Why are so few true beauties doing hardcore?

Author	Post
xDEFiLED Member 171 Posts 3/12	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 5:53AM I've spent the last couple of months going through probably ten thousand adult female performers, and i've come to one conclusion: There are alot of good looking women in the hardcore industry, but true amazing beauties are very rare. I've only been able to find about 25 truly beautiful women that have ever done hardcore boy/girl porn. Most of the beautiful ones only does softcore or girl/girl. And i've been trying to go through this with a very objective mind and taking in more than just my own taste, trying to factor in the general opinion of true beauty. Pretty ones, cute ones, there are of course many of these women. But truly beautiful? It's a very rare thing. Edited by - flash on Feb 13 2016 [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 6:45AM so few true should be deleted and many be inserted then this would make sense, if you're ass is coming off from this planet [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 6:58AM xDEFiLED wrote: And i've been trying to go through this with a very objective mind and taking in more than just my own taste, trying to factor in the general opinion of true beauty. Pretty ones, cute ones, there are of course many of these women. But truly beautiful? It's a very rare thing. Click to expand Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Which means that if you aren't seeing the beauty, then it's because of the way you are looking and not because beauty doesn't exist. For example, it's hard for a heterosexual guy to see the beauty of another man. But a heterosexual woman has no trouble seeing his beauty, and a homosexual guy doesn't have any trouble seeing the beauty of another man either. I'd say that heterosexual people learn to see the beauty of the opposite sex not just by looking but also by touching and by having sex. Because the way you feel about what you see depends a lot on your past experiences. If you've had really enjoyable sex with an imperfect-looking woman in the past, for example. Then your feelings towards such women will probably change, and you'll start seeing their beauty, despite their imperfection. Edited by - Dan on 10/18/2014 7:01:39 AM [Link]
Not Lucy Lee (Fake Account) Deactivated User Libert�, Egalit�, Sexualit�! 355 Posts 9/14	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 10:38AM yes, many pretty girls do only soft core and lesbian. Now i only do erotica too, but in porn i worked with guys all time and tried all. Many girls start with soft core and lesbian and later turn to hard core porn. In porn you want to try more things, and they pay you the more you do...so first you say why not pose naked? you do it, why not masturbation? you do it, why not sex with girls? you do it, why not sex with guys? you do it, and you go on with 1 guy, with 2 guys, black guys, anal, dp, gang bang. I did all that but got enough, i tried all and did all my sex fantasies, but I like to work as model and pose because its more erotic, like art, no risk of getting stds and good erotica studios pay very good. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 11:54AM It's because the truly beautiful girls get much more offers from studios that do more vanilla porn because that audience watches porn more for the beauty of the girls more than the sex acts like typical Gonzo movies tend to do. Those studios often are willing to pay more and the sex is usually much easier to do. In the older days the a lot of the most beautiful became contract girls who do more vanilla movies and promote their girls and make them stars. That's a much easier porn life than girls who do hader gonzo scenes and have to hussle for the next gig. After they've shot as much of the vanilla stuff for people willing to have them they then have to transition to harder porn where you start to see them do harder stuff. Porn has lots of goodlooking MILFs because of things working this way. Some big breast girls career take the same path. [Link]

Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 12:00PM Lucy Lee wrote: yes, many pretty girls do only soft core and lesbian. Now i only do erotica too, but in porn i worked with guys all time and tried all. Many girls start with soft core and lesbian and later turn to hard core porn. In porn you want to try more things, and they pay you the more you do...so first you say why not pose naked? you do it, why not masturbation? you do it, why not sex with girls? you do it, why not sex with guys? you do it, and you go on with 1 guy, with 2 guys, black guys, anal, dp, gang bang. I did all that but got enough, i tried all and did all my sex fantasies, but I like to work as model and pose because its more erotic, like art, no risk of getting stds and good erotica studios pay very good. Click to expand Yeah, any girl who wants to have a long or strong porn career has to change things up and do different things and expand their audience. You can't just do one type of porn and expect to always be in demand for doing that one thing. There are people who only watch certain types of porn and it's good to be able to do stuff that different porn fans like and don't just do one thing until people just get tired of you. Better to go off to do other stuff for awhile to keep it all fresh. [Link]
