egafd.com

Wendys point re variety being the spice of life is important. I want to see girls of all different appearences, including girls like Autumn. Why is the industry trying to dictate to the fans about what sort of girls we should like??

My tastes in women are very diverse. Some of my favourites are thin with flat chests (eg Sab Jo) other favs of mine are plumpish with larger breasts. Some may have tatoos others do not. I suspect most fans of porn can make up their own minds without being told who they should find attractive by bloody producers.

It would be awfull if all the girls looked the same. This is already nearly the case in the USA.

Another thing that irks me is this idea that if a girl wont do anal then she cant work because the punters wont like it. Bollocks. We could all be missing out on some great girls in vaginal scenes because of the producers refusing to give them work. WHAT A WASTE!! Would any of you serious fans out there like to have never seen your fav girl in action just because she didnt like anal? No I thought not.

Can we the punters decide on who find attractive please not you jaded old producers.

A girl who does not look like a typical pornstar will usually cause me to develope a large pan-handle. Not some Barbie Doll.

Thats my tuppence worth.

Put the kettle on Lizard. I need a cuppa.

Dibble, oh where are you Dibble........... De lurk, be a man not a whimp...
Autumn is a complete babe, met her at BGAFD Party, not my cuppa as far as the Goth thang, but she is a good girl, with great enthusiasm, and deserves respect.

Good on ya Autumn. Dibble = To***r

Lets stop it with the insults against Dibble please Kryten.

Autumn has remained dignified and Wendys post was not insulting to Dibble but thoughtfull and articulate.

So please gentlemen no personal abuse. Remember free speach. A reasoned arguement (like the one from Wendy) will carry far more weight than shouting "tosser" like Kryten just did.

here here no mob lynchings on this board! though on reading Dibble's post i must admit the word 'tosser' did spring instantly to my mind also.....

Constructive criticism by reasoned debate will always win the day and at the same time not pull down the good name of all the wankers & tossers that frequent this forum-meant literally.

My personal view is that Dibbles view is just that,a view and as such should be respected.I don't think his post was abusive just frank & honest from his point of view.

Its always nice to get differing views that stir the imagination a little.Nothing is ever black & White.

cheers
B...OZ

i've removed the offending post by kryten - along with one by richy - which renders your post without a context but the point you make is a valid one and worth emphasising.

dibble is well capable of looking after himself, as most regulars on this forum will realise. however, the problem isn't simply the causing of offence but the inevitable piling in of other (usually non-regular) posters with their 'wittily' abusive comments - thus a worthwhile thread can quickly be reduced to a dung heap.

i'm sure that wasn't kryten's intention but the law of unintended consequences is one of the main factors behind why we remove a lot of posts.

Finally I post something other than a meaningless off/topic one liner and

'I'm taken out of context'....the outrage lol

Interesting point about the unintentional consequences of posting,will make me think twice before sniping again,be the posts silly views or abuse.

Cheers
B...OZ

Looks like Officer Dibbles stirred up something of a hornet?s nest, but hey, that?s his job.

I believe my comments are pretty objective and not made lightly. I have no problem responding to any criticism or argument, as in my experience, the people making them are not totally objective (who is?) but driven by emotion, social programming and ignorance and thus their cases can easily be taken apart with cold logic.

So, true to form it looks like Wendy?s first into the ring. She always enjoys a good bout with ?The Officer.? Indeed there are few others she deems worthy of responding to. I think she?s great.

So, here goes with Wendy ? Contender No.1

Wendy has adjudged my comments to be arrogant - indeed they were ? Ha ha! Shot your fox already, eh?

I didn?t make my post with the intention of being cruel to Autumn ? though I was well aware that it might upset her. I judged that the post necessitated a certain abrasive edge just to shake Autumn out of her rut (bit like a metaphorical slap round the chops) as I was a bit miffed by the namby-pamby fawning, humming and haring of the other posts in the thread ? which were not directly addressing the question Autumn had posed. My response was intended to help Autumn and offer her some honest, no bull, no-nonsense advice, which she clearly wasn?t getting I WAS NOT ?HAVING A GO? AT HER. Officer Dibble simply speaks his mind and doesn?t beat about the bush, even if it ruffles a few feathers. I think that ultimately other people, even if they don?t agree with you, respect you and take you more seriously if you are totally honest with them.

Wendy, I always treat my girls nicely ? yes, even those with tattoos - there?s many a time I?ve booked them for the day, took them for an excellent slap-up lunch and ended up taking a couple of photos and half an hours worth of video! I usually enjoy their company and once they get me talking?

Yes, good point about payment for castings ? Although I didn?t personally arrange the casting session in question I did feel guilty that some of the girls had come a long way and even though we were not going to use them we should have at least paid their travelling expenses for the day. I will make sure this is addressed in any future castings, even if it comes out of my own pocket. Most of the others, who, on this day, have taken an opposite view to Officer Dibble, do, keep a very tight reign on their purse strings and certainly would not be well disposed to paying any such expenses. Oh, and I didn?t invite Violet, the casting was organised by the studio proprietor, I had no idea she was coming and I had only seen her once before in a picture.

It no good goading Officer Dibble to reveal his e-mail addy. He?s a schizophrenic character who suffers from multiple forum personalities. He did once dream one that one such personality did, in his professional capacity, posted a relevant e-mail address. But he has since convince himself that these other personalities are just voices in his head. Who am I? - My name is Legion, for I am many.

