PornBox.com

Ass2Die4 wrote:I agree, although not ruined the Angel Blond and Jessica Swan scene was not as good as it should have been because of Chris Diamond wood issue!

yeah that was too bad... this had potential for super scene but it wasn't because of the wood problems... :-(

Opium wrote:

Tastes Like Ass wrote:
Generally speaking, I would say the most important factors for a male performer are, in order:

1. Being able to easily get and maintain erections.
2. Knowing how to position themselves and the girls to allow for the best camera angles.
3. Fucking the girls properly (by which I mean aggressively and with plenty of gapes, ATMs, throat fucking, and other nasty stuff).
4. Keeping the focus on the girls and the sex, rather than wasting time trying to show people how clever or funny they can be.
5. Having a big dick.

How do you know all this, have you worked in the porn industry?

Also what exactly makes a good male performer, what I mean is how do guys "learn" how to fuck properly on screen, and get the good camera angles, etc? Is it something that just comes naturally, or do guys have to work at it?

\

No, actually the list is pretty inaccurate.

Size and being able to fuck long/hard, are really the only things that matter.

Camera angles and positioning is largely the concern of the directors. When a guy is fucking in doggystyle, RCG, CG, standing - basically any position, all he has to worry about is staying stationary, while moving his hips back and forth(and make minor positional corrections if necessary). It's an essentially irrelevant/trivial point - A guy could have little to no understanding of "angles" and still be an excellent performer.

This guy obviously has a problem with Nacho, however, regardless he has long been one of the most successful and popular performers. Why? Because he has good size, and he fucks long/hard. Couldn't care less about whatever the hell else he does onscreen, at worst it has a neutral effect on the scene. Same with Jean Yves Le Castel: he often did or said some "unique" things in scenes, but, he was one of the most popular and successful performers. Why? Size and performance.
Generally speaking, another irrelevant point.

Size and fucking long/hard. Nothing else is nearly as important.

Tastes Like Ass wrote:

wason wrote:

Tastes Like Ass wrote:
Couldn't disagree more. A small, hard dick is 1,000 times better than a big, limp dick. Dick size is generally overrated here. It's a nice bonus, but many other things are more important. A big, limp dick is worthless, like a nice sports car with an empty tank.

I have tried to explain this to you several times before, but you must not be too bright, because you still seem to be missing the point, so I will give it one more shot.

Of course, it would be great if every scene featured the very best guys, who have a combination of size and performance. I am not disputing that, and I don't think anybody else is either. The problem is that's an unrealistic expectation. You seem to be living in some alternate universe, where top-notch male performers are a dime a dozen. In reality, there are very few of those guys, just as there are very few truly top-notch female performers. There is no way that Sineplex can release the amount of scenes they do now, while using nothing but the very best guys. You talk about the "Golden Age" from 3 years ago, but they were not releasing as many scenes back then, not every scene was all anal (in fact, some of the scenes actually had more vag than anal, which never happens now), and finally, they did use some guys that were not that great. You are just remembering the best scenes from that era, and expecting every single scene now to be that good.

As far as the guys you mention, I would love to see them bring back Jamaica, but he has apparently vanished, and they seem reluctant to bring Ed Junior to Prague. So that leaves Christian Clay and Nacho (who has often failed to perform well in the past, but seems to be doing OK since Sineplex brought him in). They can't use those two guys in every scene. You also suggest Danny D, and that would be fine with me, but that's still only three guys. You need more than that, if you're going to be releasing scenes on a daily basis.

So, that brings me back to my main point, which is that they are going to have to use some guys that have some flaws. Given that, I would much rather they use guys with smaller dicks than guys who have wood problems or are bad performers.

Generally speaking, I would say the most important factors for a male performer are, in order:

1. Being able to easily get and maintain erections.
2. Knowing how to position themselves and the girls to allow for the best camera angles.
3. Fucking the girls properly (by which I mean aggressively and with plenty of gapes, ATMs, throat fucking, and other nasty stuff).
4. Keeping the focus on the girls and the sex, rather than wasting time trying to show people how clever or funny they can be.
5. Having a big dick.