Zoiper2009 Deactivated User 575 Posts 3/14	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 12:16PM Well, women like Riley Reid, India Summer, Jessie Andrews, and Charlie Laine, are certainly beautiful enough for me. Let's try not to be too greedy now. [Link]
AKperv All-Star Member 1253 Posts 4/14	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 5:55PM Seems to me porn has a lot of beautiful girls, with more coming all the time. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Oct 18 2014 : 8:39PM Firstly recognizing that beauty is subjective and that who or what I consider beautiful says more about myself and my subjective opinion of what constitutes beauty than about the actual person or thing that I perceive to be beautiful, I do basically concur with the OP that there are few top tier beauties in hardcore boy/girl porn. This is not to say that there aren't beautiful women shooting hardcore porn, but few are "true amazing beauties," though I don't know who the OP considers to be a true amazing beauty. Personally I would love to see some of the Hegre or Met Art models shooting hardcore sex with men. If a fund were started, I would donate to see Emily Bloom, for example, shoot for Blacked. Not that I'm complaining. I still have plenty of Lily Carter scenes that I can go back to anytime. [Link]
daphatkat Member 156 Posts 2/07	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 3:30AM Lucy Lee wrote: yes, many pretty girls do only soft core and lesbian. Now i only do erotica too, but in porn i worked with guys all time and tried all. Many girls start with soft core and lesbian and later turn to hard core porn. In porn you want to try more things, and they pay you the more you do...so first you say why not pose naked? you do it, why not masturbation? you do it, why not sex with girls? you do it, why not sex with guys? you do it, and you go on with 1 guy, with 2 guys, black guys, anal, dp, gang bang. I did all that but got enough, i tried all and did all my sex fantasies, but I like to work as model and pose because its more erotic, like art, no risk of getting stds and good erotica studios pay very good. Click to expand That's one thing I hate about porn is the risk of performers getting presently incurable STDs every scene you do. As a fan I feel i'm a bit responsible too every time a performer gets HIV or herpes [Link]
xDEFiLED Member 171 Posts 3/12	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 11:21AM And yes, i do have very high standards when classifying adult performers as true beauties. I'd say that the benchmark is Cindy Hope. Now that's a woman that could make millions as a mainstream model. She is definitely part of the 1% of true beauties that does hardcore porn. Edited by - xdefiled on 10/19/2014 11:26:49 AM [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 11:23AM ^^I don't know about Herpes, but the think the last time a performer got HIV on set was a decade ago. It's horrible when it does happen but it's a statistical unlikelihood that it will. ^Beauty standards are also subjective. I personally don't count Cindy among the most beautiful women in porn, though as I said I agree with your basic point. Edited by - misspornUSA on 10/19/2014 11:32:07 AM [Link]
CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 12:33PM misspornUSA wrote: Firstly recognizing that beauty is subjective and that who or what I consider beautiful says more about myself and my subjective opinion of what constitutes beauty than about the actual person or thing that I perceive to be beautifu.... Click to expand Beauty is as objectively real as temperature. Obviously, there is a subjective aspect to beauty, but it is not purely subjective. Let me offer a weird analogy. For background: A liter of air contains on the order of 10^22 molecules; temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules making up a substance. One could claim that it's impossible to measure the temperature of the air in a one liter bottle because no two air molecules have the exact same kinetic energy. And if two air molecules can't agree on their kinetic energy, how could you expect 10^22 air molecules to reach such an agreement. The temperature is different for each molecule, therefore it is purely subjective. In a weird way, this argument makes perfect sense, but it's also complete nonsense. It's the same with beauty. If you were to survey every human being on Earth, you might find a few people who consider this woman: more beautiful than this woman: . (Of course you might not, but I imagine that the first woman might have young children and a husband who adore her. The second woman might have left a few broken hearts in her wake, and those people might say, "If you REALLY saw her, you would see... .") The second woman is objectively more beautiful than the first. You could easily determine that fact by conducting a survey in which you would ask people to rate each woman's beauty on a scale from one to ten and doing a fairly simple statistical analysis of the results. In the case of air molecules, it's easy to "survey" a few quintillion air molecules and figure out their average kinetic energy, so we recognize that temperature is an objective fact. Yes, temperature is a statistic (it's a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules in a sample), but that doesn't make it less objective. Since we survey quintillions of molecules at a time, we don't worry about issues like standard error, but it's still a statistic. I imagine a relatively small sample of human beings, possibly as few as a hundred (almost certainly as few as a hundred thousand) could determine