The following is a comment I submitted to a reviewer's site that's still not posted and I don't know if it will be. I'm not going to say the performer's name or the name of the movie because I don't wish to humiliate her. I'm also not going to post the reviewer's name because I don't wish to give him more publicity. However, many of you probably know who he is because he has been reviewing porn for decades.
Here's my open message to him:
Just came across this podcast and you're right that the men and women (or people of any gender) in adult industry put in the time and effort to create something you can enjoy. Though your readers and listeners may be mostly fans, I'm writing as a performer who has continued doing live webcam and creating solo videos. I did some videos in the adult industry years ago, though I'm not a major star with hundreds of scenes.
Anyway, thanks for stating your appreciation to performers and please keep that in mind before referring to any woman as "beyond chubby, old, ugly, unappealing." I'm referring specifically to words you used in a review of a performer. Though I understand that as performers, we put ourselves on the line and criticism is part of the territory, just seems hypocritical to write about any woman in that way and then talk about the importance of appreciating the performers. It was years ago (still up) and I'm not going to say who you were referring to publically or the movie because I don't wish to humiliate her- if she would even care. I don't read most of your reviews, though sometimes fans may send me links to sites and ask if I was in "such and such" a movie.
I worked with this woman twice and she was sweet, great sense of humor, and treated performers and everybody on set well. As a side, there are plenty of viewers who disagree with your claim that she's unappealing- though everybody has the right to their opinion. If you wish to insult any performer the way you did to her, please just do that to me because I'd just find it funny and my main concern is with the safety and well-being of performers rather what you think. This comment may get deleted, but at least that means you read it. **end of message**
Though I realize reviewers have the right to review what they decide to, why do they review genres they're not into? Porn is very much about attraction and arousal. Thus, if a reviewer isn't into BBWs for example, how are they going to get into such a scene no matter the quality of the performance? If they find the performer ugly, that could be because they're just not their type and fans of this genre could find the same person very attractive.
It seems more ethical for reviewers to review films within genres they're into instead of reviewing films outside that genre and berating the performers' appearances because they're not their type. If they stick to what they're into, they can provide more constructive reviews because criticisms are based more on the quality of the performance or whether the performer is looking their best, whether the camera angles are flattering, etc. rather than just not being attracted to the performer. It seems like this reviewer has moved more toward doing this, though I wonder how much it has to do with the fact that he appears to have become much fatter himself (another hint as to who he is) and realizes that if he body shames women or berates their looks, then he's opening the door to get called out on how fat he has become. From the few recent reviews I read, his reviews have become much shorter and I don't notice him body shaming anymore, which may be because he now just seems to review more mainstream porn with big name stars. Perhaps, this is for the best.
Plus, this reviewer doesn't describe men's appearances and just describes their peformance, such as whether they have trouble staying hard, how much of a cum load they shoot off, where they shoot it, etc. I imagine this is typical across reviewers, though some people on here probably know more than I do.
Hi, Tessa! You've actually brought up something of a conundrum. Back before the turn of the century, when people purchased magazines and trade papers for their own sake, the reviewers in those publications made their bylines based on how well they communicated how they understood their craft. If there was a blockbuster war movie showing in the cinema, a poor or inexperienced reviewer, or an amateur in one of the street-level tabloids, would write something to the effect of, "Jeez, another war picture? Aren't people tired of that already? All the shooting and fake blood and guys in uniforms?" Then in the next issue, a Letter to the Editor would complain, "Why do you keep publishing this guy's reviews about war pictures if he hates war pictures?" And the editor would defend the reviewer, saying everyone's entitled to an opinion.
If you're a great editor, you know that a great review is not about how the reviewed movie or product struck the tastes of the reviewer. It's whether the reviewer understood enough about the craft of making the product in the first place, to communicate whether someone who appreciates that craft would like the product or not. What can you say about a war picture that would tell a person who truly appreciates fine war pictures, whether this one is comparable?
Imagine a kitchen product review site where the reviewer writes, "Geez, another blender! I don't use blenders myself. Isn't everyone tired of more blenders?"
