Here is something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I love porn - in theory. In reality, I'm almost always disappointed with what I see, although there is no shortage of beautiful women among the performers, high production values in the scenes and features, and anal sex and DP's which is my favorite thing to watch. To be clear, what I'm complaining about here is not porn in general but specifically the hardcore anal-themed gonzo porn which is the only thing I care about. Here are the problems that I identify:
1) THE ARTIFICIAL ERECTION. Ever since Cialis/Viagra entered the world of porn in the early 2000's, male performers have been able to have a hard-on even if they are not really horny. Why is this a bad thing? Because this has made male pornstars focussed on fucking - the penetration motion - rather than on the women that they are in bed with. The word "chemistry" has lost its meaning - porn reviewers talk about chemistry between a guy and a girl when there is intensity in the fucking, maybe some dirty talk or whatever. But real chemistry (however problematic it is to talk about "real" in regards to porn, since everything we see is a kind of fiction, an illusion of sex) arises when a guy seems turned on by a girl, and she seems turned on by him, so there is some kind of sexy mutuality in the air. Remember Christoph Clark in the 90's? He always seemed so damn horny, that old French pervert. Today's male pornstars have better looks, more muscular bodies, bigger cocks, and many of them are also quite young, compared to how it was in the past. But they seem more like efficiency-oriented and result-oriented fuck machines than horny guys fucking with hot girls - which makes these guys less relatable for the average porn consumer. Often, they don't even look at the women, not their faces at least - there is no interaction. Because no interaction is needed, unlike real life sex with natural erection (and natural wood problem). It feels like they work in a factory or have a workout session at the gym - it has very little to do with sex.
2) THE NORMALIZATION OF ANAL SEX. I have conflicting feelings about this. On one hand, anal sex is what I want to watch, so I should be grateful that it's so commonplace today. On the other hand, I want anal to feel special. In the 90's (and even more so in the 80's), anal had something very nasty and dirty about it, something that the girls normally wouldn't do - this was the impression that the performers and the directors gave - but when they agreed to do it, they were more or less overwhelmed with the intense sensation. Which was very exciting to watch. Nowadays, anal is expected from any aspiring porn actress, they are very trained and prepared for it, and act like it is all fun. The narrative in a porn scene - the story in this fiction - has changed from anal being something painful-but-also-exciting to something as enjoyable as (and interchangeable with) vaginal sex. Which is a lie, of course, and perhaps a fantasy for many porn viewers, but I think that this fantasy reduces the dramaturgical power of anal sex in a scene. Something that I absolutely hate, but which is quite common today, are scenes where there is no vaginal sex at all (apart from DP). This takes away the whole point of anal sex being that "extra gear" that you can shift into - it makes it the only gear. One of my favorite pornstars of recent years is Ginebra Bellucci. She is so incredibly beautiful, sexy, charming, and nasty, and in some scenes she has a hairy pussy which in her case looks very hot. But several of her scenes are ruined by the anal sex starting right away (after some oral action) with no vaginal sex preceding it, and no clit-rubbing to make it looks like she is actually sexually stimulated during the anal sex. It takes away the whole illusion of an actual intercourse with this gorgeous woman. And it is not her fault, not at all, it is the director and (I guess?) the studio. Ginebra is just one example - I see this all the time, and it is very frustrating. The dramaturgy of anal scenes are gone.
3) THE PISSING TREND. Is it just me, or do we see an increase in gonzo scenes that end with the female(s) being used as toilets? They get pissed on, drink piss and whatnot. I can't even watch this crap, I'm totally grossed out by it. I think that it is degrading in a way that other sexual acts in porn are not. BDSM is about role-play, gangbangs are about fantasies, pissing is about total humiliation. It seems like it is almost expected of new girls in porn, much like anal is. And maybe it is the twisted "evolution" of porn: when something becomes normalized, there is a need for a new thing, the next level of dirtiness. There was a choking trend in the 00's, which I am glad is over, but this pissing trend is worse. A total turn-off for me. And it strengthens the feeling that I have, that for many male porn performers today, porn is not about the illusion of sex but the illusion of power over women. Degrading someone is demonstrating your power over that person. I know that many women fantasizes about being dominated in different ways, but I don't believe that is is so common that they dream about getting urinated on. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
I would like to add one more thing: SCENES ARE TOO LONG. This is not a major problem, but it certainly is annoying. 20 minutes of sex is enough, 25 minutes is generous, 30 minutes is pushing it. But many scenes today are between 40 minutes and one hour in duration. This is insane. I don't know who started this trend - perhaps Manuel Ferrara with his Raw series some years ago - but it has gone too far. Whatever happened to the fine art of editing? It's just lazy of the directors to keep so much footage in a scene just because it is possible to do it.
