What do you Hate about porn?

billyellis wrote:Absolutely. My point was that porn is created by people who are more extreme than their audience, and that, combined with the "take-it-or-leave-it" nature of porn marketing creates a kind of slippery slope. Porn gets more and more extreme and artificial and weird. If there was an attempt to create the porn that viewers want I think the pendulum would start to swing the other way.

billyellis wrote:To take the opposite position to its logical extreme we should censor "bodice ripper" novels, the kind of "for the ladies" novels that have Fabio on the cover. After all, their bodices aren't being ripped so that a potentially life-saving examination for breast cancer can be carried out. It's a ridiculous, cartoony **** fantasy that's being depicted. A common fantasy for women, I am led to believe. I don't think these fantasies predispose women to be docile victims of rapists, though.

People have all kinds of antisocial impulses. Societies have always has mechanisms for sublimating these impulses, from the Roman circuses to modern day violent movies and vid games. I think nowadays we tend to confuse these devices for sublimation with the causes of the impulses. I think what breeds violent individuals are things like being raised by a crack-head mother, being abandoned by your father and being raised in a violent environment, not the movies you watch. If you're raised by gentle, loving people you would never raise your hand to another, even if you love violent movies or slaughtering thousands in Grand Theft Auto.

Of course I could be wrong.

Agreed, in fact I don't like close-ups of anything. Close-up on the face & they might as well be faking. Close-up on the genitals & they might as well not be people.

Another thing I don't get is guys jacking themselves off over girls. I mean who wants to watch a masturbation video? It might start well but it's the end that counts.

James Lewis wrote:

Well, I think there is plenty of published evidence to the contrary (i.e., we all have the innate capacity to do harm because Nature is one harsh sonofabitch and we needed to kill or be killed for 99.9% of our existence as a species, and there are plenty of ways that tendency can be triggered, including repeated exposure to graphic and realistic simulated violence), but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Thanks for posting. Even reading posts disagreeing with me is better than opening 87 other threads only to find that some newbie jack-hole has bumped a thread from 2004.

HEY, let me add that to the list: Morons bumping old threads on forums!

It's nice to see that we can hold an intelligent, civilized discussion on this site. Thank you gentlemen.

James Lewis wrote:

There are sites of course who are making a genuine attempt to make high quality, non-exploitative erotica. Ifeelmyself, Ishootmyself, and Beautifulagony come to mind and there are no doubt others I'm not aware of. Regrettably they are a rarity and somewhat on the fringe.

1.- Fake tits like those of Missymodel (the second one)
2.- Girls who can not get a better camera or photographer, like stephisparadise.com I mean, com'on dude bunch of overexposed pics no clue on lighting.
3.- Chicks that can invest in better video equipment like p@ttyc@keonline, we gotta recognize tho that she has improve in the pics.
4.- Websites that come back from inactivity and intead of becoming more revealing kind of go backwards with lame photosets, like vickimodel.ca

sixtenb wrote:
Yep!!Just have to quote that.

Uff..not sure..I'm not alot into NN Models. & I'm not too much into american girls,they just dont do it for me. I prefer (Who!The censormachine is making me mad as hell!!) girls from TF-Land(Guess you know what I mean),but hungarians are also pretty hot.
Another no go is Jenna-Fuck Me-Haze.She's so annoying...
+I'm not into fake lips.Can deal with plastic boobies but its over with faked lips.

(sorry this is a bit of an essay!)

hmmm, where to start lol.....ok:
1: anything fake is a turn-off. So this includes:
- fake tits (unless the girl really had not-very-attractive assets + she got a reasonably good or better job done. eg. Havana Ginger or Nici Sterling. Check their before shots to see what I mean.)
- fake moaning, nuff said
- ridiculous clothing, hair, appearance. eg. early teens clothing on 18+ (tho usually 20+) girls, hair in pigtails (cmon, when I was 18 I didn't see any chicks in my class wearing their hair like that), also slut-wear in gonzo vids (give me sexy lingerie any day, not something that says "cheap whore" (well, except maybe on Sunday, haha!))

