Len801 wrote:
> (1) I am not aware of IAFD misrepresenting such sex acts
> (dildo penetration) as "anals" or "DPs".
I'm fairly sure it would have been error rather than policy, yes.
> 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.
Indeed; but 'demand' always seems to override sense : -)
Foreplay also seems to have been largely abandoned in the modern era. I really
miss nice build-ups with lots of full-on kissing. I'm obviously a hopeless romantic : -))
Marina Lotar (Hedman)
Re: Marina Lotar (Hedman)
"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
signification...."
Re: Marina Lotar (Hedman)
Foreplay in gonzo porn filmamking in the last dozen years or so has become largely extinct.
Even as porn movies have become long, longer and even longest, eroticism and foreplay have been thrown out with the bath water. And that is strange. The porn makers can't no longer claim they are trying to squeeze a certain amount of sex with the plot. There really is NO plot. A woman comes down the stairs (or up the stairs with camera up her big butt), a man comes into view and she drops to her knees and is quickly blowing him (amazing how these males are always immediately erect? What modern medicine can do!!). More often than not the male does not even reciprocate in the oral sex and if he does it is really brief. They they fuck for the next 35-40 minutes in 15 positions. But hell no, he won't let her make him cum. He has to do that himself, by wanking nervously for the next 4 minutes as she holds her mouth open waiting for the "magic moment" to arrive. That is porn today. Exceptionally clinical, repetive, interchangeable, in all respect.
That is why people who were porn watchers in the golden age of porn often go back and watch the "oldies" and sigh wistfully for the old days. Porn makers today have forgotten how to arouse, how to set up a scene, how to turn up the heat. So imagine, if we males are somewhat turned off by such activity and performance, think what the odd female must think when they watch this kind of porn.
So when you hear people discuss porn, and the question is raised: why don't women generally like or watch porn? We all know why.
Full-on kissing? Are you kidding? In a gonzo porn scene? That seems to be the case more and more with either lesbian movies or gay movies, but not in hetero porn. If you were to do a movie search involving the word "kissing" at IAFD, it would return a list of about 30 movies all being lesbian titles, and most of them being of recent vintage. In how many hetero porn movies have you seen the male really dedicate a certain amount of time fondling, kissing, sucking the girls breasts? The main preoccupation seems to be how quickly the male can get the female to start blowing him, and do other nasty things.
Even as porn movies have become long, longer and even longest, eroticism and foreplay have been thrown out with the bath water. And that is strange. The porn makers can't no longer claim they are trying to squeeze a certain amount of sex with the plot. There really is NO plot. A woman comes down the stairs (or up the stairs with camera up her big butt), a man comes into view and she drops to her knees and is quickly blowing him (amazing how these males are always immediately erect? What modern medicine can do!!). More often than not the male does not even reciprocate in the oral sex and if he does it is really brief. They they fuck for the next 35-40 minutes in 15 positions. But hell no, he won't let her make him cum. He has to do that himself, by wanking nervously for the next 4 minutes as she holds her mouth open waiting for the "magic moment" to arrive. That is porn today. Exceptionally clinical, repetive, interchangeable, in all respect.
That is why people who were porn watchers in the golden age of porn often go back and watch the "oldies" and sigh wistfully for the old days. Porn makers today have forgotten how to arouse, how to set up a scene, how to turn up the heat. So imagine, if we males are somewhat turned off by such activity and performance, think what the odd female must think when they watch this kind of porn.
So when you hear people discuss porn, and the question is raised: why don't women generally like or watch porn? We all know why.
Full-on kissing? Are you kidding? In a gonzo porn scene? That seems to be the case more and more with either lesbian movies or gay movies, but not in hetero porn. If you were to do a movie search involving the word "kissing" at IAFD, it would return a list of about 30 movies all being lesbian titles, and most of them being of recent vintage. In how many hetero porn movies have you seen the male really dedicate a certain amount of time fondling, kissing, sucking the girls breasts? The main preoccupation seems to be how quickly the male can get the female to start blowing him, and do other nasty things.
Re: Marina Lotar (Hedman)
jj wrote:
> 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 could have used disinterested and justified it on the basis that I wanted to be objective about recording whether or not it occurred, but didn't actually care whether or not it did.
But since I didn't even care about recording it that would have been squirming my way out.
BTW, last week I heard a BBC presenter, admittedly on Radio 5, say 'should of'. Chris Warburton was the guilty party.
>
> I take your point about 'valid simulation'. If it's genuinely
> erotic, who cares
> whether or not it's faked?
That makes my point much more succinctly. Thanks.
> 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 could have used disinterested and justified it on the basis that I wanted to be objective about recording whether or not it occurred, but didn't actually care whether or not it did.
But since I didn't even care about recording it that would have been squirming my way out.
BTW, last week I heard a BBC presenter, admittedly on Radio 5, say 'should of'. Chris Warburton was the guilty party.
>
> I take your point about 'valid simulation'. If it's genuinely
> erotic, who cares
> whether or not it's faked?
That makes my point much more succinctly. Thanks.
Re: Marina Lotar (Hedman)
'Should of' is rife. Almost as annoying of the Australian-import ending of a
statement as a question?
BTW, I ended up today [Godnose how] trying to explain 'un/dis-interested' to a
highly-literate Anglophone Pakistani. It took almost half an hour.
statement as a question?
BTW, I ended up today [Godnose how] trying to explain 'un/dis-interested' to a
highly-literate Anglophone Pakistani. It took almost half an hour.
"a harmless drudge, that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the
signification...."
signification...."
Re: Marina Lotar (Hedman)
You should try to explain the much-abused expression "I couldn't care less".