Different strokes. Plenty of people don't mind or even prefer anal, piss, and long scenes. Fortunately for you, there's an easy solution to your "major problems with today's porn". Simply watch the porn that caters to you. There are 1000s of videos released every year. Surely you can find something for you. Porn doesn't suck simply because it doesn't cater to YOUR tastes. Perhaps you should explore amateur content.
What Have You Done To My Little Cable Boy? 2966 Posts 5/10
Posted - Nov 15 2023 : 10:49AM
I think many are personal tastes and I would even disagree with you on point 1. There are as many wood problems and average/below average Joes as there have been in the main stream for many years.
I see two other big problems that have turned main stream into a dead desert over the last few years - self-marketing platforms and piracy.
Sometimes life is goofier than a monkey on ether 12073 Posts 7/10
Posted - Nov 15 2023 : 1:17PM
1. OF
2. Tatted up, no personality male performers who think the scenes are about them
3. Length of scenes. If you have 60 minutes of hot sex that's fine, but when the setup takes 20 minutes or more you've lost me (and this from a person who LIKES a bit of setup before a scene).
I think the anal/pissing opinions are really subjective and just comes down to taste. Personally, I love anal with a passion, but hate watersports with equal passion. So, all anal scenes are great for me. Though, I understand those who want anal to be "special". Anything pissing-related I avoid like the plague (but, if that's your kink, bask in the golden glow).
As for intimacy, I do think there's something producers can do. And that is having the performers spend less time "fucking for the camera". What I mean is, they want performers to make sure the camera catches everything, so much so that the fucking seems wooden, because they have to fuck in a way that has as little motion as possible because that position has a better angle for the camera. Which, of course, sometimes is a good thing. The camera is there for us, and we want to see all the nasties. But, there's a balance. Sometimes, I don't always want the performers to fuck for me. Sometimes, I want them to fuck each other, and I simply want to watch.
Thanks for your replies! Yeah, maybe I am a bit subjective... to each his own, and so forth... but I just find it depressing that I have to look for older porn (with picture quality way below today's standards) to find something I like. I'm not really nostalgic, I don't think that porn was perfect in the past, I just know that there are issues today that didn't exist before.
I choose to ignore Only Fans, it is nothing for me, I'm not even annoyed by it. But interesting to see that some of you see OF as the #1 problem with today's porn.
What Have You Done To My Little Cable Boy? 2966 Posts 5/10
Posted - Nov 15 2023 : 3:16PM
Everything is shifting to OF and the platforms that will come in the future. This is not because OF is better, but because the girls earn more and easier money there. Without girls who become stars and thus financial draws, studios no longer take financial risks when it comes to productions. And so you have the same generic b/g scene everywhere with 50-60 year old directors who put themselves in every scene because they don't want to spend any more money on real male talent.
Piracy has forced many studios to give up and platforms like OF will probably bring the last classic studios to their knees at some point.
The corporatization of porn, the increased influence and availability of the internet, and the advent of self-published porn performers (e.g. OnlyFans) have stifled creativity.
Now, admittedly, there's not a whole lot of creativity when it comes to sex, but there used to be some stuff that was different, that I think could reach a crossover audience as well as a niche audience.
Perhaps my favorite, and I have mentioned it before, was DancingBear. Yeah, a lot of the performers were porn stars (some admittedly few-and-dones), and some were dancers or sex workers, but the way the scenes were presented had a sense of verisimilitude -- because I didn't recognize many of the girls, I could suspend my disbelief and actually buy in to the premise that parties like that might actually be happening.