1.5: special double hate for boob-jobs on girls with really nice breasts. This is one of the things which will probably result sooner or later in me quitting porn for good. can we start a list in this thread or should we have a new thread for that? Just to get the ball rolling: Tera Patrick, Lacey Duvalle, Nikki Blonde (agreed Monkey D, could not believe it), Karma Rosenburg, Jenna Jameson (her originals were sublime), Lela Star

2: eye contact with the camera. cmon, you're supposed to be into fucking this person, so look at them! looking away from them shows you're not feeling the sex, you're thinking about something else (in most cases, tho occasionally it can work, eg Peaches' handjob/blowjob vid for her perfect hand, she looks at the camera as if to say "do you think i'm naughty enough to suck it? and then does ). Sure i know this is coming from the directors, but still, drains the scene of passion. Other exception is of course a POV vid.

3. Positions that I or most people, wouldn't use in real life, just designed to show off the model's body or the action, not good for enjoyment during real sex. eg. rcg with the girl leaning back (cmon, she needs to be on the balls of her feet, hands forward so she can bounce on that thing, and so you can see *that* view), or doggy with guy not holding her hips with both hands for proper leverage.

4. non-contact sex. ie. the dude's dick is so long that he (a) can't get the whole thing in (can't feel that good for him) (b) can't fuck with any degree of energy (because he'd be accidentally smashing into her cervix, which most girls find painful). So instead of a dynamic rousing fuck, we get what looks like slo-mo "ooh-ahh" softcore sex action. No impact! No wonder the girls are faking it, they're not getting anything except a slo-dildo session. I LIKE hearing the "slap-slap-slap" of real sex. very rare in porn these days sadly.

5. Gonzo approach to foreplay before and during sex. ie. dude squeezes tit once or twice, slaps ass and pulls open for camera, then puts girl on knees to suck him, then starts fucking her. at this point the girl is about as excited as....well, someone who's not very excited, and I'm missing out on all the things I would be doing with a girl like that. so I like girls with great breasts, but how often do you see the guy even touching them, let alone sucking on them, especially after they start fucking? I've had girlfriends say they've enjoyed it more when the sex was more than just dick in pussy (ie. just grabbing her tits during made a real difference to her). again, no wonder the girls are acting (badly).

6. agreed, i do not need a close-up of the dude's face. ever.

7. abysmal editing resulting in we miss::
(a) clothes coming off. cmon, we want to see that first exposure of breast/ass/pussy to our view. It has got to be one of THE most exciting moments of sex (true, less so with a girlfriend/wife, but in vids often we're seeing these girls for the first time, or the dude in the flick is supposed be experiencing that anyway)
(b) good foreplay
(c) penetration. again, one of the most exciting moments of sex gets cut so often

8. agreed, guys wanking off to finish a clip. boring, just boring.

9. scenes that go for 30+ mins

Girls who go too far.

I put this separate cos while i think my post above is pretty objective (ie. hopefully makes sense to most people) this part is a bit more subjective (this is really just my opinion and i don't want to say anyone would have to agree with me). Like your own sex life, what you choose to do/watch is your business, and others while not being into it, shouldn't be telling you it's wrong (as long as all parties concerned are able to decide on their own if they want to participate or not).

I guess i like seeing girls doing and ENJOYING things they don't look like they would. This can include scenes with gangbangs, strangers, other girls (if they look really straight) ugly dudes, fat dudes, old dudes, piss, people from another country or even background (eg. a rock groupie does some straight business guy). So what I don't really like is perfect model type dude fucks perfect model type babe. Seen it before too much, plus just looks setup, another fake movie scene. Add to that performers with huge muscles (dudes), skinny hard looking bodies (girls), and lots of tats (guys and girls). I'm definitely sick of watching California fuck itself. But can a girl go too far in my books? Yes, if she:
(a) doesn't look like she's enjoying whatever act she's submitting to
(b) is doing something that is actually unhealthy for her

I saw Alexis Silver do a pissmops scene, and although I don't think it really turned her on, she's was dealing with it ok, so i got no problem there. The max stuff tho, that's straight abuse and he wants the girls to look abused (i'm sure he tells them "now you're not supposed to be enjoying this y'hear!"), so no, I don't think any girl should do that stuff. At the very least, it's not going to be good for her reputation/marketability in the industry. Similar, I heard Mercedes/Eva Black did a scat vid which almost breaks my heart, lol. Such a beautiful girl doing something which degrades, and is medically dangerous....I applaud her for being open-minded (I know she did a pee vid with K-scans but hey even Gandhi said that's ok ) but scat is too, too, far. Pity and concern are the words that come to mind.

tgg wrote:He did? Which Gandhi are we talking about here? Rajiv? Indira? She always struck me as a kinky broad. I thought Mohandas advocated a strict control over sexual impulses.

tgg wrote:A classic line.