Again, it would be great if there were plenty of guys that met all those criteria, but unfortunately there aren't. So, if LP has to choose, I would prefer they use guys like Marcus or the guy from Teen Core Club/First Gape (whatever his name is), that don't have the biggest dicks around, but meet all the other criteria, as opposed to guys like Charlie Mac, who has a big dick, but can't stay hard, or Franco, who has a big dick, but seems to think he's a comedian instead of a porn star, etc.

Longer post, same misguided points.
Don't comment on my comprehension, when yours is so questionable.

1) It's actually pretty simple: Size is a primary factor for selecting guys, as is performance. Guys like Jamaica who have both, are obviously the best. However, Sineplex has guys like Tony Brooklyn, who is big - but not the biggest, and who performs pretty well - but not the best, and he has good interaction with the girls. These are the kind of guys Sineplex can use, while also trying to find/contract the best guys. On the other hand Sineplex should not use "hard small dick guys" - it doesn't matter how well they perform, the scene will still be boring as hell to watch. As a last resort, just shoot more Lesbi Gapers/Kreme/Milk/big toy/fisting scenes instead. Using small guys(whatever the performance level) would be terrible.


2) Are you stupid? The fact that Sineplex is shooting many more scenes than they previously did, should make it exponentially easier to contract/consistently feature, top male talent. (In fact shooting too few scenes would be a primary barrier in trying to eg. exclusively contract a guy). Guys make less money than girls per scene, and are also able to work more. If a guy is in the porn industry, does he not want do many scenes? get money? fuck hot girls? But now the problem is Sineplex is offering too many scenes/money? Dumbass.
Danny D, recently stated on his website, that for the past 1.5 years he has been contracted by Brazzers, for 18 Scenes a month, PLUS remaining a free agent in Europe( http://www.dannydxxx.com/site/ ). Is Sineplex shooting more than 18+ scenes a month? I don't know - do the math. (Doesn't really matter anyways - just get the best guys, for as many scenes as possible.)

3) Oh, so I guess that means you're living in a universe where there are 7 billion people on the planet, yet it is impossible to find X number of Top Male performers to shoot X number of scenes for Sineplex, even though it has apparently all the resources and infrastructure necessary?
What is wrong with you? Do you think that Jamaica, Junior, Carlos are the only guys in Brazil who have size and can fuck long/hard? In a previous post, I listed a few other Brazilian performers who would fit both criteria. And if you do the smallest amount of research, it's possible to find a lot more there. Not to mention, there are performers/research elsewhere to consider as well. The problem is certainly not, that there are not enough guys with both size and performance. It's just a matter of finding/doing. Sineplex has the resources, and there is no reason that they cannot work towards, and eventually reach, the goal of featuring top male performers with both size and performance in essentially every scene.

(Brazilians- old, or new guys: Andre Garcia http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=a ... garcia.htm , Pit Garcia http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=p ... garcia.htm, Danny D, Eric Hard, Jordan Ash - from America is also good, Everhard, and there are many more possibilities)


4)
- I remember scenes in 2011 that were consistently ~90 minutes long: 40 minutes with toys - 50 minutes action. 2on2 or 3on3 All Anal Scenes. No DP. Kreme/Milk/large toys. Girls lick/eat cream better. Top male performers etc. This is perhaps an attainable standard to shoot for, or surpass.
- Also recently, the most popular scene types from the forum poll results, have been 1) All anal and gapes 2) 2on2. Yet, look at every single recent 2on2/group scene, and there are NO all anal scenes? All of them have DP. Doesn't really make sense.
- Where are the 2on2/group, ALL ANAL scenes?
- Also, it looks like many of the recent scenes are significantly shorter than they used to be (40-50 mins in total length). Since shoots take many hours to complete, I doubt that there is a lack of material, and generally, the longer the scene, the better. So why not leave more material in the final edited version of scenes like before?
- Where is the MILK?