Midnight Prowl was another; reverse Bang Bus episodes are few and far between, but the idea of both -- porn girls picking up randos and fucking them -- is another one that appeals to me.
I liked Amateur Allure before it began featuring girls who'd been in the business for a year before their appearances. Nowadays, its major appeal to me is that the girls don't look any better anywhere else.
Before AA, there was Ed Powers. I hated the videos but still watched them for the premise and the promise of the one-and-dones. And he got some cuties.
The Tampa and Texas Bukkake sites had some good ones, and the current crop of gloryhole sites has some occasional ringers, but by and large I wouldn't pay for a lapdance from most of the girls.
There's little these days that rivals any of those "different" sites. Nowadays, we are treated to episode 564 of "I Fucked My Black Stepdaddy While My Cuckolded Boyfriend Watched," and other delights. Why? For the same reason we got "The Marvels." Because the last one did well enough to encourage a sequel. And another. And another. I sometimes wonder whether there's a demand for all the faux incest porn, or whether we watch it because we're eager to see anything with Kylie Rocket (random name) in it, and that's what came up today.
The "amateur" porn market also suffers from the same lack of creativity, mainly because so many performers work only with their BFs, and it's a lot, really a lot, of POV. I think Ellie Moore is probably one of the five most beautiful women to do porn, certainly one of the top five working today, but, even though she tries different scenarios, there's a sameness to everything because it's self-produced with the same guy.
What's the solution? Got me. I have a lot of stuff that would keep me happy for years to come, yet I still look every day for something that will catch my eye. A lot of stuff does, but, frankly, when it comes right down to it, I already had stuff that was just as good, if not better.
I agree with this. I realize I am uninterested in current porn. To me it feels like something is missing. You have named it: Creativity.
I got into porn when the gonzo era was just starting. Late 1990s/early 2000s.
I know some say that was the end of golden era porn, when porn was shot on film and treated like actual movie productions.
But looking back, that gonzo era had tremendous creativity. All kinds of ideas and energy, and investment in production.
Even a gangbang scene from 2001 would put time and money into a premise and a setting.
the porn makers would rent a fun property, have costumes made, have some silly story. the European company Private especially did this. No it wasn't cost effective, but it was exciting and even artistic.
Compare that to a gangbang scene from LegalPorno/AnalVids now. utterly formulaic and uninspired. Same boring house set, same boring lighting, same boring action. Hundreds of scenes like that, churned out.
Maybe it is not just that porn has changed, maybe I am getting older and nostalgic. But I find I don't care about new porn.
@af369 & @ ORS ian I agree on most of your opinions. I've long unsubscribed to LegalPorno & AnalVids bored by their highly clichéd same stuff over the past years. I did the same for DickDrainers & HUHS for a similar reason, even though DD tries to give a slight context & a short imaginative storyline before every scene. Thanks to LegalPorno & the likes, they took out my passionate longing & eagerness for hardcore anal gonzo & golden shower videos in my formative years of watching porn by making them ordinary & very rudimentary genres. Previous cinematic storylines, settings, passionate chemistry among actors & unexpected hardcore actions have become a rarity these days.
" I don't know who started this trend [the long scene] - perhaps Manuel Ferrara with his Raw series some years ago"
Today's long scenes started in the mid-90s, with Stagliano, Joey Silvera, Seymore Butts and later Jules Jordan. Also John Leslie, as a director, with his more atmospheric plotted movies. All of them were proteges, directly or indirectly, of director Alex deRenzy, who produced some of the most sexually intense porn of the late 1970s and 80s (e.g., Babyface I and II), but mostly stuck to the convention of fairly short scenes. The gonzo directors took his approach and made it feel, at its best, like a long afternoon with your new pervy girlfriend.
It's amazing how older movies could have like a 74-minute running time and ten or twelve sex scenes. Including sometimes parallel scenes that the editor would switch back and forth from. There was no immersion; it was like the audience was just excited to see any bit of p/v sex at all!
