reservations about choking though--not as a comment on someone's personal fantasies, but as a comment on the potential dangers of its actual PRACTICE. It's my right as a consumer, just as it's someone else's right to say that they like it, or that they don't like Vivid because it's too tame. That doesn't mean to them that there isn't something else to like about Vivid--hence the reason they watched it in the first place. To my knowledge, even among people who don't mind choking, it's not a make or break aspect of the movie, and given the questionable safety of it, why include it at all in that case?

Here I go again with my repetitive rantings on my soapbox that I get on every once in a while, but I really believe that my comments on this subject, as well as those of others, have made a difference. I don't have any PERSONAL experience that definitively tells me how dangerous choking really is... All I have is the opinions of others much more knowledgable on the subject than I am. And since from what I've seen of most consumers, that the act of ACTUAL choking doesn't seem like a huge turn on, or the REASON they are buying rough sex movies, why take the risk (whether real or slight) of producing scenes with that act? This is not about govenment regulation. Who wants that? Not me--believe me! No--this is just about appealing to producers to make this choice.

I for one am glad to hear Brandon say that less choking and spitting, etc. is on tap for later volumes. Fun-rough is what _I_ am after, as well as dominant-submission aspects in a role-playing environment. Some of this, granted is personal taste, and I don't have any problem with people who like the more "perpetrator" aspects as coined by Bob and lindi (hell, I like some of that sometimes too), but there doesn't seem to be any good argument for including real choking to me. I don't know... maybe I'm wrong. And I'm sure I'll get a lot of responses (from people who, again, have more smarts than me) that tell me I am. :)

Anyway, don't mean to hijack the I Love it Rough thread. I'll be picking this up, without a doubt. I just figured this would be a good time for me to pipe up on this subject... yet again. My apologies to those who are sick of hearing it.

Mike L. <-- Chief ADT Dumbass

Edited by - MLyons on 4/21/2003 2:16:38 PM

[Link]

Anyway, just an FYI for moralists and super-pervs. Can the two co-exist? Maybe that's what Brandon's going for with "fun ruff."

Edited by - skronker on 4/21/2003 2:12:24 PM

[Link]

Quote from 'risk factors of fatal chokings':

Quote from 'causes of fatal chokings'

Lastly, I should like to commend Lindi on showing balance by listing the article 'critical notes on the second article' as this provides some fundamental refutations of key tenets of the anti-choking viewpoint.

On a final note (again), it may sound like I am just being deliberately argumentative to champion an act that I don't like seeing myself anyway: so what is my intention here?
Simply that I am sick and tired of medical hypothesis being dressed up as medical fact. I urge you to read this article on ecstasy (if you have the time) ecstasy article which demonstrates the very pinnacle of this kind of disinformation.
I am also minded of an oft quoted remark (including amongst medical circles) that anal sex leads to incontinence and permanent rectal damage and disfunction. This viewpoint has more or less been dispelled now but I am told its origins stemmed from a survey of homosexual men (in LA I think) conducted years ago that asked whether or not they received anal penetration and whether they had suffered anal trauma of any sort. What the survey did not look out for was confounding factors, such as considerably larger objects being inserted, notably other mens hands, often in an aggressive and violent manner. This seems a perfect example of seemingly irrefutable medical evidence based on a combination of poor science, bad interpretation (or biased interpretation) and subsequent elevation into mythology.
In relation to this choking thing: given the quoted statistic of one in one million dying of this, given the quoted fact that almost all these are auto asphyxiation (solo play) and given that of those left it is likely (and this is mentioned in the 'critical notes' article) that the choking and the scenario went well beyond what we are discussing here I wonder just how often anyone at all dies of the kind of activity seen in these porn scenes? I would suggest far far more people die of heart attacks or strokes during sex from exertion (heart attack fatalities during sex 0.6% of total as far as I can ascertain which is about 2,500 deaths during sex per annum in the US) than from breath control.

SNP.

Edited by - Sir Noel Plum on 4/21/2003 3:32:28 PM

[Link]

I didn't mean to derail the thread - My real point was that it is not true that all people who find choking or other particular acts objectionable are "people who don't even dig that action in the first place." As with any type of entertainment, there is a spectrum of tastes.

[Link]

I just felt that after several threads on the subject, with little challenge of the facts as presented, that the dangers of the practice were in danger of becoming a given rather than a subject of debate.

Take care,
SNP.

[Link]

Okay, maybe not.
SNP.

[Link]

Wolf.

[Link]

Let's slow it down a bit folks. May I say discussion and opinion, rather than reaction?

[Link]

Although I can appreciate your desire to use this website solely as a method of self-promotion (and I have noted, with a certain kind of admiration, your skill at doing so), please do not presume to tell the rest of us how to use it (that's pretty much up to Steph and Drew).

As for your telling the rest of us why we should (or shouldn't) watch PORN, that's beyond anyone's province.

[Link]

Edited by - Bob on 4/21/2003 7:17:02 PM

[Link]