Marina Lotar (Hedman)

[jj]

I see a need; but I don't necessarily see a need for egafd to incorprate it as
part of the database. Prose reviews are superior, in my view. And terms such as
'anal' and 'facial' are really too open to interpretation to be of all that much
use. If, in a prose review, an actress took a 5-second anal I would specify the
length of the deed and the depth [or more likely, shallowness] of the penetration.
But I wouldn't consider it much of an 'anal' and would personally only list it
in a footnote.
BTW AFAIK, iafd lists anal dildo-penetration as 'anal': WTF?

With the 'baby' analogy I was being- as is my wont- somewhat whimsical. If I
watch a new film and I don't know what's coming, that heightens any frisson.
One might arguably take the view that lists of sex-acts are porn's version of
spoilers : -)

[Len801]

I am not sure IAFD does really list dildo penetration as "anal". Where did you get that? Can you provide any movie titles where you noted such an indication?
I have not noticed any such discrepancy in the IAFD database at least as it regards to "anals". I believe IAFD does follow very faithfully what they indicate in their glossary. An "anal" for them means a dick in the ass, and dildos and fingers supposedly do not count.
However I have observed something odd as to how IAFD defines as "female" and "male" performer. Pre-op and post-op, transgendered performers seem to be listed in different fashion and even separately (Jill Monroe, Shannon, Buck Angel, etc).
From what I have observed, al least for the movies I was able to cross-check up to now, IAFD does a pretty good job at identifying sex acts. Some of the inacurracies may not be the fault of its various editors, but rather the various people who submit information. If an actress just takes an open mouth cumshot, and just swirls the sperm in her mouth and perhapos pushes someof it out, it does not necessarily mean she swallows it. Unless you actually see her gult it down, open her mouth to show you there is nothing there, then it it is a "swallow", otherwise, don't take it for granted that if she just closes her mouth, the spoerm has gone down her gullet.
Facial for me and IAFD means that a good part or all of the sperm lands on her face. If the actor has no juice left in the reservoir and the actress just keeps sucking the dick and can't seem to create an ejaculation worth seeing/recording and just keeps applying spittle on the cock to make it seem there is some additional liquid there, does not constitute a "facial". If barely a drop hits her chin because she is a cum dodger and pushes her head away not wanting anything on her face, does not constitute a "facial" either, even is she manages a post-cum clean up licking.
An anal is still ana anal whether it last 20 secon ds or 15 minutes. If you can actually see the anal penetration and can determine it is the actress and not a body double, then it is an "anal". An anal scene or penetration in the 1970's, 1980's or even in the 1990's is not there 25 minute anal scen es we see today. There is no comparion. Movies then ran half to one third of what they ran now. The way the photography worked was not as fluid, and this on occasion gave producers (and yes even the performers) more opportunity to cheat a little, pretending to be performring an anal or DP when no such thing was taking place. I recall an early Milly D'Abbraccio porn movie in which she was apparently performing a DP. You never saw her whole body clearly. You woukld see her with the males, but when the camera was positioned behind her for a few seconds you would not see her whole body. Was it a case of bad photography and camerwork or where they trying to be duplicitous? I concluded it was the latter.
I agree with you that the best way to resolve it is to provide detailed review of movies so the reader can make a valued judgment for himself as to what is occuring on screen. In this respect IAFD does a pretty good job in posting links of various reviews for a particular title. Those are quite invaluable.

[alec]

Len801 wrote:

>
> As far as pictures of performers at EGAFD, my recollection of
> what EGAFD was in at the beginning that it had little or no
> pictures or female performers.

Because we didn't have them initially, apart from those I had capped myself, but there were some from the very start.

> EGAFD would post and accept only
> head shots where EGAFD could clearly establish or get
> authorization for their use. I think later EGAFD began to use
> only pics if they were capped from an actual movie ("fair use"
> doctrine). I recall battling it out with Alec in getting him to
> use a headshot of Penelope Lamour (from PUSSY TALK) I had
> scanned from a defunct French porn magazine (Eroscore I
> believe). IAFD later used that same pic for her filmography.
> Later on, EGAFd began to use a second photo page (mostly using
> capped pics from movies) for performers. Initially information
> passed on to Alec by me and others (through e-mails, before the
> forum took off) with regards to review and details on a movie
> were reprinted in the comment section of a movie. Now I noticed
> for the most part if a review or detailed discussion has been
> made about a movie in the forum section it is simply linked
> (but not reproduced) in the comment section of a movie.

