I'm referring to those jerk to pop facial flicks, that never even attempt an anal cumshot.
Just because a movie happens to include anal sex within its scenes, to suggest its "100% anal" does somthing of a disservice, to those titles that do focus, on ass-only cumshots, concluding their anal driven content.
With many of these features, it would seem far more truthful to state, "Loaded with Anal". This, since the days of facials as commonplace throughout porn have nearly drawn to a close, despite an apparent refusal by some studios to accept. I'm puzzled why Jerk to pop facials, are still granted free residence across genre. Today, we have ass shots, eye shots, oral shots, swallowers, gaggers, internals, and various combinations of each, that often exclude facials altogether!
Imo, by continuing such misleading claims on their packaging, these 100% anal, "jerk to pop" features would seem to define false advertisments?
That's sort of a stretch, isn't it? I mean, when a box cover has claims on it such as, "Face splattering facials," and then every scene ends with two drops dribbled onto the girl's chin, should that be considered false advertisement? As far as I'm concerned, it's buyer beware. Took me many tries and a few bucks to figure out that, given what I'm into, I should never ever pick up anything put out by Hustler or Private no matter what the box looks like or claims. There's a series called something like Casting Couch Cuties, I think, put out by some company called Dreamgirls, or the like. And, no matter what the cover says, I avoid these movies because after being disappointed enough times, I've learned not to get them.
I guess it really comes down to knowing your director, knowing the production company, and the actors, and all that, to make the decision. Just remember who puts out the movies that irk you and avoid those participants' features in the future. That's the best advice I could offer, as it's the only advice that seems to have worked for me.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Dec 15 2004 : 1:18PM
100% Anal means (in my understanding) that each scene has anal, not that each scene is 100% anal.
False advertisement IS a bit of a reach, it IS porn, which always has to be considered a roll of the dice by their covers alone. I have identified certain directors and companies who have done this on a consistent basis, but now, it seems theres more titles, directors and companies entering this described subject that week to week seem to run in more distinct conflict than before. Just a continuing annoyance.Well ok,
To me, 100% anal means that every girl in the movie takes it in the ass. The pop has nothing to do with the 100%. An oral flick means no penetration below the belt.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
God hates us all, you know it's true, God hates this place. - Slayer 1726 Posts 10/03
Posted - Dec 15 2004 : 4:32PM
I'm pretty much with Astro here - although if I see "100% Anal" I would assume there is anal in every scene. Rather it ALL anal the entire scene or anal going on sometime during the scene - either way I'm happy. What really bug me is when a movie is sold as a certain type, like a POV title, and the scene IS NOT SHOT ENTIRLEY IN POV!
Good examples of this are Perverted P.O.V. and P.O.V. Pin-Ups. I mean some of the footage in these you see an underside shot as the girl gets fucked in doggy and another has the top of a guys head in the scene!
I guess what I'm trying to get to, is I know what your feeling....
A little off subject here, but...The same can be said for every one of Anarchy's virtual sex DVDs I've seen. They all advertise Point of View (P.O.V.) , yet the vast minority of the footage where there's more than just the chosen girl on screen is shot POV. Of course, that's just par for the course with Anarchy's virtual discs.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
While I've always assumed it meant anal in every scene, it never seemed to fit without a sense of intrusion. Cut a broad swath across todays mainstream porn, and though debatable, would likely draw a four or five scene gonzo, maybe feature, that includes some oral, a little vag, and almost certainly anal occurring, if not commanding the scenes. Far more anal occurs than in years past, infact so prevalent, its become a recurring topic/rant on the board, by the vag lovers. I would agree with Nickdel that "100% Anal" these days, better distinguishes "anal only", no vag, titles, than simply anal in every scene. (nothing against vag, but just to clarify) even leaving the cumshot issue out of mix.
Actually, the "100% anal" was just an example, to simply point out the masquerade. Take for instance, "A Good Source of Iron", or "A Bakers Dozen", and throughout each entire segment, the chicks are giving the roundabout BJ's leading up to their frothy finishes, when just at the last second, instead of 12 guys splattering her hair, nose, chin and forehead, or loading up a huge, three gulp swallow, every single wad, is shot on her lower ass cheek. Not a single drop hits tongue face, or neck. In any scene. Not because they accidentally miss, but because they were never even targeted.
Posted - Dec 15 2004 : 2:51AM