Opium wrote:

Tastes Like Ass wrote:
Generally speaking, I would say the most important factors for a male performer are, in order:

1. Being able to easily get and maintain erections.
2. Knowing how to position themselves and the girls to allow for the best camera angles.
3. Fucking the girls properly (by which I mean aggressively and with plenty of gapes, ATMs, throat fucking, and other nasty stuff).
4. Keeping the focus on the girls and the sex, rather than wasting time trying to show people how clever or funny they can be.
5. Having a big dick.

How do you know all this, have you worked in the porn industry?

Also what exactly makes a good male performer, what I mean is how do guys "learn" how to fuck properly on screen, and get the good camera angles, etc? Is it something that just comes naturally, or do guys have to work at it?

No, I have not worked in the industry. That list of qualities is simply my opinion, based on having watched literally thousands of scenes. Basically, anything lower on the list is worthless if it's not combined with all the things higher on the list. For example, having a big dick is worthless if it's limp, since you can't really fuck properly with a limp dick. Similarly, being able to fuck well doesn't matter if your arms and legs are blocking all the good camera angles.

As for how guys become good performers, I would imagine that like with almost any skill, it's a combination of natural ability and experience.

wason wrote:Camera angles and positioning is largely the concern of the directors. When a guy is fucking in doggystyle, RCG, CG, standing - basically any position, all he has to worry about is staying stationary, while moving his hips back and forth(and make minor positional corrections if necessary). It's an essentially irrelevant/trivial point - A guy could have little to no understanding of "angles" and still be an excellent performer.

This just shows how little you understand. If the guy's arms and legs are in the way, no matter how good the camera guy is, he won't be able to get the right shots. It doesn't matter if a guy is hung like a horse and fucks like a jackhammer, if you can't clearly see what you want to see, the scene is worthless. This is why some guys' scenes always suck. For example, Everhard, who you mention as a supposedly good performer. I have watched him for over a decade, and the camerawork in his scenes is consistently worse than in other scenes with the same director, but different male performers. It's because Everhard is either too stupid to figure out how to position himself, or too lazy to bother. Either way, it significantly detracts from the quality of the scene.

Size and fucking long/hard. Nothing else is nearly as important.

Obviously, you have some sort of bizarre big dick fetish. I've been watching porn for a long time, and I have only encountered a very small number of people who are as fixated on it as you (and a couple of other people here) seem to be. For most people, it is important, but it's nowhere near the most important thing, as you apparently think it is.

As long as the guy's dick is long enough to make them gag when he sticks it down their throat, and thick enough to make them gape when he sticks it up their ass, that's big enough for me. As I said before, anything more than that is just a bonus.

Tastes Like Ass wrote:
Generally speaking, I would say the most important factors for a male performer are, in order:

1. Being able to easily get and maintain erections.
2. Knowing how to position themselves and the girls to allow for the best camera angles.
3. Fucking the girls properly (by which I mean aggressively and with plenty of gapes, ATMs, throat fucking, and other nasty stuff).
4. Keeping the focus on the girls and the sex, rather than wasting time trying to show people how clever or funny they can be.
5. Having a big dick.

Agree 100% with this

Tastes Like Ass wrote:So, if LP has to choose, I would prefer they use guys like Marcus or the guy from Teen Core Club/First Gape (whatever his name is), that don't have the biggest dicks around, but meet all the other criteria

Agree with this too. Both of those guys are good performers.

Fuck I never want to advocate for someone to lose their job but FUUCCCKKKKIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG Chris Diamond has got to go! I was upset at him for ruining the intensity on the Angel Blond and Jessica Swan scene since Jessica is one of my favorites but now he does the same thing in the Timea and Sandra Luberc scene below:

http://legalporno.com/watch/28061/timea ... ocks_sz432

That is now 3 girls from my top 5 list that he has won the Mister Softee award in! Fuck what a travesty I've been waiting for these scenes to come out just to be disappointed by his limp fucking dick! Arrggghhhh! Please send him back to wherever he came from.