?Stand naked before you!? Not on your Nellie! Maybe 20 years ago when I boasted the physic of Bruce Lee. But not nowadays, and hey, that?s not my job is it?

Always a pleasure Wendy, we should do it more often.


Richie Rich ? Contender N0. 2

As I have pointed out above I was not ?slating? Autumn and I love the Goth look ? I have fond memories of the wonderfully titted ?Elvira? and her precursor ?Vampira.? But they didn?t have tats or metal work in odd places, they relied on their dark hair, Ruby red lips, porcelain skin and big boobies!

I?m sure Autumn is a wonderfull person, kind to animals, etc, but I thought we were discussing her appearance?


Contender No 3 ? Chris Wessex TV

So you think Autumn might be able to get some mainstream work eh? ? Well, I don?t know ? Somehow I just can?t see her modelling bikinis for ?Kay?s Catalogue? with those tats and piercings.

Trends are changing. What goes around comes around. Trends will continue to change till wearing tats will be about as cool as wearing flares and tank tops! And also (he says with jaw dropped) one producer who has taken an opposite stance to me this evening was saying to me just a few weeks back that he thought the tide had turned ? folks were fed up with the gonzo, tattooed look and that glamour was the way forward!

Chris, some people in the business must remain ?faceless? out of necessity. Porn in the UK is still not yet totally free of judicial sanction and revealing ones hand too soon could result in the direst consequences ? as I outlined the other evening.


Contenders No.4 Dean ?n? Bev

I?m sure you are ?right behind? Wendy on this.


Contender No ? 5 Loves Exile

?Sex Freaks? are those type of people who advertise in ?Desire? or any other popular swingers contact mag. They live and breath sex, they don?t just find it agreeable, they?re enthusiasts. And like enthusiasts, of whatever, anywhere - like for instance, the young lad with his baseball cap and Vauxhall Nova Turbo, they feel they have e to have the ?go faster stripes? and alloy wheels to indulge their passion and show that they?re cool. In the case of ?sex freaks? it?s tattoos and piercings. They think it?s great and feel that tats and metal work are de riguer, while the rest of the world looks on bemused. We once thought it would be an excellent idea to advertise in one of these contact mags for real couples who fancied taking part in our Pro-Am sex movies. We were shocked to find that we didn?t get any ?real people? applying, just these crazy ?Sex Freaks? and ordinary adult video buyers do not want to see ?Sex Freaks? shagging. They want to see other ordinary couples.

Glad to hear of your 92k job, haven?t seen that kind of dough for some time now. And another thing my lad. I?ll have you know I was banging my head with AC/DC and the best at stage centre back in 1977! So, don?t talk to me about metal!


Contender ? No 6 Magoo

I agree that the current US porn stars look crap ? I?m afraid Jeanna Jameson and the others just leave me cold. And I totally agree with your comments about anal ? it?s all bollocks. Who are these punters who are demanding wall to wall anal? I don?t know any. A little anal can add spice to a movie ? wall-to-wall anal is gross and totally off-putting. This is a case of producers being so self absorbed that they cannot see the wood for the trees. They?re so wound up in their little porno world that they just can?t see outside into Civi Street where most folks are more than happy with regular fucking and sucking and maybe an occasional anal experiment. The average person would think you were from another dimension if you kept talking about ?Anal Explosion This? and ?Bukake Bollocks That? AND WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS ABOUT ?CREAM PIES?? Fucking porno trainspotters, or what? Any fucker who talks about ?Cream Pies? should immediately get a life!

Finally, as Woodgnome pointed out, Officer Dibble is more than capable of fending off almost all literary attacks single nibbed, but thank you Magoo and Buttsie for your support, I always knew I could count on you. May all kinds of porno delights be visited upon your video machines!

And Kryten ? don?t know what you said ? missed your post. But I trust that I would never stoop to gratuitous personal abuse ? after all, that is the preserve of those who have lost the argument.


Officer Dibble ? It?s way past his bedtime.

Actually had returned from the local drinking establishment, and was somewhat sauced up, so apologies for going off the deep end Not my intention to trash the thread, so nicely argued by Wendy and others.

But Dibble's view is plainly not shared by most here, and that is worth emphasising.

Morning Kryten. Glad to hear you've sobered-up and are, presumably, prepared to look at the issue more rationally.

No need to emphasise that Officer Dibble's view is in a minority here. That's self-evident and to be expected, though I did think I might get a little bit more support than was forthcoming.

The thing is that groups, cliques, clubs are always so inward looking. It's not at al surprising that a forum such as this which deals with contempary porno will attract 'fans' of the said genre and as we know 'fans' are never objective about anything - for instance, if you were to make the quite reasonable suggestion to a Milwall fan that Arsenal were probably a better team, he would no doubt punch your lights out and curse the very ground you walked on! Officer Dibble is not a 'fan' in that sense, though he does find the erotic cinema most agreeable. He makes his living in the industry, so he must remain objective and see things from a wider perspective. And what he sees at the moment is an industry going nowhere, ordinary punters are buying less product, and as Ben Dover himself pointed out, in some areas the industry is in decline, things are not going well. There are many complex reasons for this but one factor is the current crop of performers and there adopted style are just not appealing to the ordinary punter and it is the ordinary punters that fuel the business, not a small clique of 'fans.' It's Officer Dibble's job to wake the forum up to these realities, painful though they may be for the devoted.

Officer Dibble.