Ferrara took the long scene a bit further, but at the beginning of the Raw series, a large part of his Raw scenes were non-sex. In some cases, he would give the female performer a camera to record her day before encountering Manuel. The hour-plus scenes with Samantha Ryan (Raw #2), Kristina Rose (#4) and Zoe Voss are amazing for that reason. As the series has evolved, he's started to fill the whole bloc of time with sex, which can be a lot. But we watch our porn on computers now. If I'm tired of a particular position or a non-sex segment, I can just jump ahead in an instant, as far as I want. Or, I can just get lost in the long moment. It's a great development, but not that recent.
As for the other gripes, I'm not really feeling it. Erections are good, and almost always create more perceived chemistry. Anal has its place, but there's plenty of non-anal. And pissing is still a rarity, especially outside Euro porn and a few niche sites like Disciples of Desire. If you don't like it (I do, very occasionally), it's easy to bypass.
Thanks for your interesting thoughts. This really is a depressing development (I can't call it "evolution") of this genre of entertainment that we all love so very much.
I agree with everything here. I, too, got into porn during the late 90's, and Private (especially the Woodman years) holds a special place in my heart. I don't want to be nostalgic, I want to find the new stuff that is as good as the best stuff from the past, but it is very hard to find it.
I really like porn features from the 90's, especially those directed by Joe D'Amato, but two things bring them down: the intercutting between scenes is one of them, and the absence of "live sound" (the European directors and companies seemed to prefer post-filming audio tracks) is the other.
I'd say one of the main reason why many male performers today have gone the route of drugs (orally or by injection) to get/retain an erection is because there are too few of them and still many shoots happening on a weekly basis that males performers have gone the artificial route because they can't recuperate between all the shoots they do and it doesn't help that so many sex scenes are now also very long and most men can't keep their erection for such a long time without the use of drugs.While it's hard to argue that anal is now so popular that it's almost a must for any performer who wants a modicum of success in the porn industry. I don't know that I would categorize it as a normalizing of anal sex because the first Caught from Behind was shot 40 years ago and it spawned a slew of copycats. I just think that with so few studios shooting porn now that it's more visible.That is still quite fringe and mostly shot by the circus studio.
the problem with this is so many scenes that cater to my tastes were shot pre 2012 therefore were not using these glorious hd and 4k cameras. i have a large collection of the early red light district scenes for example from 2002-2006ish on dvd. when i play them on a modern high definition tv the video quality looks like absolute garbage even though it is on a dvd. they were using such cheap cameras aka camcorders back then that it does not matter that it is playing off of a disc its essentially a vhs. sure some websites upscale some of their older scenes *to a degree* but the technology of the last 5 years just feels wasted on these bland 1 on 1 scenes. there are almost no blowbang scenes shot since the pandemic. same with gangbangs. so if you are attracted to the modern current girls you just feel like they are being wasted. out of the 5000 scenes released a year i would say 4500 are the exact same 1 on 1 garbage scenes that he complains of. its kind of hard to find the 5 or 10 percent of such a large number that are actually good without devoting your life to browsing clips and trailers.
I've been saying this for a while. As a fan of G/G scenes with lots of closeups, it's been tough seeing cameras get so good, but little to no interest in using the technology in visually innovative ways. Same goes for blowbangs (can you imagine Brandon Iron's scenes in 4K?....). I'm also largely watching content from several years ago.
Looks like Piracy got to the studios before things could really kick off...
I like girls like Kacey Kox...Sweet but a slut 247 Posts 12/20
Posted - Nov 19 2023 : 10:40AM
Far too many tattoos on the girls (although it does seem to be decreasing) ,,empty,,porn like AnalVids with lots of pissing (don't understand what you like about it). Do like getting to know the girls a bit with an interview
^Unless you watch a lot of LP/AV videos then performers with lots of tattoos is not a major issue in North America and pissing content is even less so. I'd also argue that it's almost never a good idea to know too much about a model because while it can make her more appealing. The opposite often occurs and for a good example then see the recent issue with Layla Jenner. It doesn't take much to sink a promising career in the industry.