As for the discussion of important factors for male performers:
* I agree with most of the above post
* where I disagree is the size should be important number 2 on the list. My reason is I enjoy all kinds of multiple penetration with small dicks you can't see what the hell is going. For example Lucy Wild 5 on 5 when she was getting fucked by her boyfriend you couldn't tell if there was penetration. Also most of Woodman DPs you barely know if they are fucking the girls or simulating it like a playboy movie
* also I disagree with the guy positioning himself being so important. That is the directors job IMHO and he/her should be giving instructions on exactly what angles are being captured. I get it if the performers position themselves correctly it is easier on the director so its important for a lazy director but not an important factor IMHO for male performer.

OK, i got the solution for some of our problems:
Let's just ask Max Hardcore....

He never has wood problems..
And this would also solve the FUCKING LACK OF PISS MOVIES LATELY !!!!

dpconnoisseur1 wrote:...I disagree with the guy positioning himself being so important. That is the directors job IMHO and he/her should be giving instructions on exactly what angles are being captured. I get it if the performers position themselves correctly it is easier on the director so its important for a lazy director but not an important factor IMHO for male performer.

The problem with that is that it destroys the continuity and flow if the director is constantly having to stop the action every time they change positions to make sure the performers are set up correctly. It just goes so much more smoothly if the guys know how to take care of that on their own.

And while you're right that dick size matters a little more with DPs, good body positioning is still more important. For example, look at David Perry. He doesn't have a very big dick, but he's fantastic at DPs, because he's always in the right position.

Tastes Like Ass wrote:

wason wrote:Camera angles and positioning is largely the concern of the directors. When a guy is fucking in doggystyle, RCG, CG, standing - basically any position, all he has to worry about is staying stationary, while moving his hips back and forth(and make minor positional corrections if necessary). It's an essentially irrelevant/trivial point - A guy could have little to no understanding of "angles" and still be an excellent performer.

This just shows how little you understand. If the guy's arms and legs are in the way, no matter how good the camera guy is, he won't be able to get the right shots. It doesn't matter if a guy is hung like a horse and fucks like a jackhammer, if you can't clearly see what you want to see, the scene is worthless. This is why some guys' scenes always suck. For example, Everhard, who you mention as a supposedly good performer. I have watched him for over a decade, and the camerawork in his scenes is consistently worse than in other scenes with the same director, but different male performers. It's because Everhard is either too stupid to figure out how to position himself, or too lazy to bother. Either way, it significantly detracts from the quality of the scene.

Size and fucking long/hard. Nothing else is nearly as important.

Obviously, you have some sort of bizarre big dick fetish. I've been watching porn for a long time, and I have only encountered a very small number of people who are as fixated on it as you (and a couple of other people here) seem to be. For most people, it is important, but it's nowhere near the most important thing, as you apparently think it is.

As long as the guy's dick is long enough to make them gag when he sticks it down their throat, and thick enough to make them gape when he sticks it up their ass, that's big enough for me. As I said before, anything more than that is just a bonus.

Angles and Position is a trivial issue, because it's generally so straightforward. Eg. if a guy is fucking in Doggystyle, he is probably standing straight up,with his hands on the girls hips, moving his hips back and forth, in RCG a guy lies on his back and moves his hips up and down, etc - the director can find the angle, or make very trivial corrections, which do not impact the scene in a significant/consistent way. Again, a guy could have the most basic common sense understanding of angles(but have size, and fuck long/hard), and be the best performer in the world. On the other hand, a guy could have the best understanding of angles in the world(which would still not be that impressive -eg. common sense), but if he's small, the scene will be boring regardless, with boring reactions from the girls. Not hard to understand. Idiot.

I've watched some Everhard scenes. Angles and Positioning has never been an issue that has significantly detracted from the scene. Great scenes.Great reactions from the girls.Great performer, with size and energy. One of the best.

Actually the porn industry, and viewers as a whole, are focused on size, and good performance from both male/female. It's pretty much common knowledge, and it shows how deluded you are, living in smalldick fantasyland. Don't pretend to know what "most people" think, when you really have no clue at all. Try breaking into the porn industry now, as a guy with a small dick. You have no idea. One of the only guys who would be ok with "Small hard dick guys" boring up scenes with hot girls. By the way, you already agreed that guys with size and performance would be the best(and in addition to trying to get the best guys, Sineplex also has guys like Scott, Lescaf, Brooklyn, Franco etc, who have Good Size, and are pretty good performers - guys like this(big size, and good performance) are an obvious choice, over guys who are small but can perform). Talk about living in an alternate universe. You moron.

