PornBox.com

Just had my first chance to watch Luna Rival's scene with Mike Chapman and Tony Brooklyn (GIO241) in full after having enjoyed watching clips on my PC previously.

As I said on Luna's page this is (mostly) a great scene. However, it has an extraordinary sequence in it that I think sadly sums up where LP (and porn in general) seems to be going.

Luna is getting a really good face-up DP with Brooklyn on top so in her pussy. Luna's clearly really enjoying it but, not unreasonably, decides she wants to top up her pleasure by playing with her clit. Astonishingly, Brooklyn isn't having this - he says "No" and brushes her hand away. Luna, probably a little surprised/perturbed, does the same again and again "No" and her hand is brushed away. Luna seems to get the message but after maybe 30 seconds has a 3rd (and final) attempt. "Perhaps Brooklyn will get the message", I suppose she's thinking. "Surely he realises that most women can't orgasm without clitoral stimulation?" Brooklyn stands firm - "No", the swat and that's the last time that Luna tries. Brooklyn has won his victory.

Seriously, WTF? Can anyone explain this?

For me this is poor on 2 levels. Firstly, for me enjoyment of porn is inextricably linked to the girls having a great time (and furthermore being in control or at least not in any way subdued). So this action opposes that principle. On another level, though, it is just really poor aesthetically. Is there really any better sight than a beautiful woman being fucked and playing with her clit? My favourite ever porn star is Simony Diamond and some of my favourite porn moments are when she's either receiving single anal or DP and is playing with her clit. It's astonishingly horny. So as far as I'm concerned Brooklyn really made a concerted effort to make a porn scene look less horny. Again, WTF?

I just don't get it. I do like LP but I think so many of their scenes are hindered by a sense of antagonism between the performers. Great porn for me can only happen if you have men and women in perfect (slutty) harmony and totally oblivious to any degree of superiority/mind games. I know most here disagree with me but I see a constant sense of love of control with Kid Jamaica - it's like he's more into the ego trip of being a porn guy than the sex. He doesn't abandon himself. I can only assume that this is what's happening with Brooklyn as well. These guys can't just let go; relinquish their control and just immerse themselves in the sex. That's the epitomy of being a porn guy for me.

When any performer is denying a co-performer of pleasure then your porn scene has a problem. Imagine a girl demanding that a guy stop wanking his cock over her! Horny! What's the difference?

I think this is also a bit of a debunk of the oft-mooted defence on here that the girls "know what they're signing up for". I'd be very surprised if written into Luna's contract is a "no clit playing" clause or something that demands she seeks approval from her male co-stars before doing something with her own body. She must have been annoyed by that. Is this really the best way to encourage this beautiful young woman to shoot more porn with LP?

Has this happened before? Is it a Brooklyn "thing"? Do I have to add him to my LP male star blacklist (growing by the day pretty much)?

I do like LP - almost a year's membership (with a few gaps) is testament to that but I think I need some convincing that its ethos is in line with my tastes. There are too many little moments in otherwise good scenes that I really hate. I want to relax with the scenes more, not have to interpret the mind games and who might be "winning". Nonsense like this Brooklyn incident does not help.

Can we please let these girls express themselves and, you know, have more fun? Can the guys just concentrate on fucking and stop being so "porn guy"? Is this too much to ask?

Short answer. Mainstream porn must never allow itself to go down the road of male supremacy. Those looking to blacklist porn in their own countries will find enough fuel to burn

JohnMcSpunkencock wrote:Short answer. Mainstream porn must never allow itself to go down the road of male supremacy. Those looking to blacklist porn in their own countries will find enough fuel to burn

Yeah, LP should really start exercising some more self censorship before the government start doing it for them. That sounds like a great plan.

So first goes the pissing scenes. Then no mother and daughter scenes or scenes with the twins together. And now people are calling for ban on 0% pussy scenes and scenes with any display of male dominance.
I guess after that anal sex will go and after that penetration sex altogether. We will be left with scenes where the guy just licks the girls pussy for 30 minutes straight . That will be "explosive" as fuck for sure!

You know what, i would actually prefer it if the government would ban porn altogether rather than the producers slowly giving in to overly sensitive people with moral panic. People like TheVulture who writes upset posts the size of a small novel every time he see a girl get a slap on the ass in a scene.

hjohjole wrote:