It's just quicker to do it that way. It's preferable to reproduce them I agree.

>
> But to hear Alec say he/EGAFD is uninterested in
> establishing a breakdown of scenes oor what sex acts are
> performed is quite surprising. It may not have been the
> original idea of the database, but we are forever left
> wondering whether a certain performer was ever paired with
> someone else whether she performed facials, anals, DP's or
> double anals, pissing, etc.

Not necessarily is uninterested but was (though personally it's still is.). As I said, the history of the evolution of the database application means that such things have to be in the review section of the film page. If someone is interested in doing scene breakdowns including such information, and sends them to us, we put them up, or, in the case of forum posts, link them.

[alec]

jj wrote:

> Len801 wrote:
>
> > Now I noticed for the most part if a review or detailed
> discussion has been
> > made about a movie in the forum section it is simply linked
> I'd guess that's due to time-constraints?

Yes.

>
>
> > But to hear Alec say he/EGAFD is uninterested ....
> I was glad to hear him say that- for the reason that nowadays
> so many of our
> ignorant fellow-countrymen [including the Welsh in this case
> purely ad hoc]
> feel it acceptable to substitute 'disinterested' : -))

It was a close-run thing.

> Death is too good for those committing such a solecism.
>

I had a further thought re the faking of anal (and similar) and how bad a thing this is. You could argue that it depends on the type of porn. If it's modern gonzo or wall-to-wall porn, that is reality porn in a sense, then of course the customer is defrauded if it's faked. If it's vintage porn with a plot, then the director was (sometimes) trying to achieve an erotic scene (usually, but not always unsuccessfully) in which case it could be regarded in the same light as special effects in a modern film. And there are some 70s hardcore films which began life as softcore films and had hardcore inserts added, usually ineffectively, admittedly, but not always. Do you feel cheated that Daniel Radcliffe didn't really fly that broomstick?

However, the later you get into the 80s, the more the 'plot' is just a device to get a male and female into the same room so that they can have sex - hardly erotica.

In the case of the faked Jess anals - the faked DP in Sens Interdits is much less convincingly faked than the faked anal in Initiation d'une jeune marquise but has more erotic effect, and is more justifiable therefore, because it's a better film - as a film.

[Len801]

> Alec wrote:
I had a further thought re the faking of anal (and similar) and how bad a thing this is. You could argue that it depends on the type of porn. If it's modern gonzo or wall-to-wall porn, that is reality porn in a sense, then of course the customer is defrauded if it's faked. If it's vintage porn with a plot, then the director was (sometimes) trying to achieve an erotic scene (usually, but not always unsuccessfully) in which case it could be regarded in the same light as special effects in a modern film. And there are some 70s hardcore films which began life as softcore films and had hardcore inserts added, usually ineffectively, admittedly, but not always. Do you feel cheated that Daniel Radcliffe didn't really fly that broomstick?