Ok, a little rant.
(Rant On)
Heterosexual porn is only slightly less gay than gay porn. This has always been true to degree, but it gets more and more true as things progress (or regress, to be more precise).

In the late sixties porn began to poke its head out of the back alleys and the mail order ads in the back pages of men's magazines. In America porn developed a strange, parallel system to the straight Hollywood system. This is pre-VCR, let alone Internet, and there was no other way to distribute this material. There was a nationwide system of theaters which advertised in newspapers and there was even a separate movie clock section in some newspapers to tell you the start times of the various porno films in the various porno theaters. There was also a star system, and the term "porn star" actually meant something. Linda Lovelace, Marilyn Chambers, and their ground breaking peers became famous. A group of talentless, hack directors/producers began to produce imitation Hollywood movies with explicit sex scenes grafted into them. Many of these men were like the Burt Reynolds character in "Boogie Nights", they deluded themselves that they were producing work that had some value. This delusion was important though. Like real Hollywood promoters they encouraged the porno star system which, like the real system, enticed viewers into the theaters through the fame and drawing power of the stars. The women were the stars. They were front and center. They were the money.

Then the VCR revolution took place. The economics of porn changed overnight. Gonzo replaced plotted porn. There was no longer any pretense that porn had a value beyond the sex. For the most part male performers took over from their mentors, the Burt Reynolds types. St@gli@n0, Ed P0wer$, D@vid Chri$t0pher, etc. None of them made any pretense to having talent. The industry, as a whole, became nothing more than a giant, collective pimp. There was no longer any need for the women to have a personality or even the slightest ability to create a realistic sexual scenario. All they had to be were passive recipients of the twisted fantasies of the performers/producers. This was a boon, since it made the pimping process easier.

A new delusion began to rise amongst the neo-porn producers, replacing the earlier belief that porn directors had talent. A much worse delusion. The twisted belief that people were interested in them, not the girls. Suddenly you're not buying "Sexi Gal" starring Annette Haven, you're buying Ed P0wer$ latest or M@x H's latest, starring some one-name girl who they have no vested interest in promoting. Suddenly these morons start appearing on camera, talking. Talking!! How deluded can these idiots be? Don't they know they make j/o material? Do they honestly think sticking their face into the camera enhances the utility of their product?

Now, let's take a look at where these geniuses choose to point their cameras when they're not giving themselves unearned face time. Let's look at time on-screen, angles and bizarre sexual rituals such as the DP.

Time on-screen: I'm often astonished at how little time is spent focusing on women and how much on men. If you asked a straight male what percentage of time the camera should be focused on the woman they'd say 100%. The barely repressed gay boys who produce straight porn have a different answer.

Angles: Who is usually framed best in a porn scene, the man or the woman? How often is the man front and center and the woman being filmed upside down or from some bizarre angle which compromises recognizability. This is most annoying in facials. Facials = face, right? How often are models on m@gazine covers photographed upside down, with their faces distorted like guppies or like they're saying "aaaahh" for the dentist?

The DP: Anal, vaginal or oral, is there anything gayer in the world of porn? Two dicks rubbing together in a woman's mouth, pussy or ass, or some combination thereof. And to make matters worse, look at how the DP is filmed. An ass sandwich with a thin layer of girl in the middle. Two sets of cheeks and balls pumping like meat pistons in a fuck engine.

Many of these guys have some gay or bi or tranny porn in their backgrounds. It's kind of like woman's fashions, which are dominated by gay guys. They hire models who reflect their idea of female beauty, which are women who resemble twinks, gay bottom boys.

Lastly we have the POV guys. This is sometimes an effective filming technique, but unfortunately these guys don't invest in the equipment they need. They use cheap video cameras with built in mikes. Since the mikes are right by their faces and farther away from the girls it's too often the sound of male passion we hear clearly, not the softer sounds the women are making. Just another instance of the focus not being where it should be, on the women.