with near certainty that the second woman is more beautiful than the first. (A 'five sigma' signal means that there is only a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the signal isn't real, so I would call a five sigma signal nearly certain.) Compare this to temperature. I haven't worked though the calculations, but I would be shocked if you could distinguish a sample of air taken from the middle of the Sahara desert from a sample of air taken from over Antarctica by surveying as few as 100 (or even 100,000) molecules to a five-sigma level of certainty. In short, I am saying, as an objective fact that the first woman is more beautiful than the second woman, with greater certainty than I say that the Sahara desert is hotter than Antarctica. Granted, I haven't done the survey, but based on a measurement of a single human being (me), I think the results of the survey are a foregone conclusion, and my only question is how many people you would need to survey in order to get a five-sigma level of certainty. misspornUSA wrote: ... This is not to say that there aren't beautiful women shooting hardcore porn, but few are "true amazing beauties," though I don't know who the OP considers to be a true amazing beauty. ... Click to expand Beauty and sexiness are not exactly the same thing Obviously there is an overlap between beauty and sexiness, but they are slightly different. Even with the social stigma attached to porn, and the fact that society heaps adulation on beautiful women who use their beauty to help market make-up and shampoo, there are a number of very beautiful women who choose to enter porn. If you were to do a statistical study of "sexiness" and 'beauty", I think you would find that there is more variation in what turns people on than in what people judge to be beautiful. I think most people would agree that a sense of balance and proportion is an aspect of beauty, but people are often turned on by particular aspects of a woman's body or personality, so if a woman who is objectively out of proportion may strike some people as really sexy. For instance I like big tits. To me Angela White is sexier than the beautiful woman above, but I recognize that she is less beautiful. Porn fans are not typical. An objective measure of "sexiness" would include aspects of the woman's personality. Some people are turned on by sexual abandon (call this 'sluttiness'), others are more turned on by sexual reserve. The typical human being probably is turned off by porn stars' sexual abandon, but the typical porn fan is turned on by sluttiness. For me, I am much more turned on by women like August Ames, Dillion Harper, Veruca James, Casey Calvert, Dana Dearmond, etc, than I am by the beauties who graces the cover of Vogue. I recognize that as a porn fan, I am drawn to slutty women. I also particularly like white girls with big tits. No doubt, this woman is more beautiful than August Ames: But August makes my cock hard. Edited to add the last photo. Edited by - cumminglinguist on 10/19/2014 12:35:16 PM [Link]
coming soon Senior Member 1705 Posts 2/11	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 12:38PM And i've been trying to go through this with a very objective mind and taking in more than just my own taste, trying to factor in the general opinion of true beauty. Click to expand And you failed, like anyone else would. You just can't be objective about these things, therefore your OP blatantly begs the question. Some names off the top of my head: Stoya, Dani Jensen, Anjelica, Little Caprice, Alexa Tomas, Ash Hollywood, Aidra Fox, Allie Sin, Jenna J Ross, Anja Juliette Laval, Krysta Kaos, Asphyxia Noir, Ana Foxxx, Blue Angel, Staci Silverstone, Trisha Brill, Tiffany Thompson, Taylor Hayes, Leony April, Kari Milla. These are some of my subjective "true amazing beauties", whose true amazing beauty is likely to be shared by other heterosexual males, depending on multiple factors. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 2:14PM ^^Majority opinion does not determine objective reality. For example, creationist myths are objectively false and have always been so, no matter how many billions of people may subscribe to them now or have in history. Opinions, no matter how common, are part of objective reality but they do not determine objective reality. I will agree that there are a number of women who are popularly regarded as beautiful in the United States, and perhaps in the West in general (though I wouldn't assume the latter), but not that this common positive evaluation of their appearance has somehow rendered their supposed beauty a fact. Your argument that it does reminds me of the so-called common consent argument for the existence of God, which posits that since most people throughout history have believed in a god or gods, therefore a god or gods must exist. The problem is that belief does not determine reality and that reality exists independent of our beliefs. Beauty and sexiness are not exactly the same thing Click to expand Of course not. I find the overwhelming majority of female pornstars to be sexy. In my opinion, while many of those sexy pornstars are beautiful to varying degrees, I still wouldn't identify most as "true amazing beauties." I think most people would agree that a sense of balance and proportion is an aspect of beauty, but people are often turned on by particular aspects of a woman's body or personality, so if a woman who is objectively out of proportion may strike some people as really sexy. Click to expand I always judge beauty by face first. I consider all other criteria to be secondary. Nonetheless, the majority of those whom I would describe as "truly beautiful women" also happen to be thin and usually tall. Most are models. CummingLinguist wrote: No doubt, this woman is more beautiful than August Ames: But August makes my cock hard. Click to expand I have seen at least one other photo of the same model and do not agree that she is more beautiful than August Ames. [Link]