And by the way, David Perry is perfect proof: He is not that big, and he one of the most boring performers ever. Wouldn't bother watching another single scene with him in it. Small, and boring reactions from the girls.
Also, nothing against Mike Angelo personally, but he is not that big, and don't find his scenes interesting at all.

Also, Sineplex previously talked about potentially getting Omar Galanti. I haven't seen his recent work, but from what I remember, he was very good performer, with size and performance. Get him, if he's good.

.

wason wrote:Angles and Position is a trivial issue, because it's generally so straightforward. Eg. if a guy is fucking in Doggystyle, he is probably standing straight up,with his hands on the girls hips, moving his hips back and forth, in RCG a guy lies on his back and moves his hips up and down, etc - the director can find the angle, or make very trivial corrections, which do not impact the scene in a significant/consistent way. Again, a guy could have the most basic common sense understanding of angles(but have size, and fuck long/hard), and be the best performer in the world. On the other hand, a guy could have the best understanding of angles in the world(which would still not be that impressive -eg. common sense), but if he's small, the scene will be boring regardless, with boring reactions from the girls. Not hard to understand. Idiot.

I've watched some Everhard scenes. Angles and Positioning has never been an issue that has significantly detracted from the scene. Great scenes.Great reactions from the girls.Great performer, with size and energy. One of the best.

Actually the porn industry, and viewers as a whole, are focused on size, and good performance from both male/female. It's pretty much common knowledge, and it shows how deluded you are, living in smalldick fantasyland. Don't pretend to know what "most people" think, when you really have no clue at all. Try breaking into the porn industry now, as a guy with a small dick. You have no idea. One of the only guys who would be ok with "Small hard dick guys" boring up scenes with hot girls. By the way, you already agreed that guys with size and performance would be the best(and in addition to trying to get the best guys, Sineplex also has guys like Scott, Lescaf, Brooklyn, Franco etc, who have Good Size, and are pretty good performers - guys like this(big size, and good performance) are an obvious choice, over guys who are small but can perform). Talk about living in an alternate universe. You moron.

And by the way, David Perry is perfect proof: He is not that big, and he one of the most boring performers ever. Wouldn't bother watching another single scene with him in it. Small, and boring reactions from the girls.
Also, nothing against Mike Angelo personally, but he is not that big, and don't find his scenes interesting at all.

Also, Sineplex previously talked about potentially getting Omar Galanti. I haven't seen his recent work, but from what I remember, he was very good performer, with size and performance. Get him, if he's good.

Do you really think repeating the same gibberish while calling me names like "idiot" and "moron" will make you sound any less stupid? Camera angles and body positioning make a huge difference. You would know that if you actually paid attention, instead of focusing on superficial stuff like dick size. You're like the guy who thinks the most important factor in choosing a car is the color of it, just because that's the first thing you happen to notice.

As for David Perry, I never said he was the best guy out there, but I would much rather watch a scene with him than a scene with your boy Everhard the Retard, where half the scene consists of closeups, because his arms and legs are blocking all the good angles. Then again, you probably like those closeups, since you get a really good look at the guy's cock, which is all you seem to care about. And don't forget him constantly groaning and grunting so loudly you can't even hear the girl.

Anyway, I have wasted enough time on you. Having fun jerking off to closeups of Everhard the Retard's nutsack!

Tastes Like Ass wrote:

wason wrote:Angles and Position is a trivial issue, because it's generally so straightforward. Eg. if a guy is fucking in Doggystyle, he is probably standing straight up,with his hands on the girls hips, moving his hips back and forth, in RCG a guy lies on his back and moves his hips up and down, etc - the director can find the angle, or make very trivial corrections, which do not impact the scene in a significant/consistent way. Again, a guy could have the most basic common sense understanding of angles(but have size, and fuck long/hard), and be the best performer in the world. On the other hand, a guy could have the best understanding of angles in the world(which would still not be that impressive -eg. common sense), but if he's small, the scene will be boring regardless, with boring reactions from the girls. Not hard to understand. Idiot.

