egafd.com

Just read Keni's thread and on the strength of those great comments about him, and his pic, I definitely want to give him a gig. I also worked with Jason Romer for the first time last weekend and he did a superb scene for me with Michelle B. Highly recommended.

So, girls -- is there anyone else who's new out there and who you rate? I'm not so interested in guys who can keep it up, fuck like a machine and spurt on queue -- not to denigrate those performers at all, I have the highest respect for anyone who can do that, I certainly couldn't. I'm talking about the kind of guys who can tick those boxes but who add something extra, something that turns you on, gets you going. Because so far as I'm concerned that's what it's all about.

My experience of the other younger guys I've worked with this year -- Graham O'Neill and Danny Mountain -- has been very positive. Anybody else?

For those who don't know me, I'm an independent producer for Television X.

Cheers.

Andy Ide

I'm talking about the
> kind of guys who can tick those boxes but who add something
> extra, something that turns you on, gets you going. Because so
> far as I'm concerned that's what it's all about.



I have an extremely long toungue if that helps

Got your email mate, will get to you as soon as mate! today def!

(Ben you got mail ref me and my missus)

hi there,
i've got a few guys that u can try-out....pretty good guys also.
e-mail kingjackmodel@yahoo.co.uk, & i'll reply bck with pics .

nico london

Nico, mailed you but no reply yet. Thanks to everyone else who's got in touch.

Andy

Andy,

Do you find that girls give out better scenes when paired with a guy who're at least attractive?

Better scenes make better viewing in my opinion, and better viewing means people come back for more which means more ????.

Just a thought......

A 'better scene' can only really be defined by the personal preferences of the individual viewer. Basically, porn is either POV (in the loosest sense) or voyeuristic. Either the viewer wants to be the guy who's fucking the girl or he's more passive and enjoys the spying. With the former, I suppose, that's why even some high-end producers choose to cast a lot of ugly fucks in their stuff. Some of the guys Jules Jordan uses are downright creepy, I'm sure that's to do with audience identification.

I prefer stuff in which the girl doesn't look at the camera, the more voyeuristic stuff, and for that I agree totally with you. Hence the posting. Get a guy who can seduce a woman, can get that look going in her eyes, excitement, trepidation, get her into the zone and keep her there, and bingo. Great porn. And there are some great guys here in the UK who can do that and I've enjoyed shooting with them over the last four years. Givers, not takers. (And again, there you have it -- two different types of audience, the latter, alas, hugely outweighing the former.)

I'm talking gonzo here of course. If you took a piece of staged drama instead then the same rules don't apply -- Victorian old bastard with lush young maiden has bags of horny potential, just look at erotic literature.

And don't forget the importance of the director. He/she can help make a scene fly or kill it dead. I should know. I've done both.

Sorry Andy, when I meant 'better scene' I meant where a girl looks more enthusiastic & excited, due to the guy being more attractive to her.

I've seen a lots of scenes where, though the guy can perform, he looks like a wierdo, and the girl looks nervous, or like she wants the scene over a.s.a.p, and wants to collect her cheque and get off home!

Theres nothing sexier than enthusiasm in my opinion.

No, Sam, we agree totally. I just like waffling to the wind.

Waffling to the wind is fine, just don't ever piss into it Andy !laugh!