xDEFiLED Member 171 Posts 3/12	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 3:41PM coming soon wrote: And i've been trying to go through this with a very objective mind and taking in more than just my own taste, trying to factor in the general opinion of true beauty. Click to expand And you failed, like anyone else would. You just can't be objective about these things, therefore your OP blatantly begs the question. Some names off the top of my head: Stoya, Dani Jensen, Anjelica, Little Caprice, Alexa Tomas, Ash Hollywood, Aidra Fox, Allie Sin, Jenna J Ross, Anja Juliette Laval, Krysta Kaos, Asphyxia Noir, Ana Foxxx, Blue Angel, Staci Silverstone, Trisha Brill, Tiffany Thompson, Taylor Hayes, Leony April, Kari Milla. These are some of my subjective "true amazing beauties", whose true amazing beauty is likely to be shared by other heterosexual males, depending on multiple factors. Click to expand But by society's standards on beauty, most of these women would probably be categorised more as very cute than truly beautiful. Little Caprice and Anjelica are stunning women, but in a cute way. Edited by - xdefiled on 10/19/2014 3:41:28 PM [Link]
coming soon Senior Member 1705 Posts 2/11	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 4:07PM I'm with misspornUSA. We call "objective" that which exists independently of the observer. I think the analogy between beauty and temperature is interesting, but not accurate enough. If "temperature" is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules making up a substance, then we're including the statistical analysis within its definition, therefore making "temperature" a perfectly objective concept within its framework. On the other hand, beauty doesn't have a statistical analysis built in the definition. The common definitions of "beauty" refer to subjective perceptions, and if we make a statistical analysis based on how people perceive beauty, we need to specify that in addition to the concept of "beauty", because the analysis doesn't come with it. Unlike temperature. So, yes, a statistical analysis on how a particular group of people perceive beauty can be objective. Beauty, however, isn't. [Link]
coming soon Senior Member 1705 Posts 2/11	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 4:32PM xDEFiLED wrote: But by society's standards on beauty, most of these women would probably be categorised more as very cute than truly beautiful. Little Caprice and Anjelica are stunning women, but in a cute way. Click to expand I don't know what are society's standards of beauty, but I would disagree if they dictated what you claim. I think the ones I mentioned are truly beautiful and, in fact, more beautiful than Cindy Hope. I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out that our respective conclusions regarding beauty are ultimately subjective. Aesthetics is a bit (but not entirely) like morality. You can reach some "obvious" (to us!) broad agreements because our brains are wired in a similar way. We think killing your own mother is wrong and we think the second woman from CummingLinguist's post is more beautiful than the first. When it comes to more nuanced examples, there's nothing objective to rely on. Just our own opinions, goals and gut feelings. I strongly disagree that there are only 25 or so truly beautiful pornstars. I find that there are many, many more than that and I strongly object to your conclusion being objective at all. Edited by - coming soon on 10/19/2014 4:33:50 PM [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 4:41PM ^^^ xDEFiLED, Is it your opinion that "by society's standards on beauty" Cindy Hope would be considered "truly beautiful" rather than just "very cute?" If yes, how did you reach that conclusion? How do you know? Edited by - misspornUSA on 10/19/2014 4:41:38 PM [Link]
CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 5:02PM misspornUSA wrote: ^^Majority opinion does not determine objective reality. Click to expand I agree with you 100%, but I decided not to go into the larger issues of aesthetics and the good in general. So I accepted the assumption that it was to a degree subjective, but argued that you could still make some kind of objective statements about subjective reality. It was a way of avoiding the deeper issue, while setting aside the argument that judgements about beauty are purely subjective. Moreover, if we accept that there are a set of standards such as proportion and balance (which I mentioned in passing), it is possible that these are not rooted in our common human preferences, but may reflect the preferences of animals. For instance, animals, as creatures who move find it much easier to navigate the world if there is a symmetry between left and right. As animals, humans are especially drawn to symmetry. Symmetrical creatures move with grace in the world. We even apply this standard where it doesn't apply, an oak tree with a broad even canopy is judged beautify, but a tree with full branches on one side, and fewer smaller