However, the later you get into the 80s, the more the 'plot' is just a device to get a male and female into the same room so that they can have sex - hardly erotica.
==========================
Well Alec you can justify and support that type of fakery, I don't.
When I watch a fantasy or actoon film, I don't believe live ammo is being used, or several bullets are going through the hero's body, or falling several feet and hero still is able to get up without too much discomfort.
When I watch porn, I don't expect fakery or simulated sex. If there is a couple fucking I want to see penetration, or else we are into simulated softcore.
If an actress is pretending to be assfucked and saying "Yes, yes, put it in my ass, ummm, deeper", I expect that to be the case. But if it is obviously being faked, then we are being duped and we are being asked to rent/buy a deceptive product. I had no respect for Samantha Strong when she faked that anal with Jerry Butler. There was no need for her to do that. She was already quite popular (as was Butler) at the time. Nor did I enjoy that Western Visuals film (I cited in my earlier post) where every anal and DP weas faked. I lost all respect for Hartley after that. That is fraudulent representation. She knew she was faking an anal/DP. She can't claim the director was trying to make it romantic or erotic. The title, the thumbnail pics on the box cover clearly indicated anal/DP was taking place. She took the money and played along with the lie and clear deception. That has nothing to do with setting up an "erotic moment". All involved in the production/release of that movie were clearly being deceptive.
I could say the same thing with Jenna Jameson and Teri Weigel in their apparent participation for their so-called DP they performed in two movies.
A false claim (that a certain sex act is taking place), whether you were aware of it at the time or not, and if you took the money and did not speak out is still a deception, of the fans and public who rent/buy and support your product.
If you can't tell if an anal is taking place, then you really can't say it is deceptive (especially for old porn, as that is the way such scenes were shot) and all you are left to wonder is: did she take it in the ass or not? But if it is shot in such a way that makes the deception all the more obvious (and you can tell a body double is involved, or no anal/DP is taking place), then it becomes a clear and obvious deception. I don't consider such deceptions a cinematic "plot device" that an uninformed porn consumer should have to be subjected to. Porn is porn, and if you wanted softcore and simulated sex then you would be seeking such material elsewhere. If porn producers and performers want consumers to trust in their product, then they should not stoop to such deceptions. There is no jusitfication for it. The few dollars that they make with the release of a deceptive product will come to haunt and hurt them later on, when consumers with long memories will turn away from acquiring product from same distributor, director and performers.

[alec]

Well, partly I was playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion, which is why I added a , but I wasn't talking about obvious fakery which destroys suspension of disbelief.

In the 70s there was often not a clear distinction between hardcore and softcore, let alone between real and fake anal. I find those films interesting partly because they are sometimes more erotic, but also in some cases I'm interested in how far some actresses 'on the borderline' were prepared to go. So I'm on both sides of this particular fence except that sometimes the mystery of how far they went is intriguing rather than disappointing. Plus films of this vintage often didn't make claims about particular sex acts anyway, though I'm no expert on that as they were unavailable legally in the Uk and if obtainable 'under the counter' or by mail order, did not have their original packaging. Anyone buying porn in the UK got so used to being ripped off, fleeced, conned, etc., they were grateful if any tapes arrived at all on occasion. This probably helped form my attitudes.

Each to his own tastes/interests in any case.

[Len801]

Exactly my point, Alec.
Up until the early-mid 1980's, the only way to see a porn movie was in a movie theater. In Europe and America there were hardly any porn magazines that reviewed porn movies (local or national newspapers did not comment on them, and did not even advertise them). Unlessyou had some knowledge of its content by way of word-of-mouth, when you went to see one of those movies it was basically a crop shot. So you really had no high expentancy of seeing any anal, DP, facials, cum swallowing, etc. They were a rare thing indeed. If there was an anal, it may not have been very well photographed and by and large there was no need to fake it either (although cum shots were occasionally faked).
But when you got to the video era by the mid 1980's you were in a new ball game. There were some porn magazines that reviewed porn movies. There was some description on the box cover, there may have been some hint from the movie title. So if there was some deception it became more evident and obvious. If nothing was appaent from movie title, brief description or pics on box cover and you later discovered there was an anal scene you were thankful for that. So if you wanted to chase after an anal/DP scene you would seek out titles with Buffy Davis, Elle Rio, Kelli Richards, Rachel Ryan, etc. You knew what to geneally expect from these perf0ormers. You could hardly complain if you picked up an occasional title wit these women and they did not perform anals/DP's. It's not that they were trying to dupe you.
The big deception would usually come in the way a scene would be filmed (in respect with the way such scenes would be filmed at the time or with same performers) in such a way where you could not see see the actress' whole body in the same frame. Position was also important. If it involved doggie, you knew the director would have to frame it well so you could see whether the actress in question was really being analed. If all you saw was a dick and an asshole as big a Mount Rushmore, then the face of the actress, face of the actor, then a side view in doggie where you could not even see any penetration you knew something was awfully wrong.
If on the other hand, the title, description, and thumbnails on the box cover clearly suggested that certain performers were clearly doing some naughty stuff, but on viewing the scenes it was clear that it was being faked then the deception is even more glaring in that that it involved a form of false advertising.
In one of the last Traci Lords movie she made THE GRAFENBERG SPOT (1985), it was well advertised/suggested that she was either doing a DP or double pussy penetration. We later discovered that yes it was a double vaginal penetration but it did NOT involve Traci at all, and that it was Ginger Lynn who was her body double. It was not Traci who revealed the deception, but Ginger Lynn herself!
Then there is other "partial" and more subtle forms of deception I outlined in my earlier posts. Like clearly labeling a film "anal in every scene", which does not necessarily mean that every girl in the movie takes it it in the ass. It only means that at least ONE actress will get buttfucked in a particular scene no matter how many girls there are there!