If you're looking for originality, you'd be hard pressed to find much that hasn't already been done in porn over and over and over again. For example, how many more step-mom, step-dad, step-brother, step-sister, step-this, step-that scenes do people need. However, reading this board taught that it isn't just about how many scenes involving this or that have been done in porn overall. Rather, it's also for many fans about whether such and such a performer has done anal, dp, double anal, interracial, etc. That's why it's so lucrative and there's so much anticipation when performers who gain reputations for not doing certain types of scenes finally do. Sure, the porn industry can be saturated with anal scenes. Yet, if a star who gains a reputation for not doing this finally does, that's big news in porn world.
[Link]
gjh3102 Deactivated User
72 Posts 7/23
Posted - Nov 20 2023 : 12:06PM
1) Fake breasts. I have no interest in seeing augmented breasts, their unrealistic movement (or lack thereof), or the clear outline of the implants when gravity does its thing during doggy or cowgirl. It completely stinks when an actress I'm a fan of goes and gets her breasts augmented....completely turns me off to them. Same with real life, when I was dating....complete turn off. And notice I didn't even get to the scarring. If you're going to get them augmented save up and get them done by a top notch surgeon so it's hard to tell.
2) Guys jerking themselves to a finish. Get to the point of climax and let the woman finish it off.
3) Actresses that aren't into their partner. I've been married a long time, and there are times when I'm in the mood and my wife isn't. I've never been one who enjoys having intercourse if the girl isn't into it. Fortunately, I have a great wife who will do other acts rather than intercourse when she's not in the mood. Point is, I don't like it in real life so I have zero interest in watching a porn scene if the girl isn't into it. And no, I'm not laying the blame on the female - there could very well be a good reason, I just stop watching those scenes.
Oh, I could think of a thousand scenarios that hasn't been made into a porn scene but could have and should have. All those moments from real life, those random encounters, that could have taken another turn, but never did... I think it's just laziness that keeps the producers and studios from doing those kind of scenes. If they think that the audience, the porn consumers, only want to watch "I fucked the babysitter/cleaning lady/secretary" or "I fucked my new wife's teenage daughter/my teenage daughter's friend/my idiot son's girlfriend" type of scenes, they are wrong. But then again, originality in the scripts won't make people pay more for their porn.
Do you really need originality in porn? It's not like the mainstream entertainment industry seems to care about originality and it's still making money. Marvel has been putting out Superhero movies for the better part of 15 years and while the players vary from movie to movie. The recipe remains about the same. How many Taylor Swift songs sound similar to each other and that hasn't stopped her from releasing a new album every few years and making a shitload of money? How many police or lawyer dramas can actually be called original today and yet mainstream entertainment studios keep making them.
I don't need originality. I need the people behind to be passionate about what they are doing and in some part the people in front to also have a level of passion and sadly that seems to be missing. Mind you I would argue that it's also missing in a lot of mainstream entertainment.
Thanks for starting a very thoughtful topic, af369. It's given me a lot to think about, and it's nice to be able to talk intellectually and philosophically about, well, what's essentially Things That Make Us Wank.
You asked, "Agree or disagree?" My thoughts below:
I agree with this, mostly. To the extent that the Blue Pill has made male partners into props, yes, this detracts from the quality of the scene. The famous ice skater Dick Button once explained that the real role of the male partner in a pairs routine, when we get down to brass tacks, is to support the female partner and make her look her best. I believe this is equally true for pairs sex scenes today, and I know that porn is supposed to be for everyone. But speaking personally, I've never stared at the guy, no matter how much wood he brings to the scene. What I do appreciate from the guy is when he makes the lady feel loved, worshiped, and adored. If the guy is just there as "The Wood," and he checks out of the scene the moment the oral prelude starts, more often than not, the girl checks out of the scene soon afterward. And it's a bad scene.Just so you know, my indoctrination into porn came at the time Jennifer Welles was the hot star. And she was blown to smithereens by the introduction of Christy Canyon, Ginger Lynn, and, um, someone else. Name escapes me.
When Ginger started doing anal scenes, my friends who ran a pre-Blockbuster video store were amazed. Can people actually do this? It was a pretty novel thing, just like "Deep Throat" (often the name as much as the movie) introduced folks to the idea that the mouth may also be a sexual organ. It was such a boundary to break, and in the locale I grew up in, this was _sodomy_ (spoken in a deep whisper) so it was difficult to even discuss it. Being sexually naive at the time myself, I wondered whether this was actually pleasurable for the woman. Oh sure, it looked fantastic. Ginger's ass was / is / always will be one of the most beautiful organic objects in existence. But simply watching these acts happened was the breaking of a big boundary. I felt guilty for enjoying it, and wouldn't even admit to myself that I did.
