I think the girls, on the whole, now are more beautiful than ever. Hardware's Haley Page is an excellent and representative example. :)

[Link]

Maybe I also like the fact they don't look too much as Playboy centerfolds, as I am more into "girls next door" type.

[Link]

I pretty much side with the other thread's argument (as well as Supahfonic, MLyons, 2Hot2Handle's). There are absolutely gorgeous women spread throughout the history of adult film. However, some of them are truly simply of their era while others possess a classical beauty that would catapult them to stardom no matter what year they worked in. For example, I personally think that if the Nikki Dial who entered the biz in the early 90s entered it today she would look just as hot and just as stunning. I don't know that I would say the same of some of the girls on rc's list.

Due to my recent explorations of classic golden age/video age era porn, I have a newfound appreciation for the girls of the past. However, I do look around and find the girls today to look far hotter than the girls of yesterday. Well, actually with some recent retirements (Jennifer Luv, Katin) I think the biz is starting to thin out a tiny bit. I mean I look at LaDirect's website and truly find less than 1/3 of their models appealing. But I do ultimately prefer the way porn stars of today look as opposed to any other era, be it the drugged out 70s, big hair 80s, or implant-obssed 90s Also, could this just be a question of personal preferrence because a lot of the girls on rc's list have implants. It signals a nostalgia for a time that is no longer the norm.

Hey, I loved it when Playboy/Penthouse centerfold caliber women like Tera patrick and Taylor St. Claire entered the biz with regularity. However, as others have said it was usually the case that those women were the minority. Now, the majority may not be as hot as those women but they are far sexier than they used to be...to me at least.

As for the performer age thing, there are arguments for and against raising it to 21. Logically, I truly do think that the girls (not the industry) might be better served to have to be 21 to enter porn but I don't know how much I like the idea of placing such a restriction on things.

Edited by - tscfan317 on 1/17/2005 6:18:54 PM

[Link]

my perception of porn for the longest time was that it was full of peroxide, bad boob jobs, and dumb outfits. cookie cutter Pamela Anderson walking cliches.

but now all i do is click a link and there's some stunningly fresh-faced young lady doing things her mother never heard of.

i can't count how many times i've gawped at a porn girl who looks like she just skipped out of a chem lecture at the local college. or she just finished her shift at Starbucks. or she's going to a Gorillaz concert tomorrow night.

for me, it's a huge turn on to think that they're not manufactured superwhores, but regular girls i'd see in mundane, everyday life.

[Link]

BTW, in my memories it has always been like this in porn. In the two periods I've watched straight porn (mid '90's, round the millennium) I could count the girls that were stunning to me on one hand.

''The unexamined life is not worth living''

Edited by - Valentino on 1/22/2005 6:06:41 PM

[Link]

As far as I'm concerned, I think there are some true beauties in porn right now (and a very fair selection of amazing bodies).

Maybe I didn't get your original post rc, and you are talking about the way the girls are dressed (clothes, tattoos, piercing etc.) is that it ?

About the performer age: I couldn't disagree more, one of my main interest in porn (if not *the* main interest) is to watch beautiful young girls... raise the performer's age, and you'll ruin it for me. (Love Rayveness though )

(plus there's the whole "why 21 years old" debate, things are not the same in usa and in europe... blah, blah, blah ad nauseam)

Edited by - anti-pop on 1/17/2005 6:46:49 PM

[Link]

I completely agree with him.

At one time, it was the manufactured, airbrushed, implant-infested girl. Now, a lot of these girls look just like girls I see on campus, regardless of status (sorority chicks and non-sorority chicks) or major (sociology, anthropology, english, physics, film, etc.)

Kelly

Edited by - tscfan317 on 1/17/2005 6:53:06 PM

[Link]

If you can't find women you think are gorgeous or hot then you're simply not looking hard enough.

As a starter go rent or buy Truly Nice Ass 7. One of the most beautiful lineups I've ever seen. Especially when companies tend to have only one or maybe two marquee women per video.

[Link]

The difference was so much that I might not have recognised many of them if I'd been at the show. They were still beautiful, just more natural.

[Link]

And as far as how they looked at AEE? I don't think anyone would look fantastic after getting 2 hours of sleep after parting all night.

[Link]

I like the latest crop of porn chics. I agree that their either the girl next door type or tatoo'd biker mammas/rock groupies. The centerfold types like Chasey Lain were always boring-their performances seemingly paycheck driven.

Alot of performers of late have curvier bodies which I like. There were too many rail thin chicks 10 years ago-Misty Rain, Rebecca Lord, Liza Harper, etc.

I wonder if the freak show antics of most gonzo features have reduced the number of centerfold tyes? Probably. The sexual limits have to stop being tested. The envolope can't be pushed any further.

[Link]

yes they now look more like women you'd actually see, because the larger the sample gets the more it resembles the real population. Like how in highschool there were lots of meek along with the hotties. Is it a great thing that we now get to see the real population fucking, or is it only a good thing? For me it's a wierd mix of better and worse. There's something for everyone, but that means almost all of it is for someone else. And there's hardly ever a whole movie full of girls who appeal to me, whereas that used to be fairly common.