[jj]

Len801 wrote:
> I am not sure IAFD does really list dildo penetration as
> "anal". Where did you get that? Can you provide any movie
> titles where you noted such an indication?
Memory fails- but I'm fairly sure I saw at least one [which is why I added
the AFAIK]. I'll try and remember. It might have been an alleged DP.....
Katsumi, perhaps?


> An anal is still ana anal whether it last 20 secon ds or 15
> minutes.
Disagree. The former is merely an experimental attempt at dilatation : -)
I make allowances for period, though. And to me, depth is more significant
than duration.
But- to marmelize 'Mikado'- "But I don't much care, much care.... I don't
much care..... I don't much care".


> I agree with you that the best way to resolve it is to provide
> detailed review of movies so the reader can make a valued
> judgment for himself as to what is occuring on screen. In this
> respect IAFD does a pretty good job in posting links of various
> reviews for a particular title. Those are quite invaluable.
When they're accurate and not penned by shaky-handed knuckle-dragging
illiterates, yes; however, several formerly useful sources are now dead links.

[Len801]

Len801 wrote:
> I am not sure IAFD does really list dildo penetration as
> "anal". Where did you get that? Can you provide any movie
> titles where you noted such an indication?
JJ wrote:
> Memory fails- but I'm fairly sure I saw at least one [which is why I added
> the AFAIK]. I'll try and remember. It might have been an alleged DP.....
Katsumi, perhaps?

Len801 wrote:
> An anal is still an anal whether it lasts 20 seconds or 15
> minutes.
JJ wrote:
>Disagree. The former is merely an experimental attempt at dilatation : -)
> I make allowances for period, though. And to me, depth is more significant
>than duration.
========================
(1) I am not aware of IAFD misrepresenting such sex acts (dildo penetration) as "anals" or "DPs". I have to this date NOT uncovered any such distortions. If any has crept into the IAFD database, I am sure it may have to do with some individual who has incorrectly mislabelled and submitted such activity to the editors of IAFD, and it was not properly vetted.

(2) When I indicated that even brief anals are what they are, if they are nonetheless authentic. OF course I meant it in the context of the time when the scene was shot. You certainly can't expect an anal scene shot in 1981 to last 25 minutes. What I have found unfortunately, even in modern times, is where there is a lot of varied sex going on (oral sex, vaginal sex in a many positions), then anal sex, and then for way too much time after that it reverts back to vaginal sex until the pop shot. The anal, if it comes late into a scene it should be the highlight of the scene and it should continue until the climatic ending by porn standards. It makes little "porn" sense in having standard sex for 15 mintes, 2-3 minutes of anal, then another 10 minutes of vaginal/oral sex until the pop shot.

[jj]

alec wrote:
> > feel it acceptable to substitute 'disinterested' : -))>
> It was a close-run thing.

That's how far the rot has set in- to the point where even the more
discriminatory user of language, assailed on all sides by mass solecism, is no
longer always sure of his own rectitude.
Factor-in the oft-rehearsed dictum that 'usage determines' and it becomes
somewhat of a rearguard action..... the main trouble is that change hitherto
occurred at a gradual, 'organic', pace; but with the advent of electronic
media the process seems almost to take place overnight, with predictably
chaotic results.

I take your point about 'valid simulation'. If it's genuinely erotic, who cares
whether or not it's faked?