So the boundary is pretty much pre-broken these days. Remembering the thrill of it has become nostalgia. I don't think actors and directors should try to compensate for that; it's a feeling that passed along with the rest of the 20th century. If we enjoy watching it now, it needs to be for a different reason. Not because an actress must or should do anal in order to be classified as legitimate. We're here to see the woman at her peak moment of pleasure, and if it's not pleasure, then there's nothing separating it from assault. Which doesn't turn me on at all. She should do what makes her naturally orgasm, and if it's not anal, that's fine.
Absolutely agreed. Ignoring the woman's vagina is like ignoring her face - why would we want to do that? There is absolutely nothing more beautiful in the world than a vagina that is swollen and overflowing from making love. The anus is something else that's beautiful that we love to see filled with something. But I watch and listen to the woman to get those signals that she's aroused and stimulated, and if she's checked out of the scene when we get to her butthole, then it's not really an "extra gear" so much as a box we've checked off in the name of fulfilling modern requirements.Total agreement here. I'm here to watch the woman be loved, even if it's just by herself. If her masturbating is more wonderful for her than engaging in intercourse with a man or men, then I'll be happy with the camera permanently perched on her vagina. Desecrating the woman's body has always been a turn-off for me. It's not a matter of, "Can people actually do this?" as it was when I saw Harry Reems penetrate Ginger Lynn's ass. It's not me being naive this time. Women are too beautiful, too magnificent, and too important in our lives to deserve being mistreated, desecrated, or assaulted. Men pissing on a woman is an uglier thing than men pissing on anything else. If the man's there to make the woman feel smaller than she is, I get too angry and think more about punching the guy out than imagining myself with the girl.
My two cents, which correcting for inflation should now be worth at least a buck.
If the 20 minutes is there to pad the scene length so it comes out 60 minutes, and the producer puts a starburst on it that says "1 Full Hour!" then that's pointless. I like a good tease. I prefer a very good tease. But in the absence of a tease, if we can get to the sex in due course, I'm happier.
That said. . . I'm there to watch the sex. I'm fine if it takes as long as it takes, and oftentimes when the actress or actresses are fabulous and their partners treat them properly, then the less editing and staging, the better. If I can get into watching her body, that's when it gets good.
On paper that sounds like a stand I might agree with. But then I have some confessions to make: Jayden Jaymes. Krissy Lynn. Kagney Linn Karter. Bridgette B. Artificially enhanced, indeed. But dear lord, how can we not love these women?
Most of the time, fake breasts are not enhancements. But wow, the exceptions!
What Have You Done To My Little Cable Boy? 2966 Posts 5/10
Posted - Nov 21 2023 : 6:50AM
But big breasts, small breasts, fake breasts...it's more a matter of taste and not a more structural problem.So I think the problems that main stream porn has are more profound and more complex.
Fake breasts keep coming up on this thread about problems with "today's" porn. Are breast implants in porn really anything new. I thought they've been prevalent in porn for decades. When I was in the biz about 20 years ago, I lost count of how many women from then had fake breasts. Thus, if some fans find them a problem, this doesn't seem to be a change from the "good ol' days" to today. Plus, some of the biggest stars in the biz had them then and now, so they obviously don't stop fanfare.
Maybe originality isn't needed, but it would be nice to see something new, or even some of the scenarios and themes of the early 2000s-2012 or so revisited and perhaps updated.
Maybe one thing that's influencing our perception is the advent of OF and similar sites, where, by and large, the girls get to choose with whom they work and what they'll do, resulting in more "chemistry" than we see from the studios. I dunno.
WRT to Marvel, take a look at almost anything that's come out since "Avengers: Endgame." Marvel's cost Disney a bunch of money because it failed to realize that, after Endgame, a lot of people would be asking, "Now what?", and that there was virtually nothing that could top that or even keep it going. The era of expensive CGI-dominated superhero movies is over.