branches on the other is deemed less beautiful by humans. If you could ask a tree for its opinion, it might judge that the first woman better exemplifies human beauty. Her green top might be especially fetching, and the bizarre phrase on the t-shirt would be utterly meaningless. On the other hand, the sight of the other woman wrapped in a caterpillar's threads might seem almost pornographically gruesome. If so, there is really no basis for saying that our human perspective is the only one. But if we accept that beauty (and questions of the good in general) are of fundamental concern to human beings, then you could start to build a science of aesthetics on some statistical basis. Statistics would not be the place to end. For instance, you might find that some people have more refined tastes than others. Let's say that two people are looking at the women. One of them is from the jungles of Papua New Guinea, and knows nothing of the modern world, in particular, he doesn't know how to read. He might look at them, and say, "Well the green shirt is more attractive than that shiny material, so I would give the woman in the green shirt a two, because while her face is clearly ugly the shirt isn't bad. The other woman is clearly very beautiful of face, but the shiny material she is clothed in is odd looking, so I would give her a nine. Then the literate modern person might explain. "Actually see those white marks on the green shirt, they are symbols for words. And the words are basically saying "I'm a whore, but I still wouldn't fuck you, because you don't have enough money." So the shirt hints that maybe she's ugly on the inside too, though honestly, it may indicate that she's got a little bit of an odd sense of humor, that she knows she's ugly, and she's joking about it. So she may not be ugly on the inside, but she's definitely a little weird. The shiny fabric that the other woman is wearing is called silk. It's actually really hard to make silk, and people have to work for thousands of hours to make a gown like that. Moreover the fabric feels really smooth and sexy. So if you had ever touched a silk gown, you would know that they are both precious and feel wonderful against your skin. That understanding is very deep in our culture, and even people who have never touched silk understand that it is smooth, sexy, and precious, so in our culture that gown is really nice. At this point, the person from New Guinea might say, "OK, now that I understand, I would give say the first woman is a 'One' and the second woman is a 'ten'." So you could even determine that one person is a better judge of beauty than another. Again, there might be principles that you could draw on to define refinement, but you might start by having people first rate each woman, and then discuss their ratings, their reasons, etc. Having done so they might rate them again. Within the group there may be people whose initial rating consistently mirrors the consensus view after discussion. These people could be considered more refined, and in talking matters of beauty over with them, you might start to develop objects standards that are not merely statistics. The claims about God and creation you referred to have meaning outside of human experience. They are not claims about what humans deem good; they are claims the world that pre-existed us, and will continue to exist after we go extinct, so they are very different. misspornUSA wrote: ... I have seen at least one other photo of the same model and do not agree that she is more beautiful than August Ames. Click to expand You know more about the other model's beauty than do I, so I defer to your more refined judgment. Do you question my judgement about who is more sexy? I mean seriously, look at her tits. And don't you just love how she is just spreading her legs and smiling at the camera as if to say, "Yeah, I'm a slut, and you're a pervert, so have fun stroking your hard cock to me." I suspect that both you and I are drawn to her inner sluttiness. Many people would find this a turn off, but to me, this is the essence of what makes a porn star. If so, this issue of refined tastes may be community-specific. Someone who doesn't like porn, who is turned off by sluttiness, may not be able to pass a meaningful judgement on how sexy a porn star is. I have come to respect Mark Spiegler's opinion above all others. He has exquisite taste in porn stars. Edited by - cumminglinguist on 10/19/2014 6:06:15 PM [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Oct 19 2014 : 7:03PM ^August is sexier than the model in the first pic, but then again I've never seen that model having sex on camera, lol. [Link]
CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11	Posted - Oct 20 2014 : 11:07PM ^ Neither have I. But then again, I don't know that I have ever watched an August Ames's scene to the end. I may not therefore be able to judge her performances. This seems a real issue for porn reviewers. I'm tempted to start a new thread and ask reviewers the details of their reviewing process. But let me raise it here. I could imagine someone who really likes porn watching hours of porn every day in the same way some guys watch hours of football, but no one intends you to watch porn this way. As a younger man, I would often spend hours perving out in strip clubs, but I didn't do this every day. Are the reviewers actually stroking their cocks while they are reviewing porn? If so, how much of your life do you spend masturbating? If not, how do you judge the quality of the porn? [Link]