I've watched some Everhard scenes. Angles and Positioning has never been an issue that has significantly detracted from the scene. Great scenes.Great reactions from the girls.Great performer, with size and energy. One of the best.

Actually the porn industry, and viewers as a whole, are focused on size, and good performance from both male/female. It's pretty much common knowledge, and it shows how deluded you are, living in smalldick fantasyland. Don't pretend to know what "most people" think, when you really have no clue at all. Try breaking into the porn industry now, as a guy with a small dick. You have no idea. One of the only guys who would be ok with "Small hard dick guys" boring up scenes with hot girls. By the way, you already agreed that guys with size and performance would be the best(and in addition to trying to get the best guys, Sineplex also has guys like Scott, Lescaf, Brooklyn, Franco etc, who have Good Size, and are pretty good performers - guys like this(big size, and good performance) are an obvious choice, over guys who are small but can perform). Talk about living in an alternate universe. You moron.

And by the way, David Perry is perfect proof: He is not that big, and he one of the most boring performers ever. Wouldn't bother watching another single scene with him in it. Small, and boring reactions from the girls.
Also, nothing against Mike Angelo personally, but he is not that big, and don't find his scenes interesting at all.

Also, Sineplex previously talked about potentially getting Omar Galanti. I haven't seen his recent work, but from what I remember, he was very good performer, with size and performance. Get him, if he's good.

Do you really think repeating the same gibberish while calling me names like "idiot" and "moron" will make you sound any less stupid? Camera angles and body positioning make a huge difference. You would know that if you actually paid attention, instead of focusing on superficial stuff like dick size. You're like the guy who thinks the most important factor in choosing a car is the color of it, just because that's the first thing you happen to notice.

As for David Perry, I never said he was the best guy out there, but I would much rather watch a scene with him than a scene with your boy Everhard the Retard, where half the scene consists of closeups, because his arms and legs are blocking all the good angles. Then again, you probably like those closeups, since you get a really good look at the guy's cock, which is all you seem to care about. And don't forget him constantly groaning and grunting so loudly you can't even hear the girl.

Anyway, I have wasted enough time on you. Having fun jerking off to closeups of Everhard the Retard's nutsack!

I'm calling you a moron, because when you say things like size in porn scenes is "superficial" - it's moronic.

You seem to believe otherwise, however, the industry and viewers as a whole rate size (and hard fucking) very importantly -it's necessary for a great scene (smalldick guys do not get good reactions from girls), whereas camera angles in the majority of positions/situations are extremely simple and common sense - essentially a non issue(Only important to get camera angle that shows 1)penetration 2)girl's face, or perform small correction to get the shot - not a big deal).

Have fun in delusional smalldick fantasyland, with Perry.

Danny D is boring, very boring. He probably has the biggest cock out of all the white guys in porn but he can't fuck like the other pros.

btw, Christoph Clark is the perfect example of not needing a huge cock to perform well. The gapes he provides from an average cock is amazing. I love that guy.

.

Danny D is indeed boring. There's no sense of perversion about him... unless you count fucking men, which he's done under the name Matt Hughes.

http://www.xvideos.com/video6841343/bes ... king_cock_

.

Anyone a fan of Dirty Harry on here? He's ugly as all hell - in fact he is disgusting. But he has a big dick and he stays rock hard. Plus I like the idea of seeing these hot girls fuck a nasty old fart with a big dick. Oddly it turns me on and I am sure I am not the only one who digs this.

I am sure that guy would happily take work if they offered it to him.

Where are the Dirty Harry fans?

Dirty Harry? Hell no, unless you could get him to do every scene with a ball gag in his mouth!

His constant, loud yapping has ruined basically every scene he's ever done.

