What I hate about porn

[Wrob]

A lazy morning browsing through some of my recent tug movie purchases led me to muse on the things I like about porn, and the things that really piss me off about it. Now, I?m a simple man, with simple tastes. To me, the perfect pornograph consists of 2 1/2 ? 3 hours of beautiful girls pleasuring themselves with the aid of other women, men, electrical appliances and assorted root and salad vegetables. Like I said, simple. But it astonishes me how easy it is to bollock up a perfectly achieveable premise beyond all chance of recovery.
Here are my top three things in porn that are guaranteed to annoy me to flaccidity. In no particular order:

1. GYNO: She?s a lovely girl, so why exactly are we focussing almost exclusively on the six square inches between her legs? Pull out, man! Let?s see her arch her back. Let?s see her face. Let?s see the other girl on the other side of the room wanking herself into a frenzy at a scene of such erotic abandonment! Too much wide-angle meat banging, and I feel like I?m missing out. (To keep this on topic, Phil Barry?s ?Cathula? suffered from this a bit, I felt. Not enough Jane Whitehouse giving her dildo an enthusiastic workout, too much closeup work on Cathy?s genital piercings for my taste. Cathy?s gorgeous. Let?s see more of her!)
2. SHAKYCAM: or the nausea-inducing way the camera is flung around the scene in your average gonzo flick. It?s as if the camera operator can?t decide what to shoot, and in an agony of indecision tries to capture everything in one swinging, zooming constantly focus-hunting shot that misses everything. Oh, and the camera?s set to auto-exposure so the scene switches between stygian gloom and eye-searing brightness every five seconds. Gives me a headache. Ben Dover, the Gonzo Pope, gets it right, of course. Two cameras. One locked off master wide shot, then he?s free to use his handheld for closeups or whatever. And he lights his sets properly. My hero.
3. THE ORGASM: this one really is a personal bugbear of mine. I don?t see the female orgasm anything like as much as I?d like. (There are those of us that would argue that as in porn, so in life, but guys, please, this is supposed to be fantasy, surely?)The popshot?s the conventional way of ending a scene, but does it really have to be that way? It seems downright ungentlemanly to come, then walk away and deny the lady her pleasure. My fondest porn memory is of a Private clip sometime in the mid-Eighties. A two-guy, one girl scene, pretty standard up to the ending. After the pop-shots the girl, still besmeared with come, stepped up to the camera and proceeded to masturbate to a shuddering climax, eye-contact with the audience all the time. That, my friends, is an ending. More like that, please. Give the girl a chance to shine.

Here endeth the rant. I?m fully aware that this subject has been the start of many threads on the forum over the years, so I?ll beg your indulgence, ladies and gents. Feel free to use this post as the catalyst to further discussion, or alternatively ignore it as the ravings of a man with FAR too much time on his hands.

ttfn
RX

PS On re-reading before I posted this (now there?s an idea!) I thought I?d better just point out that although ?Cathula? didn?t really do it for me, plenty of the pornographs coming from Pumpkin Films take pride of place in my collection. I?m not having a go at Phil or Cathy. It was just an example that came immediately to mind.

[woodgnome]

couldn't agree more with the points you make.

some additional bugbears:

1) knickers being pulled to one side during a scene and never removed. at first this might indicate haste on the part of the participants but after a while it begins to seem like laziness or lack of care with regard to the viewer.

1b) dresses that are cinched about a models waist - again without ever being removed. the naked female form in it's entirety is what the majority of viewers are interested in - not annoying bits of textile.

3) male performers giving themselves a hand job to fullfil their contractual obligation. wouldn't it be nicer - and infinitely sexier - having the lady present doing the honours? is this down to time constraints, or just a mistaken belief that it's only the cum shot that matters? if this is the thinking, then it's wrong, imo.

4) the aerobicised nature of contemporary porn: i.e. act A is always followed by position B which invariably leads on to configuration C and so on and so forth... variety is the spice of life and porn but it's also something that tends to arise out of spontaneity. maybe contemporary production methods in what, after all, we call an industry, make this an impossibility. perhaps it is just a job for many producers/performers, much like punching out widgets on an assembly line.

5) it's possible to watch film after film featuring beautiful women, without a single one affording you the chance to admire the figure of any of the participants. strange as it may seem, some of us do like to know what a model looks like without her ankles behind her ears! the videoangels title (VA15) where rebekah jordan is followed walking round a garden in a micro mini, displaying her spectacular figure to the max, remains one of my all time favourites scenes. no sex but what a turn on!

6) dubbed or poor quality soundtracks: sounds matters. i recently received the dvd of 'riviera 3' by private. it's beautifully authored, with half a dozen language options and a stack of truly gorgeous women BUT every single soundtrack option is dubbed. result - severe deflation.

7) when a models hair constantly obscures the view. are hair clips verboten on porn sets?

8) lousy camera angles that go on and on and on... when all the camera guy has to do is step two paces to the left.

it might be an idea to counterbalance this thread with one along the lines of - 'things i LIKE about porn'. yes, it's not all bad but the frustration lies in what seems, so often, to be needlessly wrong.

[David Spenser]

Answers:

1b: Quite often the dress is rucked up to cover nasty scars from operations or stretch marks. It's an old trick.

3. A lot of girls can't wank properly!

4. Blame the Americans for turning porno into a production line operation.

5. The belief that blokes all want to get straight into the meat and veg, which is often not the case at all. And let's not even talk about scripts...

6. Could be down to low-quality DV cams and transfer. Good audio doesn't come cheap.

8. See 4!

[alec]

1b) - careful or might start to sound like ....

At least you didn't use the word cummerbund.

[Wrob]

I considered the idea of a counterbalancing argument a little while after this morning's vent. I'd hate to be seen as a whinger. A more positive post coming soon!

[lala]

couldnt agree less with woodgnome re point 1
very few girls are awesome when totally nude-knickers pulled down or to one side are great.similarly sexy high-heels are a must! i've seen loads of scenes ruined by horrible mucky feet-check out kelly stafford in DAKIR 1 for a case in point- agreat scene (the one with the cyclist)ruined by horrible mucky soles of feet!! Say what you like about Max hardcore (and you will) but at least he understands the importance of sexy clothing and especially shoes.

[Arnold Layne]

you tell em La

[joe king]

I don't know but Serena Grandi in a bra and knickerless is amazingly erotic to me - this seems to be a theme of some of her films.

[jj]

God, yes: and check out the sustights !
Yes to all WG's stuff, but I like a little (or a lot of) lingerie.....naked if she's only in top/skirt/trews at the start, but a little with the knicks to one side is fine.
BUT if you go to the trouble of dressing her up properly, then lingerie/heels to remain firmly ON......unless there's an extended erotic removal thereof, which only happened in the good ole days, when such things mattered.
Is 2) your unlucky number, BTW?

[jj]

Stilettoes: yes, clarty feet: NO.
Also chipped toenail-varnish/corns: YEUCH.
Well said.