sensuousvenus Member 178 Posts 8/07	Posted - Oct 21 2014 : 6:33AM I have always liked and connected well with the feminine element in a porn star's face. Only then beauty and sexiness get their due. I have a list. Taija Rae Lexus Locklear Julianne James Dyanna Lauren Monica Roccaforte Anita Rinaldi Rosa Caracciolo Anja Laval Marilyn Jess These are my favorites when I combine all the factors. There should be something in their face that should make you fall in love with them. [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Oct 21 2014 : 8:10AM Talent beats beauty not only in sports, that should be some scout's latest report [Link]
LeyaFalcon Senior Member Something Else 1000 Posts 12/12	Posted - Oct 22 2014 : 5:14AM Dan wrote: xDEFiLED wrote: And i've been trying to go through this with a very objective mind and taking in more than just my own taste, trying to factor in the general opinion of true beauty. Pretty ones, cute ones, there are of course many of these women. But truly beautiful? It's a very rare thing. Click to expand Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Which means that if you aren't seeing the beauty, then it's because of the way you are looking and not because beauty doesn't exist. For example, it's hard for a heterosexual guy to see the beauty of another man. But a heterosexual woman has no trouble seeing his beauty, and a homosexual guy doesn't have any trouble seeing the beauty of another man either. I'd say that heterosexual people learn to see the beauty of the opposite sex not just by looking but also by touching and by having sex. Because the way you feel about what you see depends a lot on your past experiences. If you've had really enjoyable sex with an imperfect-looking woman in the past, for example. Then your feelings towards such women will probably change, and you'll start seeing their beauty, despite their imperfection. Edited by - Dan on 10/18/2014 7:01:39 AM Click to expand beautifully stated [Link]

Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09	Posted - Oct 22 2014 : 11:03PM CummingLinguist wrote: This seems a real issue for porn reviewers. I'm tempted to start a new thread and ask reviewers the details of their reviewing process. But let me raise it here. Are the reviewers actually stroking their cocks while they are reviewing porn? If so, how much of your life do you spend masturbating? If not, how do you judge the quality of the porn? Click to expand I can't speak for the others who review consistently but for me it's like this. 1. Sort material into solicited material and unsolicited material received during the course of a week. Solicited material takes priority over unsolicited. 2. Select a title that look appealing. 3: Set up template for review. 4. Review and select pictures to be used in review. 5. Upload pictures on the ADT server and then copy links into template. 6. Review formatting to make sure everything is correct 7. Make note of girl's list of credits. 8. Pop in DVD. 9. Begin taking notes regarding quality of bonus materials/extras, technical aspects, laziness of the director, length of scene/editing, whether the cover slick accurately portrays what is in the release, sex, position changes, plot, overall sleaziness of material, dialogue provided by girl, body display of the girl, quality of popshot. This step is probably the least time consuming aspect of the whole review as I'm using the FF button on the remote quite frequently. 10. Spell check and proof read. 11. Copy notes into template. 12. Proof read and QC the finished product 13. Upload to ADT. 14. Decide whether I'll ever watch the DVD again and put with the other "Keepers" or toss into the trash. At least half make it into the trash or given away to friends. Total time per review is 2-3 hours. At no point do I crank one out during the process because my babe takes care of that for me. She's the one that picks out the actual porn we use based on her preferences primarily and my reviews secondly. As far as quality of porn goes, it's all about personal preference. There has to be great lighting and framing. The focus has to be on the girl. The minute the "guy or guys" feel they're the stars in the DVD is the minute the ratings start to drop. The guy is a prop for the girl to use and I don't need to see him mugging for the camera like he's something special. I want to see the girl being put through the paces, providing lots of real slutty dirty talk, and then I want to see pop shots directly to the area located in and around her mouth and then have her drool down onto her tits all the while looking into the camera and rubbing the cum/spit onto her tits. Make the girl a flat chested Asian babe and I'm in heaven. Oh yeah, and keep the scene under 25 minutes or so total. I don't want to see novelty cumshots to the feet, onto food and then eaten, eyes, ears, forehead, and all over her face like the series Massive Facials or whatever its called by Elegant Angel, I don't want to see the guy's meat hooks all over the girl's body, and I don't want to see excessive cock worshiping by the camera at the expense of the girl. That's my full review process and probably more than you wanted to hear. If I see something that is a complete waste of time, I'll do a "quickie" review and basically say don't bother with the release as it's a complete waste of time and money. Edited by - rosco fuji on 10/22/2014 11:04:48 PM [Link]
CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11	Posted - Oct 23 2014 : 12:55AM ^ Actually the details bring to light the day-to-day. I was essentially asking "Are you jerking off as you review?" And the answer was no. You pointed out what should have been obvious, "I'm formatting the review, uploading pictures, spell checking, etc." In fact, you said watching the DVD is the least time consuming step in the process, because you FF, etc. I originally asked the question because I noticed how many reviews some of the reviewers write, and I couldn't fathom spending that much time masturbating. Do some of the less frequent reviewers integrate "normal" viewing with their reviews. Or do you also write reviews that are unclouded by feelings of intense lust. [Link]
H1gh Contra5t All-Star Member "My asshole just naturally opens up because that's what I want, I'm so horny for it" 8498 Posts 1/13	Posted - Oct 25 2014 : 10:52PM For me, the most beautiful girls don't need to change up a damn thing because their looks and their passion for performing will always be the constant that keeps them successful. Some of my absolute favourites who 9 times out of 10 have me fighting to blow too early have not done anything close to extreme. They have not made this gradual climb up the ladder to do more and more extreme acts in order to stay in demand. They have been, what many people refer to these days, as quite vanilla but because they genuinely enjoy performing and have the stunning beauty on top there's never been a necessity for it. If a girl wants to advance herself personally or financially by working up he extreme ladder then all the more power to them and I will not enjoy watching them any less for it. But I will never accept that it is a compulsory step for any performer who wants to become an A-Lister. [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Oct 26 2014 : 6:06AM H1gh Contra5t wrote: For me, the most beautiful girls don't need to change up a damn thing because their looks and their passion for performing will always be the constant that keeps them successful. Some of my absolute favourites who 9 times out of 10 have me fighting to blow too early have not done anything close to extreme. They have not made this gradual climb up the ladder to do more and more extreme acts in order to stay in demand. They have been, what many people refer to these days, as quite vanilla but because they genuinely enjoy performing and have the stunning beauty on top there's never been a necessity for it. If a girl wants to advance herself personally or financially by working up he extreme ladder then all the more power to them and I will not enjoy watching them any less for it. But I will never accept that it is a compulsory step for any performer who wants to become an A-Lister. Click to expand Yeah. And I can read much favorites out of this, first who comes to mind: Ashley Jensen. One of the most passionate performers I know of for over a good run of DVDs, maybe because she stayed within her own comfortzones or limits just like everyone's favorite Lexi Belle, never doing degrading stuff to satisfy some douchebags just to waste away the smile they had on their face. [Link]
zyathon Member 612 Posts 9/05	Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 9:47AM Never true just a classic case of the grass being greener. It's like saying all celebs are gorgeous. Far from it. Only pet hate I have regarding it is when someone you've always wanted to see go hard then does but by that time she actually now looks like a seasoned pornstar. That's a waste [Link]
Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10	Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 3:40PM I couldn't disagree with more with the, "Why are so few true beauties doing hardcore?" premise of this thread. Specifically, I have never seen so many drop-dead gorgeous girls doing porn as there are now, and, let's say over the past three years. As attractive, if not even more so, than any number of models, actresses, pin-up girls, NFL cheerleaders, you name it. And, you know, it is actually much harder to look really hot when you're naked, than when you're dressed and styled to-the-nines with your hair and makeup flawlessly done (e.g. mainstream A-list girls and magazine covers). [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 4:08PM This has never been a concern of mine, seems like those of ya being there should do some goddamn research [Link]
aclayfan All-Star Member 5059 Posts 8/11	Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 4:18PM There could be several answers to this question. Presently, beautiful girls who might be candidates for hardcore have the option of cam work. Malena Morgan returned to webcam after a couple years in porn. Madi Meadows ended a brief run in porn and is now focused on cam work. Bailey Rayne has never taken the hard hardcore plunge doing nude magazine and is webcaming instead. There are 3 of the prettiest girls not shooting hardcore. [Link]
Mister Fahrenheit All-Star Member Meh 4655 Posts 10/13	Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 5:14PM My main area of interest is porn from the late nineties to the present and I've never found there to be a dearth of beautiful women across that entire time-span. I think some people have very unrealistic standards of human beauty. [Link]
