egafd.com

Len801 wrote:
> As for Bodilis, I really have nothing positive to say, and I don't have much
> respect for a producer/distributor that is unable to properly put together
> billings on box cover and screen credits.

To be fair we don't know how much input/influence he may have had on things
like that. In the end it's VMD's responsibility.

To close off, have now added some caps from P5.
Fanny especially is gorgeous- what a pity she only stuck a toe into the water.

JJ I did not specifically say those billing problems were/are Bodilis doing.
I mentioned "producer/distributor" so yes, that fault ultimately lies with the
distributor which puts its name/label on the finished product.

Len801,

I think that the use of condoms is due a law in France that in adult movies produced in France condoms are required/compulsory when there is penetration.

The older style movies of MD are super but MD still have beautiful settings and most of the girls are wearing lingerie/suspender belt and stockings.

I have asked for clarification about this condom "law" before in this forum, and no one responded to my recollection.
I am not sure whether it is a law requirement or whether it has to do with French
movies either getting government subsidy or broadcasting regulations wen such movies
are broadcast via cable/satellite.
I don't know whether it applies to domestic product or foreign product as well, as I still see movies with and without
condom.
Condoms are supposed to be compulsory in Los Angeles, but hardly anyone is following that law.

I heard it was the cable/sat outfits that were insisting on mandatory latex-
and VMD have very lucrative income-streams from them.

Certainly, bareback stuff was being made in France, with French actors, well
after VMD went all-condom.

That was my personal and obviosuly unscientific assessment.... that it is not a governmental law but rather a "requirement" by the tel-com
companies (for whatever reason they thought it should be) that such sex scenes should involve condom use.
I am sure there are French lurkers and frequenters of this forum that know the rules
as to how this works in France, but I still have to hear a clear and logical explanation why after about 2005-2007 or so
French hc movies started to contain safe sex scenes.
Also why did the porn distributors started being coy in their DVD box covers in covering up the naughty parts?
Is it just the box covers that are that way or the web sites that sell them that are censoring them that way?

They partially flout these 'rules', anyway.

In a several scenes the condom mysteriously disappears halfway through;
and- bear in mind the exigencies of production- the rubber is often removed
for the vinegar-strokes, which at least avoids the unappetizing sight of a
bloke wrestling a wrinkled pink sausage-skin off his cock and hurriedly moving
into position [only if he's lucky and/or skilful] to deliver the money-shot.
Bloody ridiculous....

Well they do manage a certain "hide and seek" attitude to it, when the male does not completely
fold over the condom to the base of the penis.
So when it is inserted in the vagina, it looks like there is no condom there at all. So when you may see some
production pics of even (small) screencaps you are fooled into believing there
is no condom.
And there is another like "trickery" of hiding the condom that I have noted.
The male will often hold the dick at the base, where the condom "roll" is, so when he is pounding the vagina/ass
and he is holding his dick at the base, you are not that much aware a condom is being used.
Sure, I bet they will tell you that how the scene was shot, and that I see conspiracies
everywhere, but it surely looks add when they do that in safe-sex scenes, but not in condomless scenes.
And then what is with the box covers being censored with those wriggly red lines over
the naughty parts? Is it to hide the naughty parts or the condom?

And I've seen publicity-shots for 'condomed' movies which are either
condomless or airbrushed to suggest absence.
If the use of latex is so great and popular, why attempt to hide the fact?

Because they would like you to believe they are being good corporate citizens, protecting the
health and welfare of their performers, the other to be able to better market their product, especially
if the tel-coms insist they will ONLY touch safe-scene porno.
Then reality sets in, and they know there is a substantial segment of porn consumers who would
not go near a safe-sex porn movie, so they try to hide as much as possible the fact that
condoms are being used. So they do the kind of trickery I and you have described hoping they will
ensnare and fool some unwary and uninformed consumer.
Say you bought a DVD or have ordered it on VOD basis, such a movie/scene where condoms are used,
are you going to claim/demand your money back because it was not clearly indicated to you that
scenes involved safe-sex? They would laugh in your face, right?
Some years ago after the Marc Wallice debacle, Vivid went all-condom and claimed it did not affect their sales
of such product. Yet some years later, they reversed their position! I wonder whether VMD really embraces the whole
safe-sex situation, or whether they have no other way but to cow to tel-com demands in order to sell their their product
and remain afloat.