Porn for me, as a straight man, is about enjoying women's beautiful bodies doing one of the most beautiful things they do. Like everyone who has ever contributed to this forum (including yourself, I'm certain), I have certain personal tastes that have changed and evolved. Each of us appreciates styles of sex and sensuality in different ways, and each of us has a certain "Meh" level, below which we're not interested anymore and we shut if off. My "Meh" level has fluctuated greatly over the decades since I first saw Jennifer Welles get penetrated in a movie called "Thunderbuns." Seeing that happen on a big screen was thrilling, at the time. Now, there wasn't a web back then, but if there were, I might have written an amateur review saying, "She has the most beautiful ass I've ever seen!" Which, up to that point, might have been correct. Today, I look back on that scene and I think, um, gee. Maybe not in a class by herself anymore. I've become spoiled by thousands of magnificent asses since.
What I would want from a fresh, retrospective review of "Thunderbuns," 48 years later, is something that would help a reader compare the performance standards of these two different centuries. What would I expect from 1976, and how have those standards changed in a half-century's time? I might want to see mentioned how slowly Welles' scene with the younger fellow unfolded, as though they were recording for a camera running at a different speed. And because porn is, at some level, directly about beauty, I would want that review to touch on whether beauty was communicated by the performers through the screen.
If the reviewer had never seen an X-rated flick from the '70s or even the 20th century before, that might still be interesting if the writer had enough skill to convey how differently it feels today.
This almost parallels the question you asked, "Why do they review genres they're not into?" If a skilled reviewer who is not into BBWs were to write a piece on a movie full of BBWs, then you know what I'd like to read from that person? Did he get aroused anyway? Was the production so good, and the performers so skilled, that they managed to sell their sex to him? You asked, "How are they going to get into such a scene no matter the quality of the performance?" Maybe they don't, but if they're good enough reviewers, they could still explain the quality of the performance to the extent that someone who's genuinely turned on by BBWs, could get a feel for the quality of the show.
If it's not a good reviewer, than some amateur verdict such as, "The girls were all ugly," has no business being published.
On the other hand... I loathe rape, assault, abuse. No, I don't mean spanking, I mean hurting. I would not, even if I were paid to do so, or even if refusing the assignment got my byline canned, write a review of a production where performers were assaulted or desecrated. That's a genre for which I wouldn't care for a review, thank you, because I'm not into it and don't want to be.
What matters is whether the review can inform people about the quality of the production and, yes, in the case of porn, the beauty of it. You can talk about beauty, or the lack thereof, without shaming individuals. It takes skill, but it can be done. If the writer is merely saying, "Wow, these girls are really fat," then there's no point in reading any further. Yet there is a borderline - not the "Meh" level, but the "No!" level. And nothing anyone has to say about anything that descends below his or her personal "No!" levels, has any business being written, let alone read.
My thoughts exactly. It's important for reviewers to understand the target audience of what they're reviewing. For example, this guy said of another performer in the review of the same movie that reverse cowgirl was an unattractive position for her because of how her tummy bounced. Well, to a fan of the chunky or BBW genre, that could be sexy and more to love. He also used other dehumanizing terms toward the women, though I didn't take the time to get into all of them.
This isn't an amateur reviewer either. This is somebody who has interviewed multiple performers and been interviewed himself on the industry as if he has some expertise. Some may respect him in the industry, though he comes across to me as just a hobbyist and fan who runs a website. He seems like a porn groupie into hanging out with the porn stars, getting pictures with them, and making himself seem important to them. However, to him, the "nobody's" (performers who aren't stars or don't look like they could be) seem to be just that- "nobody's." He also mentioned that he's one of the voters for the AVN awards and does podcasts from his site each year before the awards, though he hasn't yet this year. If the AVN creates an award for the most stupidly written review, this one should at least be nominated. He wrote it like he was trying to mock the performers and get the readers to laugh at them. Though I'm tempted to laugh, it's at him- not them.
Sounds to me like he's gotten carried away with his own self-importance, judging his own value by the stature of the company he hangs around with, that he's decided he can assume the role of judge and jury with respect to people's talent and beauty. The latest in a long, long line of wannabes.
Maybe someone should review the reviewers. Got any ideas for 600 words, Tessa?
Back when I used to write reviews, my first thoughts were who is the target audience and then I tried to write a review that the target audience would find helpful in deciding of the movie was right for them or not. Was I always successful? Probably not but I tried.
Good idea, Rick. Writing a review of a reviewer is what I'm doing here. I'm not trying to completely villify this reviewer and from the limited stuff I've seen from him, he writes constructive reviews if he just sticks to describing the scenes.
