why cant you do toppless &porn?

[kym]

ive emailed a few people asking what agencies they use for their non porn magazines, without naming any companies''

i mean i love to do porn but i would like to do some non porn magazines aswell ie; topless

but all ive been told is that they dont shoot girls that have done or that enjoy doing porn, why is this why can't you do both?
i mean whats the difference in seeing a girls boobs bouncing around in a dvd and seeing the same boobs in a magazine,

unless you can but i asked the wrong people

just wonderd thats all

[Joe A]

Kym

I'm friendly with Michelle of Magik Models and it does seem to be a prob with middle shelf magazines not wanting to use adult models... God knows wh,y as these girls would most certainly increase circulation of what is now a dying breed... magazines printed on paper..

They call the tune....

[Officer Dibble]

"I'm friendly with Michelle of Magik Models and it does seem to be a prob with middle shelf magazines not wanting to use adult models"

Yeah, they're a set of cynical, hypocritical, snidey bastards! The reason they won't touch adult models is that it could seriously frighten their corporate cunt investors, shareholders, and blue chip advertisers. They don't want to give ammunition 'The Current Bun', Mail, or News Of The World, to run some screaming, bullshit, headline about the mag featuring 'Vile Shameful Porn Models" and "Corrupting The Nation?s Youth!" causing them serious embarrassment and boardroom bollocks. The really annoying thing is that most of those concerned will have no particular problem with porn or porn models. It's all to do with keeping up appearances. Nobody in the corporate world will say "Ah, t' fuck with that. I'm going to publish and be dammed!" because there will be controversy. Controversy can cause demotion, and even dismissal, from 100K jobs, so they all nod away like the platitude spewing yes-men that they are and maintain the status quo. Set of twats.

Another, aspect of this issue is that clear blue water has opened up between porn and what was regarded as glamour photography. The line was blurred at the beginning of the 90's - you occasionally got a top glamour model appearing in a proper shag film. Because the girl was so glamorous it gave a certain legitimacy and glamour to the shag film. Maybe enough for it to be mentioned in the racier parts of polite society (crossover). But since then porn has sunk down market so, on the whole it is sleazy, cheap, naff, unglamorous and, er, skanky. There is now no real conduit for it to crossover into mainstream media.



"God knows wh,y as these girls would most certainly increase circulation"

Er, I recon you might be being just a teensy, weensy bit optimistic there Joe. Tell yer what, just take those rose tinted specs of a minute and give 'em a quick wipe.



Officer Dibble

[Number1]

Corporate sponsorship is certainly a major factor, but I think there is another angle, which I was actually discussing with colleagues recently.

I've noticed that it an be a huge turn on seeing a girl doing nude stuff, when you've never seen her do it before, yet seeing a porn performer doing the same nude stuff just doesn't do it. Why? Because you've already seen her getting shafted from every direction, so it's nothing special. It's the same at the club. We get the most gorgeous lap dancers coming in flashing their stuff, but we've all seen em, been there, done that. Yet when a sweet young student comes in who's bits we haven't seen... we're literally fighting over her!

That's the appeal of the middle shelf material. They feature girls who you wouldn't see in a porn film, maybe even celebrities, as near to being naked as possible without actually going the whole way. These are images that just cannot be made with girls who have already done porn. It's about wanting to see what's being hidden from you. The fresh virginal revelation of previouly unseen girl flesh that hasn't been on show for public amusement for years.

I agree with Dibble's point about how certain glamour models of yesterday almost brought the porn arena into mainstream approval, but if anything my work experience tells me that in current times it's going the other way. I can earn far more from very soft core material of unknown girls than I can from girls who will do absolutely everything, because if they will do everything, they almost certainly already have done the rounds of all the usual jobs, and by so doing have given away what appeal they had as a new face.

I think so many girls are conned by the floods of work offers when they are launched that they completely fail to give any thought to planning their career. I remember Adele Stephens early work in Mayfair I think it was (?-Helen Baldwin era), so very coy and unrevealing for a top shelf publication. It was very mild Uk mag level for some time. A slow and calculated revelation over several years, instead of instant over exposure. I think for me Adele is one of the few girls around now with the class to almost pull it off.

[steveuk]

[Pianaman]

100K??!! - And what do the models earn? Money grabbing bastards!

[Officer Dibble]

Don't get the hankies out or models; they have excellent earning potential. Almost as much as the execs you're railing against. Just one ?300 job or two ?150 jobs every day of a working week (often cash in hand) would produce 75K. They have much more potential than many blue-collar manual workers, who have to do a 6am, six-day week to earn ?300.00! - Which is why I tend to get peeved or pissed off if there is any suggestion of unreliableness, sloth or lack of interest and commitment.

Officer Dibbs

[Pianaman]

Hey I always have the hankies out for models

I suppose I was also thinking about the rewards for people in say the NHS or like you say Blue collar. But going by Emma's thread I still wonder how easy it really is for models to earn big bucks?

[Number1]

I once got into an arguament with a resident model of mine about money. I (foolishly) asked her why she thought what she was doing was worth more than people employed by the emergency services who are trying to save lives. Her answer was "because I'm showing my body" -needless to say the conversation went downhill from there!

[steveuk]

Stuff is worth what people are willing to pay for it.