Anyway, by and large. we're not talking about Oscar-caliber actors here. Passion, or the illusion of it, can be elusive. Perhaps if there were more orginality, more opportunities to do something different and have fun, we'd see more of the passion you're seeking.
You're right, Tessa: In my memory (use it while it lasts), since the '80s, some male viewers have complained that The Problem with This Business Nowadays is all these fake titties.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Tessa, since you have a personal understanding not just of the industry but the people in it: Actresses today are much more freelancers than before, even if they sign "long-term" retention contracts. Each person has a strategy for how she should "accessorize," if you will, to be sexy on camera. A. J. Applegate evidently decided she doesn't need fake breasts to be sexy. Surely most folks would agree with this; I certainly do. She can have breathtaking performances. Jessie Rogers, on the other hand, famously decided she needed a bigger chest. That was a great decision for her; it worked.
If there was pressure on AJ to expand beyond an A-cup, well, there wasn't so much that she couldn't resist it. Decision worked for her. Jessie took a gamble, and I believe it paid off.
Now, let's look for a moment at an accessory that my personal taste winces at right at first: tattoos. I personally (this is my own taste talking) think too many tattoos make a woman into a billboard. However, one of the most beautiful women ever to present her full splendor before a lens (again, personal taste) is Jayden Jaymes. Her tattoo is a genuine work of art, and its placement makes her memorable. Again, an accessorization strategy that paid off in buckets. (Sorry, that ended up being a double-entendre, wasn't my intention.)
When there is a Problem with a capital-P, it's the idea that any woman must conform to some standard of appearance or performance or permissiveness, in order to be acceptable -- that she must have tits, or she must do anal, or she must let herself get slapped around. I'm not certain this is an actual plague, though, because there's evidence of great actresses throughout history who have presented the bodies, the sex, and the performances that they themselves thought made them their sexiest. When these decisions worked out, their images are seared into our minds as fabulous examples of womanhood. The sexiest performances are those that reveal the actresses for who they are -- which makes sexual performance art unlike other forms of acting, where actors put on characters like masks. The whole point of sex as art is to reveal the person (in my case, the woman) as the genuine article. I don't think fake tits make a woman less genuine. It's up to the director to bring this sincerity out in front of the camera.
I think this is true. An original setup can be fun and inspiring for the performers. You see this in some Naughty America scenes. When pornstars have to do some acting, it may be challenging for them but it also makes them focus more, which can lead to them being more into the sex.
One thing that irritates me, though: in 99 % of the scenes with a little story in the setup (such as "I have had a fantasy about a DP and when I told my husband, he called his friend who came over to our house"), the story is only there in the beginning of the scene. The performers don't even try to keep the story illusion going during the sex. And when the scene ends with the girl getting facilas from two guys, nobody acts as if one of them was her boyfriend. I think this is the directors' fault.
A lot of this just feels like personal preference to me. Personally, I'm not with you on anal or pissing. I like both. I like to see beautiful women get naked and fuck, and there are plenty of very beautiful women in the business doing exactly that, so I'm happy.
You know... This has actually never occurred to me. I've always seen the setup as a distraction, something supposedly done for the viewer's benefit. A vestigial remnant of 1980s porn. But I might just pay more attention, because your theory has me intrigued.
I guess I've become accustomed to the lack of a plot, or that vignette vestige. I'm that guy who watches porn for the sex. If nobody pretends to be anything, and we just get down to enjoying the girl's bodies, then if the girl is beautiful and her feelings are transparent, that's all the ingredients I actually need. If I want acting, I'll switch to TCM. Again, that's just me.
I'm afraid that might not help you much, though, if you're looking for the drama to carry through to the rest of the scene.
I agree with the comment that threads like this tend to boil down to personal preferences. Think the points about the male performers are interesting and would like to know more details about them in general. For those complaining about tattoos, the fact is that a large number of women have them now, and I don't think those in porn should have to cover them up just because they are not to the taste of some men. People are always comparing today's stuff by the yardstick of some 'golden age' but I would guess that up to 80% has always been crap and that it's perennially a case of locating good material made by those with talent, intelligence and above all enthusiasm for their product.