Also, it can be good if current or former performers write reviews. I did that on my blog of a video I was in, though it wasn't a critique of the performers- rather of the plot and my experiences as a performer. This was also a chunky-themed movie and I used humor without berating the wonderful women I worked with. The blog entry isn't just about the movie and is more deeply about the topic of body positivity and body shaming. I just connected these topics with the movie. Here's a link: https://curviliousvegan.blogspot.com/2022/07/body-positivity-body-shaming-porn-and.html This is another way to write a review.
Read that piece from your blog, Tessa, and I recommend it for the other members here too. Back in the 90s and '00s before the Web had such an impact on format, a surprising amount of rentable porn on VHS was themed around shaming the performers' bodies instead of enjoying them. It wasn't prevalent, at least quantitatively speaking, but it got shelved in certain sections of the video store that were obviously popular sections.
Like you say, Tessa, porn is ultimately about arousal. What arouses me as a viewer is arousal itself. A woman is both at her strongest and her most vulnerable point when she's having an orgasm for thousands of people to witness. Other viewers back then were aroused by ridicule, taking the opportunity to exploit that vulnerability in the first chat rooms. As you wrote about the time you began camming, you'd get ridicule from some viewers, and you'd imagine them whacking off to their own words.
Please permit me to say I'm sorry that's what you faced. It saddens me that that's what got those guys off. I'd like to think that the move toward the "gonzo" format in 2010s and '20s porn has expunged the body shaming formats of the VHS era, presenting performers of all body styles as beautiful for the people who enjoy them. Let's dispense with the frat boy humor, do away with the ridicule, and just show some beautiful people getting naked and sharing joy with the world. With so much violence and abuse of all kinds in the open media, somebody needs to explain to me again why watching sex is supposed to be sinful. If it takes putting other people down to make ourselves horny and hard, something's wrong with us.
But maybe I've blinded myself to body shaming and verbal assault that happens elsewhere, on the cam sites and social media. This isn't about being a consumer with different tastes than other consumers. We can't just dismiss this by saying, "Some people just like what they like." This is about hurting people. And the way to counter that is by all of us becoming a bit more defiant, like you were in that BTS sequence while the camera guy was laughing at you. Got to get that cardio in.
Thanks for sharing that, Tessa. It's a personal story, and I hope it makes more people see you as a person with feelings, but one who can't be shamed. I admire you more now.
Thank you for the kind words Rick and loved this comment "just show some beautiful people getting naked and sharing joy with the world" understanding people's idea of beautiful may vary. That was one of my longer blog entries and I'm glad it was worth the read. It wasn't intended to be a pity party, just insightful with some humor added in. In terms of people getting off on degradation, I consider the context. Like, some BDSM centers around that, though the difference is if it's just role playing that people consent to and understand it as nothing more than that. That must be agreed upon ahead of time by all involved before the role play starts.
Another viewer also said that back in the 90's and early 2000's, much of the chunky and BBW porn focused on fat shaming and chiche fat jokes. However, I'm not familiar with it beyond just the series of videos that begins with "chunky," such as Chunky Cheerleaders, Chunky Housewives, Chunky Pool Party, chunky this, chunky that. They were created by the same directors who did so many videos in this "chunky" series. I don't follow porn as a viewer much, so I don't know of other videos from the time outside of this series focused on the body shaming and mocking "fat" women.
After Chunky Cheerleaders came out, something echoed by viewers over and over again is that they liked us women, though not the cliche fat jokes.
Rick wrote: "This almost parallels the question you asked, "Why do they review genres they're not into?" If a skilled reviewer who is not into BBWs were to write a piece on a movie full of BBWs, then you know what I'd like to read from that person? Did he get aroused anyway? Was the production so good, and the performers so skilled, that they managed to sell their sex to him? You asked, "How are they going to get into such a scene no matter the quality of the performance?"
I've seen this point made before and can understand why fans may say this. From a performer's perspective, it's more nuanced. We can't all just snap our fingers and make ourselves look like Jenna Jameson, yet mainstream reviewers may berate performers if they don't fit the porn ideals of beauty. Okay, so I'm really aging myself here by bringing her up as the epitone of pornstar beauty, though at the time I was in the business she was the biggest star. Plus, I realize she experienced body shaming because of how her looks changed after leaving porn. Point is if a reviewer is into the Vivid or Jules Jordan contract gal style of porn, yet reviews a "fat chick" flick just for kicks; it may be fun for them, though degrading to the women if they treat them like a freak show for not having the ideal porn star looks while fans of this genre may find them more appealing than the mainstream stars. This is why I say that if anybody wishes to degrade any sex workers, just do it to me because I'm past the point where it would get to me and would have a sense of humor about how rediculous they're acting.