Yea, Harry is a very good performer with size. I haven't seen his recent work, but if he's still performing at the level he used to, then for sure get him.

dpconnoisseur1 wrote:Fuck I never want to advocate for someone to lose their job but FUUCCCKKKKIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGG Chris Diamond has got to go! I was upset at him for ruining the intensity on the Angel Blond and Jessica Swan scene since Jessica is one of my favorites but now he does the same thing in the Timea and Sandra Luberc scene below:

http://legalporno.com/watch/28061/timea ... ocks_sz432

That is now 3 girls from my top 5 list that he has won the Mister Softee award in! Fuck what a travesty I've been waiting for these scenes to come out just to be disappointed by his limp fucking dick! Arrggghhhh! Please send him back to wherever he came from.

As for the discussion of important factors for male performers:
* I agree with most of the above post
* where I disagree is the size should be important number 2 on the list. My reason is I enjoy all kinds of multiple penetration with small dicks you can't see what the hell is going. For example Lucy Wild 5 on 5 when she was getting fucked by her boyfriend you couldn't tell if there was penetration. Also most of Woodman DPs you barely know if they are fucking the girls or simulating it like a playboy movie
* also I disagree with the guy positioning himself being so important. That is the directors job IMHO and he/her should be giving instructions on exactly what angles are being captured. I get it if the performers position themselves correctly it is easier on the director so its important for a lazy director but not an important factor IMHO for male performer.

Please! No more Chris Diamond!

TomUK wrote:

Tastes Like Ass wrote:
Generally speaking, I would say the most important factors for a male performer are, in order:

1. Being able to easily get and maintain erections.
2. Knowing how to position themselves and the girls to allow for the best camera angles.
3. Fucking the girls properly (by which I mean aggressively and with plenty of gapes, ATMs, throat ducking, and other nasty stuff).
4. Keeping the focus on the girls and the sex, rather than wasting time trying to show people how clever or funny they can be.
5. Having a big dick.

Agree 100% with this

Tastes Like Ass wrote:So, if LP has to choose, I would prefer they use guys like Marcus or the guy from Teen Core Club/First Gape (whatever his name is), that don't have the biggest dicks around, but meet all the other criteria

Agree with this too. Both of those guys are good performers.

I'm with Tom on this, agreeing with the whole post from TLA.

I can't understand what the difference size makes if you can't use it properly? Someone else gave a car analogy, but mine is a different one. What the hell does it matter what kind of engine you have, how powerful, how fast, if you can't drive a stick? You need to at least be able to drive. Thus, what difference does a large dick make, if you can't sustain, you can't keep it at some reasonable hardness, or if you don't which ways to position yourself and the girl?

Secondly, how 'bout the people who don't know anything about medical health at all, stop suggesting ideas that are ridiculous. Viagra is a dangerous drug to mess with.

It makes people who use it regularly dependent, and stops working on them...let alone making them unable to achieve an erection without it. If a guy takes it every day or every week for a long time, it will start to lose it's effect on them. Secondly, it can affect the blood vessels in the brain. It works in the penis by not allowing the chemicals that cause an erection from being broken down, therefore the blood builds up more and lasts longer. What happens if you do that in the brain? Yes build of of blood in the brain, which is in the skull and can't expand anywhere. Stroke or worse anyone? Or how about the heart problems that come with it? It's come to the point where people are so hooked on their porn that they don't even care for the welfare or health of the people performing for their benefit. So please no drugs, and stop asking performers to do things that risk their lives because you have an issue with them being human beings who can't always be a machine on set.

Yes limp erections make it less enjoyable, and sometimes downright ruin a scene. But I appreciate all that these guys do, and all that the studio does to make it the best it can be. And no I am not obsessed about size. Size is a bonus, but not my top priority. Just like I want to be able to drive a stick, rather than have a car sitting in my driveway if I don't.

Here we go again, wood issues seem to be on the rise in LP.

(1) Luca Ferrero - he cannot even maintain good DP DA DV intensity in scene because of his wood issues
(2) Ramon Nomar - a whole career with wood issues I hope he is not really going to be working with LP (not to mention he is part of the Brazzers scandal)
(3) Tony Brooklyn - notorious wet noodle but continues to keep getting LP jobs

Is there a shortage of Viagra in Europe right now ? Get them some help.