The rotating door and all the rough treatment makes the current girls into anti-stars without the hollywood feel of specialness the studios used to cultivate. It comes through in their performances. The sex is a lot grittier and nastier, even "better", but the overall feel of it has also grown sour. A less positive vibe? Something like that. (This is the part that's tough to describe.) There's more of the whore next door than the girl next door, partly due to how some types who used to be seen before the AIDS scares now choose other paths. We still aren't getting a sample of the whole population, sadly.

So you may be able to find a longer lineup of attractive girls today, but you'd have to hunt around and sift more, and once you lined them all up each wouldn't fascinate you for long because their star quality has.... gone down, so to speak. It's like the 90's pornstars were a basketball team with 1 great player, 1 good player, 1 average, 2 mediocre. But in the new century we've traded for more players and our team is now fielding ten at a time: 2 are very good, 3 are good, 2 average, 3 mediocre. They're winning all their games vs. 90's porn because of the numbers advantage, but they're confusing the spectators and clogging up the passing lanes. And some basketball purists would switch to watching the WNBA because it still emphasizes the fundamentals (like playing 5 on 5). But there's lots of horse-faced WNBA players, so it's a toss up.

I'm sorry.

[Link]

Say all you want about how well a woman is photographed, but never pass judgement on her looks until you have:

a) Looked up at her as she's straddling you, riding herself to orgasm

and

b) Just had her tell you she spent this month's rent money on a Prada bag.

Until you see her through the lens of these two experiences, you'll never really know what she looks like.

-T.C.

[Link]

Any guy can fuck a chubby unattractive girl... I think the fantasy is being ruined. Granted I even have my days where I look in the mirror and I think that I'm not that great looking. But I do know that even without make-up... I look good. I just think that porn is too easy to get into these days. Everyone has their own taste as I said before. So what one director doesn't like... another may love. Therefor that director wont shoot that girl. It's really up to the directors on who gets into porn. If the directors start hiring only the pretty ones... some of the REALLY talented ones might not get hired anymore.

It's so hard to say what's hot and what's not. I think if a girl is average looking but is an amazing performer... let her stay. I've worked with girls that didn't seem like they even wanted to be there... they were hot, but it's about the performance too. If you've got looks & talent... you'll be around a lot longer. Notice most of the girls will do a few flicks and get out. I plan to stick around forever. I'm a true porno lifer. I don't care if I'm just a secretary after I'm shot out... LOL. I'm here for good!

*Hugs & Kisses*

[Link]

I braindumped this list in less than 90 seconds without even thinking about it. These are hotties that would a) Turn heads in any mall, bar, club, etc and b) Can sell any boxcover based on looks alone.

Not a chance anyone can tell these girls are not hotter than the girls from a few years back. Not to mention most of them do anal, facials, ATMs and other wholesome sexual acts. Try getting a '90s era contract girl to do the same.

[Link]

I am backpedaling on this issue.

Overall, I like the way the girls look in this era of homogenized pornography. However, I took a look at all of the agencies' websites and understood what rc was arguing a bit more.

I referrenced (and linked to) a previous thread on this topic earlier. At the time of that thread, it seemed so clear that the girls today were just out of this world appealing. Now, when I look at the absolute newest girls coming in and go back to the original thrust of rc's message I agree. I really only find a couple of the newest girls attractive, with Penny Flame not counting since she has been around for a while and is only new to boy/girl.

We've lost Jennifer Luv and Katin and others recently. Who of the new crop can really fill that void?

It's a different time in America and a different time for porn. You no longer have the superstars coming in on a regular basis. Instead, you have, as was so brilliantly described earlier, the whore next door. For my preferrences, it makes for more exciting scenes but feeds into the women-hating, circus act themes of the current product. Do I wish we could go back to the days of Christy Canyon though? Yes and no.

Earlier I said that I prefer the way girls look today more so than any other era of porn. That is not really true. It's just that I can pick out some (Haley, Jennifer, retired Brianna Blaze) that I think rank among the hottest of all time. Ultimately though, I truly preferred the way the girls in the late 80s and early 90s looked. I'm specifically thinking of girls like Heather Hart, Victoria Paris, Tracey Adams, Taija Rae, Tiffany Mynx, Melissa Melindez, Siobhan Hunter, Rachel Ashley, Lois Ayres, Keisha, Nikki Dial, etc. up until implants took over. For my money, the female talent from that period looked far more natural and everyday than our current group of teenagers/early 20 somethings. Don't get me wrong. I like the women from both eras, I just slightly prefer one to the other.

Kelly

Edited by - tscfan317 on 1/22/2005 5:58:00 PM

[Link]

Isn't it really about quantity now, both in numbers of girls in the industry, especially when you add the European contingent, and product output? Absolutely tons of beauties working today, far too many for me to keep track of, but the way the women of the past were presented allowed for a greater impression on porn fans memory. Also, let's not forget the impact of the internet. Up until the last few years we didn't learn of a new film until it was sitting on the video store shelf, or for me early on, the Pussycat Theater marquee.
I strongly urge anyone feeling a bit burned out right now to add some early Joanna Storm or Shanna McCullough titles to your rental list and embrace the magic of old school porn.

Edited by - nipfan on 1/23/2005 5:01:12 AM

[Link]