Plus, this puts an extra onus on the performers where they have to try to impress people who may find them hideous. I'm not interested in that burden and there are some people who I have no interest in appealing to. If I'm not their type, thank goodness for that lol.
(You can't age yourself any worse than me, dear, I promise.)
I can vouch for the fact that Jenna Jameson was the subject of body shaming by online amateur reviewers (maybe they don't really matter in the long run), even during the peak of her career, for as one guy put it, "looking way too much like Jenna Jameson." Today, with much of the porn "conversation" hosted on social media platforms, it's clear to me that body shaming is being amplified even when it's rare. Just as with politics, social media algorithms try to balance likes with dislikes to generate controversy and boost traffic. So if one or two guys find someone "ugly," they're going to get their notifications boosted to more people because they're the few caretakers of the opposition.
I believe this is why stars of every genre (along with certain members and ex-members of royalty) are moving off of social media: because platforms make it seem to them that there are haters everywhere. I would bet that the negative "uproar" about Jenna's looks came on account of this social media phenomenon, where every discourse that could be a two-sided discussion is steered toward a 50/50 disagreement by targeting potential disagreeing accounts with click-baited notifications, prodding them to respond. Anyone getting plastic surgery on their face is going to trigger an algorithm somewhere.
This leads to a dangerous and terrible phenomenon: Everybody is somebody's freak show. The outright hatred of people who clearly don't deserve hatred, is automatically cultivated. I don't believe people would so easily shame and bully other people online if they didn't think they could attract a following in so doing, and had evidence that this could be done. So you can imagine someone out there whose traffic isn't up there where it used to be, thinking, "You know what I might do? I think I'll do a review of one of these niche 'fat-chicks' movies, berate these broads, and get some likes. Or some haters, but either way, it'll boost my stature."
Thanks for the info., Flash. I haven't heard of her. It seems like to an extent, BBWs are becoming more humanized within porn thanks to women such as Karla Lane and Kelly Shibari who have spoken out publicly sounding eloquent, insightful, intelligent, and knowledgable on a variety of topics. In fact, the reviewer referred to in the OP on this thread years after the review I mentioned included Kelly Shibari in a few podcasts he did on his website. They discussed various issues affecting the industry and society and were mutually respectful. I appreciate that he respected her enough to seek out her insight.
Kelly and Karla entered porn after I left, and I haven't met either woman though I respect both and how they paved the way for increased respect toward BBWs. That said, I'm concerned there could also be a "whorearchy" among BBWs (by no fault of Kelly or Karla) where BBWs such as the ones mentioned gained some acceptance in mainstream porn while other BBWs may still be treated like freak shows. Do BBWs have to speak out publicly and prove their intelligence in order to be recognized as human and preceived as more than just "dumb, fat, ugly freak shows."
I think companies like AORTA and Pink Label are helping as well since no performers are treated like "freak shows." The more that show natural people in natural setting, the more accepted it will become.
Thanks again, Flash. I haven't heard of AORTA before. It seems many alternative porn sites have emerged, which may make alternative increasingly more mainstream and less alternative. Even with some alternative porn, certain categories of people may still be presented as freakshows. This is getting very retro, though Candida Royalle is considered a pioneer in feminist porn going against the grain of degrading porn. However, in a movie she directed or produced called "One Size Fits All," the only BBW in the movie was treated like a freakshow. She had a very small role, going into the vintage shop where this small, sexy dress was and expressing interest in it. The guy who ran the shop treated her with disdain, assured her the dress wouldn't fit her, and it seemed like the main purpose of including her in the movie was to mock "fat" women and present them as unappealing. Yet, when a thinner woman came in and expressed interest in the same dress, he was not only eager to see her in it, but also f*ck her.
While people may complain about how degrading the "Chunky..." series of movies was in the early 2000's in which I was in 2 of them, at least BBW's were the stars (for lack of a better term), the main attraction, and on the box covers instead of just a sideshow.