fredgee Deactivated User 350 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 6:46PM The industry has to do a better job at retaining 'star quality performers'..instead of running this like a meat market treat good workers like most companies with raises and bonuses. Bangbros scene with Alexis Texas is a case in point. Jezabel Vessir at RK, Bethany Benz at Dogfart, now someone needs to get Jade Aspen and MaryJean back to work. When the turnover rate is this high it does not help any one. There is no way some of the better looking women should be leaving this fast. [Link]

Antwon Deactivated User 107 Posts 1/16	Posted - Feb 13 2016 : 11:13PM I don't think the common idea that girls in the magazines are more beautiful than pornstars. In fact, I think that many pornstars are more beautiful than models in the magazines. [Link]
zyathon Member 612 Posts 9/05	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 12:01AM Yeah, any babe can be a photographic model. However, moving image will tell the truth [Link]
Stana Deactivated User 34 Posts 12/15	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 12:22AM Why ??????? Because MetArt/watch4beauty/mplstudios/femjoy/showybeauty/amourangels/... RUINS ponr industry ! [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 12:48AM ^I wouldn't assume that if those sites didn't exist the models they use would have ended up in hardcore porn. [Link]
Ben Mockridge Deactivated User 382 Posts 9/15	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 3:08AM I agree the number of truly beautiful women is relatively small set against the total number , thats prpbably the same for women globally. In porn maybe anita blonde is conventionally beautiful - Personally i dont think Cindy Hope is that beautiful shes more jennifer aniston who im not a big fan of either and guys seem to love JA. [Link]
N00dlesDaddy Senior Member Layla...got me on my knees... 1793 Posts 7/13	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 8:27AM In my book, attitude and enthusiasm are waaaayyyy more important than looks when it comes to porn. I consider all my favourite girls beautiful, anyway. I think it takes serious balls (metaphorically, of course) to do what they do. [Link]
Slector Member 655 Posts 2/14	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 11:39AM Yeah, I have to disagree with the OP. There are tons of perfect 10s in porn these days. I grew up in the 70s, now then-- yes, it was difficult to find really true beauties. Lots of them were pure skanks as a matter of fact. [Link]
kinguntermensch Senior Member 1260 Posts 7/14	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 12:45PM I mainly care about cute girl. If you are cute, in most cases you are beautiful as well in my eyes. Lexi Belle being the perfect example for that [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Feb 14 2016 : 3:49PM misspornUSA wrote: Firstly recognizing that beauty is subjective and that who or what I consider beautiful says more about myself and my subjective opinion of what constitutes beauty than about the actual person or thing that I perceive to be beautiful, I do basically concur with the OP that there are few top tier beauties in hardcore boy/girl porn. This is not to say that there aren't beautiful women shooting hardcore porn, but few are "true amazing beauties," though I don't know who the OP considers to be a true amazing beauty. Personally I would love to see some of the Hegre or Met Art models shooting hardcore sex with men. If a fund were started, I would donate to see Emily Bloom, for example, shoot for Blacked. Not that I'm complaining. I still have plenty of Lily Carter scenes that I can go back to anytime. Click to expand Since I wrote that in 2014 there has been a moderate increase in the number of "true amazing beauties" in porn, at least imo. Edited by - misspornUSA on 2/14/2016 9:12:38 PM [Link]
fanofman Senior Member 2053 Posts 9/15	Posted - Aug 27 2016 : 10:49AM Bumping. Any new names to add to the list since the original 2014 thread date? [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Aug 27 2016 : 11:39AM ^Riley Nixon. [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Aug 27 2016 : 1:36PM Teanna Trump, Jezabel Vessir, Natalia Starr, Kate England, Leah Gotti, Lana Rhodes...lots more. Sometimes some wonder why certain performers didn't become mainstream models, most commonly they aren't tall enough. Or willing to starve themselves. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Aug 27 2016 : 2:39PM ^A tall height isn't really required outside of runway modeling, and plenty of runway models aren't so much thin as they are fit. So, for example, when you look at some of Beach Bunny Swimwear's shows a lot of those models are toned. [Link]
balbars Member 668 Posts 4/10	Posted - Aug 30 2016 : 4:30PM Beauty is a personal perception, one person can say that a particular performer for him/her is really beautiful while for other the same woman/male could be less attractive. I think that what we see has to be attractive to our eyes, not for some undefined standard. [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Sep 22 2016 : 7:42PM Maxine Moore, I just feel that she was a true beauty. She did some scenes back in 2005, coming straight from D.C. over to.. referring to Jake Malone, "the punks" in Anabolic. From the moment I saw her, I went boom. Couldn't ever go back. But she didn't go very hardcore, quit fast, even though she looked to be all about it, and be it a BBG scene in that one volume of Bring Um Young. So I see some kinda point after all. [Link]
misspornUSA Senior Member I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13	Posted - Sep 22 2016 : 8:39PM ^^Yep. [Link]