My enormous cock (oh yes it is) is flopping about all over the place. I use a few lolly sticks

JohnMcSpunkencock wrote:My enormous cock (oh yes it is) is flopping about all over the place. I use a few lolly sticks

lol .

Marco Banderas was really disappointing in Anna DeVille's Sex Shop scene.

luithoran wrote:+1 to hire Dany D. He has a big cock and does great cumshots with a lot of sperm.

Danny D. is good as long as he shuts up and sticks to the business at hand. He ruined the Viola Bailey scene going on and on for 10-15 minutes talking and making the focus of the scene about him. The smoking hot goddess he got to fuck seemed like an afterthought next to his ego. Then again Brazzers does that in quite a few of their scenes. We just don't care what the male has to say. Just do the job and fuck the shit out of the hot girl and be quiet.

wason wrote:

Tastes Like Ass wrote:

wason wrote:Angles and Position is a trivial issue, because it's generally so straightforward. Eg. if a guy is fucking in Doggystyle, he is probably standing straight up,with his hands on the girls hips, moving his hips back and forth, in RCG a guy lies on his back and moves his hips up and down, etc - the director can find the angle, or make very trivial corrections, which do not impact the scene in a significant/consistent way. Again, a guy could have the most basic common sense understanding of angles(but have size, and fuck long/hard), and be the best performer in the world. On the other hand, a guy could have the best understanding of angles in the world(which would still not be that impressive -eg. common sense), but if he's small, the scene will be boring regardless, with boring reactions from the girls. Not hard to understand. Idiot.

I've watched some Everhard scenes. Angles and Positioning has never been an issue that has significantly detracted from the scene. Great scenes.Great reactions from the girls.Great performer, with size and energy. One of the best.

Actually the porn industry, and viewers as a whole, are focused on size, and good performance from both male/female. It's pretty much common knowledge, and it shows how deluded you are, living in smalldick fantasyland. Don't pretend to know what "most people" think, when you really have no clue at all. Try breaking into the porn industry now, as a guy with a small dick. You have no idea. One of the only guys who would be ok with "Small hard dick guys" boring up scenes with hot girls. By the way, you already agreed that guys with size and performance would be the best(and in addition to trying to get the best guys, Sineplex also has guys like Scott, Lescaf, Brooklyn, Franco etc, who have Good Size, and are pretty good performers - guys like this(big size, and good performance) are an obvious choice, over guys who are small but can perform). Talk about living in an alternate universe. You moron.


.

Do you really think repeating the same gibberish while calling me names like "idiot" and "moron" will make you sound any less stupid? Camera angles and body positioning make a huge difference. You would know that if you actually paid attention, instead of focusing on superficial stuff like dick size. You're like the guy who thinks the most important factor in choosing a car is the color of it, just because that's the first thing you happen to notice.

As for David Perry, I never said he was the best guy out there, but I would much rather watch a scene with him than a scene with your boy Everhard the Retard, where half the scene consists of closeups, because his arms and legs are blocking all the good angles. Then again, you probably like those closeups, since you get a really good look at the guy's cock, which is all you seem to care about. And don't forget him constantly groaning and grunting so loudly you can't even hear the girl.

Anyway, I have wasted enough time on you. Having fun jerking off to closeups of Everhard the Retard's nutsack!

I'm calling you a moron, because when you say things like size in porn scenes is "superficial" - it's moronic.

You seem to believe otherwise, however, the industry and viewers as a whole rate size (and hard fucking) very importantly -it's necessary for a great scene (smalldick guys do not get good reactions from girls), whereas camera angles in the majority of positions/situations are extremely simple and common sense - essentially a non issue(Only important to get camera angle that shows 1)penetration 2)girl's face, or perform small correction to get the shot - not a big deal).
.

TAM is right, you're wrong. Girls rarely find guys big enough for porn to be too small to be interesting, assuming they know what they're doing. And awareness of angles is important for actors and actresses - ask any director. Closeups of guys' cocks are only good if they show what's happening to the girl, otherwise it's samey - who cares enough to notice minor differences between cocks when there's girls to look at?