Ah... I feel better. Thanks to all who had the patience to read this.
(Rant Off)

James Lewis wrote:

Mohandas. well that was the word, at this stage it depends who you believe. search for gandhi on these 2 pages and you'll see:

http://www.wfmu.org/LCD/19/urine.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_3_23/ai_54600087

But back to what's important....the pron! I thought the rant was good, got no problems with rants that make some kinda sense. the bit about how ppl (?? (lol) like Ed started putting themselves in front of the lens >.< especially rang true.

billyellis wrote:

I just joined and saw this topic with its interesting contributions.
Wow, this is a welcome refreshment from the discussion on most porn forums.
I'll try to give my own contribution as business-like and ad hoc as possible without elaborating too much:
1. Jenna Jameson does absolutely nothing for me. I see on many sites that's she's always in the top 5 of most requested. So I began to ask myself: what is wrong with me, I absolutely don't see anything in her.
2. Melissa Lauren went in my personal opinion much too far. She lets men degrade her: treat her rough, slap her, put her face in the toilet. I didn't download that, I saw it on screencaps and stayed away from it. Otherwise I find her totally attractive with her new look with the black hair and the big boobs (regarding the latter I'm afraid I'm also primitive).
The same is true I think for girls who participate in this "Rocco animal trainer" thing. I never bought that, just saw the pictures on the back side of the box.
3.I don't understand why in many videos there's a very long close-up of a penis pumping in and out of a vagina. What is sexy about that, or is it just me again?
Also the about 15 s ****m-in on the guy's face when he gets blowed or when he comes is a big turn off for me. Fast-forwarding in this case is not a good idea because it often makes you miss a part of the critically nice part of the action (with a ****m in on the girl's eyes) so you'll have to fast-reverse and see the irritating part again.

Wow. Some thoughtful responses since my last visit. I like it.

tgg - I agree about scenes where the girl is clearly uncomfortable. It starts me thinking "what horrible thing is going on in her life right now that she needs this money so badly?" and this is not a train of thought that is conducive to "feeling sexy," to quote Holden Caulfield.

And while I don't support the homophobic tone of Harry Potter's dad's post, I do agree that I never, EVER needed to see Ed P0w3rs naked and humping and pumping. But I would argue that that sort of porn was successful because of exactly what we have all been saying here - that porn had devolved from focusing on women to being just the blank-faced Jenna clones getting pounded and tonelessly repeating "harder, harder" to the obviously gay male screwing her with his eyes averted and desperately trying to finish. That newer and more "raw" porn seemed much more realistic by comparison, and so now we are stuck with seeing that fat, hairy loser and all the other tools out there defiling the pretty young ladies we would like to be able to fantasize about without them intruding on our fantasies. On the upside, though, you have to admit that this genre of porn became a very effective 'mln0r league' for the pindustry [a typo, but I like it as a new term, so I left it in], since by bringing in 100s of new girls an a regular basis, porn stars got much hotter overall as time passed and there was a much larger pool of girls to choose from.

Also, let me add specifically to my list of dislikes the kind of garbage that MH and other misogynists do which is force the girl's head down to the point of gagging. Granted that we all have had that urge to push hard and deep when in the moment...but who would ever be that big of an asshole in real life?? Especially when (unless you are a real wierdo who is into toothless grandmas who take out their dentures first) you are in a rather vulnerable position at the time... Anyway, it's just a reminder of the ugly side of the porn industry, and it always takes the starch out of it for me.

Finally, I would disagree with our latin crooner in that Jenna Jameson was freaking hot as Hell early on, IMHO. Once she got the implants and lost her apparent zeal for the work she certainly was inducted into the cheap skank Hall of Fame, but at first she was a very refreshing addition. She was probably the first really pretty porn star that rocked it hard and often. Most porn stars before JJ were not that pretty in the face, or if they were they were here and gone, and did not last very long.

billyellis wrote:For a moment I couldn't figure out who "Harry Potter's dad" was supposed to refer to. "James", I guess, is the connection? A little thin perhaps, a powerful, bespectacled, dead wizard and a deaf mute, German porn stud from the eighties. Harry sends his love, BTW.

I am surprised at your characterization of my rant as "homophobic" however. It was intended as tongue and cheek and I certainly meant no offense. I can't see how it's homophobic, though. I in no way suggested that there's anything wrong with gay or bi porn, or any other flavor for that matter. Simply that gay porn should be predominantly comprised of images designed to appeal to gay viewers and het porn images geared towards het viewers.

I'm not really trying to psychoanalyze the strange birds who produce porn. You can attribute the things you see to other causes. Narcissism is probably why these morons stick their faces in the camera, and a lot of the other sins, like not knowing where to point their cameras, are attributable to laziness and ineptitude as much as their peculiar sexual peccadilloes. The real intent of my rant was to point out how strange the images you see in straight porn really are. How often in straight porn you're being shown sexually explicit images of men, not women.