Maybe, jackdore, but in the interest of keeping alive af369's original inspiration here: In any form of art that's mass-produced, there are trends in the production process which weigh against everything resulting from that process. (That's something I see in my own line of work, which I can't talk about here.) af369's point isn't really about whether you like shaved pussies, or whether false tits or too many tattoos add to or detract from a scene. He's pointing to something much broader: Are "producers" (which is defined today with a very broad brush, I admit) making assumptions about what their consumers want as a whole that lead to design and production decisions which result in an overall loss of quality?
It isn't "Do You Like Anal?" It's, are we assuming now that passion has become a less significant element of a sexual performance? We have a drug now that essentially makes a fellow who would not have been able to keep it up in the era of Tom Byron and Peter North, into a viable actor in a modern scene. But that may tend to render him, shall we say, wooden. Does that take away from the state of the art? Women can add adornments to their bodies that accentuate and heighten their sensuality. So if producers notice we love these women, they decide this is a trend, and they order their actresses to make their bodies look like a 200 Free Clip-Arts for All Occasions poster, or else be scratched from the roster, does this diminish the art form?
They're legitimate questions. But not all decisions made in the interest of the production process have been diminishing. The Problem with Old Porn, which I would argue has been eradicated (and good riddance!), is this notion that the viewer feels guilty for watching naked bodies in heat, so we have to cloak the production in the guise of a movie with credits and situational storylines and self-congratulatory awards shows. Anyone visiting an adult shop in the '80s and '90s, looking at the private booths and noticing how well-worn the "Fast Forward" button was on the video player, should have detected there was a bigger problem here. Granted, many of us want some kind of situational setup so we can picture these people in a real-world setting, rather than actresses being paid $500 to fuck Mike John. But we're here for the beautiful bodies and for the sex. The point here being, the application of marketing logic to porn production is not, in and of itself, evil. Making decisions based on what producers believe the public wants, is a necessary step.
That's not the problem. The problem here is, are producers making the wrong diagnoses, and are the decisions they make as a result wrong?
Gee, I like watching the cloak! When seeing something that is essentially all sex, I often quickly become bored -- the old in-and-out by itself isn't that endlessly fascinating. I like to watch a movie in which it's nice not to have the camera cut away when the sex starts; but, it's the movie that engages me.
Granted, I am very much in my dotage. Since my adult movie viewing dates from the seventies, I have likely been conditioned to expect a lot of the cloak around my porn. The majority of my viewing still consists of films (shot on film!) dating from pre-1985, with plot and actual characters and everything. Even when the movie elements aren't terribly good -- meaning in most of them -- the attempt at cloaking the sex in a story keeps my attention better than just sex does. Sex is just the added spice that makes it more exciting.
Mind you, I do sometimes watch more contemporary, non-feature-film work just for the rumpty-tumpty, but there must be something to really grab my attention -- most commonly meaning a woman whom I find particularly enrapturing.
Okay, that's fair. I think I can and should accept that we all have different things we look for in this class of entertainment.
If you were to ask me, what do I remember about the porn I'd see in the "art houses" of the '80s, I don't think for the life of me I can tell you what any the stories were about. But I can clearly remember Nikki Knights, who sold me with her captivating tease and her perfect ass. I do remember so much of it being amateurish efforts at ripping off Upstairs Downstairs or Batman - here's the maid, here's the rich dude in a tux, they talk talk talk talk for an ungodly long time. And when they get to the sex, it's like okay, finally. Then when these scenes were "immortalized" on compilation tapes, they'd cut out all the amateur dialog.
[Link]
Reversecowgirlisboring Deactivated User
74 Posts 1/23
Posted - Nov 25 2023 : 8:45PM
There is too much fake, ridiculous, sick, and misogynistic stuff in porn. I just want to see realistic sex, but that is usually too much to ask from this industry.
you would of really hated the 2005-2010 era with studios like red light district and even the stuff evil angel was doing in that period. by those standards todays stuff is extremely tame and a lot more realistic. everyone has their threshold though and yours is a bit different then mine.
Little Puck Interview
Posted - Nov 15 2023 : 5:16AM
