egafd.com

warren zevon rip wrote:
>
> treason is technically punishable by death.
>
> Nope. I think you may find it has not been since 1998 (in the
> UK).
>
planeterotica wrote:

So as Bliar came to power in 1997 it seems that one of the first things he done was to change the law just to make sure he couldnt be hung by his scrawny fucking neck for the treacherous thing he has done to this country !thumbsdown!

Ah Rule #37 Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a
faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position.

Use Google and look it up.

You just cannot beat 70's porn...............nothing comes close, although Swedish Erotica is a poor second to Color Climax

Ace wrote:

>>

Have to agree 100%, Ace.

Some porn of that era had its down-side - such as choppy editing and blokes with ridiculous sideburns !shocked!.

But it also had natural women and "real" settings that your average consumer could actually relate to, plus of course lots of sexy undies (stockings, suspenders ... !queen!).

Today it's just a tedious plethora of naked (apart from maybe a pair of "stripper heels"), silicone-enhanced Barbie dolls performing circus acts that dominate much of today's porn. To be honest, about 99% of modern porn leave me cold - and bored.

Had one S/E the film was so grainy!Ace wrote:

> You just cannot beat 70's porn...............nothing comes
> close, although Swedish Erotica is a poor second to Color
> Climax
>
>

I tend to disagree, & I saw my first hardcore in the fall of 1973. Today's product has the 70's beat to hell in terms of sound, lighting,cinematography, & pretty much everything else tech. My god, I saw tons of porn back then that had no live sound, & repeat- action editing was the norm!! ('Didnt I just see that move??') The old movies that were shot for theatrical release occasionally had intriguing plots & good production values, but those were the exception.

& IMO, in general, the girls today are much better facially & figure-wise.There were some nice ones back in the day, like Abigail Clayton & Constance Money, but they tended to be few & far between. I think we are spoiled by how much pulchritude abounds in 2007.I also think the Gen Y girls, who grew up w/out the Double Standard, are more natural, willing, & even eager as performers than the 'It's not me up on the screen, it's my persona, where's my check,' Annette Haven's.

mike johnson wrote:

>>

Very fair point Mike, but I that's inevitable. I mean how long will it be before we have life-like 3D holograms performing in front of us in our living rooms and knocking the spots off today's DVDs in terms of technology?!
ALSO:


>>>

Well I suppose that's all down to taste in the end, and what you define as "better". Yes there are lots of so-called "stunners" around in porn today, but the problem I have with them is that most of them look like they've just rolled off some production line: They all have that "look", i.e. usually blonde / Eastern European / "Barbie doll" / hour-glass figure / (not uncommonly) surgically enhanced etc. etc.

There are very few who truly stand out, most of them are pretty interchangeable and of-a-muchness (to me anyway).

"Ah but would you say "No", Eric?" is the inevitable riposte. Well probably not if I'm being honest - but I would struggle to pick any one of 'em out of a line-up!


>>

Well, all I can say is that I've seen more than a few "modern" porn movies featuring bored-looking Barbie dolls who look like they've stopped by simply to ride a couple of dicks en route to cashing their paychecks. So if anything I'd say that the opposite is true. Case in point - the girls in the CCC loops always seemed to be really into it.

I also like to see girls being fucked in sexy undies - but you see very little of that these days. Just nudity, nudity and more nudity !boring!, punctuated only by stripper heels and the occasional pair of day-glo fishnets (which look ludicrous most of the time). But that's a purely personal gripe.

- Eric