lots of pierced parts, Tattoos and mohawks and shaved heads, Im not judging anyone, your body your right to decorate, but s there market for this? or do these girls get paid less? Don't get me wrong Ive seen some great performances by girls with this look, but I wonder would they make more money if they were less "modified" anyone know? also do stars have agents?, do these agents tell them things like shave or done shave your pussy, or get breast implants or don't get them
As long as it's legal and consensual, there is a market for pretty much anything in the porn world. It's just a question of how profitable the market is. Not to suggest you've been living under a rock but there is a sizeable market for alt/goth/emo/subculture porn. Burning Angel is among the best known studios catering for the genre. Evil Angel has a few titles dedicated to heavily tattooed women as well and there's a good amount of porn where being tattooed is relatively incidental to the scene itself. I can't answer whether they're paid less (I doubt that's the case) but there probably are fewer opportunities in "mainstream" porn but with there being so much niche porn, there's still plenty of work out there. Just like non-alt girls, you will find some have agents and some represent themselves.
I'm sure there is a market for girls with multiple tattoos and piercings since the site suicide girls and burning angels are full of them but it's still a very small market. If not you would see tons of performers with multiple tattoos and piercings. My guess is that the further you move away from the natural look. The harder it is for you to get offers. A small tattoo here and there or the odd piercing may not be much of an issue but large hard to cover or shoot around tattoos means that you limit your hiring potential by a very large margin. I know people will point to Bonnie Rotten as the poster child for having multiple tattoos and still getting plenty of work but I truly believe that she is the exception rather than the rule. Now I don't know for certain if agents tell their clients to avoid making any serious changes to their looks but my gut feeling is that they would emphasize the importance of altering has few things about themselves for fear of alienating too many fans. This is especially true when your popularity is highly dependant on your looks. Not all changes are positive.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - May 18 2015 : 2:06AM
In my opinion, Brazzers is the very definition of mainstream porn, and nowadays they regularly shoot performers with multiple, prominent tattoos. The market is clearly growing. Other than a few notable exceptions, mohawks and shaved heads are a different story. Plenty of pornstars have nipple or genital piercings, but I don't know that there's much of a market for heavily pierced performers.
There's definitely a market for more alternative girls, but the more marked up they are... the more niche specific scenes they'll, most likely, be booked for. Sometimes I'm into the punker chicks, sometimes not. Burning Angel has done a great job cornering the market on those types of girls. They seem to be doing well and have a pretty solid fan base... but you don't really see their models in much outside of their own productions. So yeah, I think having a more alternative look definitely hinders the amount of work a model can get. - Jimmy Hooligan The Official Jimmy Hooligan
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - May 18 2015 : 12:08PM
^I don't think it's a coincidence that Bonnie Rotten and Christy Mack, the pornstars who arguably took alt mainstream, both chose not to shoot for Burning Angel. Most of the pornstars who start their careers there are never able to successfully transition, though happily the number of exceptions is increasing.
^ I always figured that was simply because both of them were attractive in such a way (particularly their faces) that they were able to get into a mainstream agency right from the start and simply didn't have to go the Burning Angel route. No offense to any Burning Angels girls intended, but many of them don't strike me as "conventionally pretty" enough to get a lot of mainstream work even if they had fewer tattoos and piercings.
I think watching porn makes people more tolerant and more accepting of those who are different from them. Because having sex in a porn movie is in itself a violation mainstream social norms. If you start accepting this violation as legitimate and good, then your acceptance makes it easier for you to start accepting other violations of social norms too, such as tattoos and piercings. That's why people with a lot of tattoos and piercings are able to make it in porn. The porn audience changes its attitudes and learns to accept new differences, when exposed to them.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - May 19 2015 : 11:22AM
^^Bonnie Rotten said in an interview that she purposely avoided taking the alt. route into porn because she thought it would have pigeonholed her. I don't know if Christy Mack ever addressed the issue. Burning Angel is shooting the same sort of pornstars it always has, yet an increasing number of these pornstars are appearing on mainstream websites.
^^ I don't think using that broad stroke applies to everyone so it's naive to assume that porn can change everyone's behaviours or make them more tolerant of those they perceive to be different. This forum alone shows a lot of people's intolerance of those who they consider to be different as there's no shortage of bitching about a porn actress' tattoos or boob job. Porn didn't change my attitude toward tattooed women and I didn't learn to be accepting of tattooed women through porn. I like ink on many women regardless of porn. I have more porn of alt actresses now because more of it is available now than 10 years ago, not because of a change in attitude toward or new found acceptance of tattooed women. People with tattoos and piercings aren't making their way into porn because the audience is accepting of them or changing its attitudes due to exposure to them in porn. Had you not considered that people in that audience were partial to tattooed and/or pierced women in the first place, before seeing them in porno movies?
^^ Fair enough, but it doesn't really change my point that Bonnie is (IMHO) pretty enough that she was in a position to make that decision in the first place, while a lot of the girls featured by Burning Angel would be unlikely to get much mainstream porn exposure even if they purposely tried to go that way. As I indicated before, that's not really a comment on tattoos as such in any case - average-looking girls without tattoos or crazy hair styles tend to struggle with mainstream bookings, too, I daresay, the difference is that they don't have a Burning Angel-type fallback option so they might not get any significant exposure at all. World Modelling's agency page used to be full with girls (with and without tattoos) whose looks made me wonder if they were going to have any career in porn at all (and this was in the mid/late 2000s boom when lots of companies were shooting), and sure enough many of them never seemed to turn up in much. And the attractiveness standards of mainstream porn have only increased since then. IMHO, there are two reasons we're seeing an increasing number of girls with tattooes in mainstream porn: 1) A greater number of attractive girls have tattoos nowadays, and 2) mainstream porn companies are struggling to a degree that they're forced to cultivate smaller niches than they used to. Edited by - shalalin on 5/21/2015 2:34:54 AM
A porn-star doesn't need to please everyone to be popular. Being popular among a large percentage of the audience is good enough. Even popular politicians don't need 100% of people to vote for them. And that's how it is with popularity of porn-stars. They don't need to please everyone.
^ I never said any such thing about having to please everyone to be popular. Mankind is far too intolerant for everyone to be pleased by a single thing. Your wording sounded like it was true of everybody that porn can change attitudes but that is clearly not the case as I had explained. Being in my 30s I'm familiar with how voting works for a politician so thanks for the lesson establishing that a candidate doesn't need 100% of the vote to be elected. I hadn't noticed that throughout my life with all the US presidential elections and UK general, local and mayoral elections until you pointed that out. Again you come up with irrelevant comparisons instead of responding to a counter argument.
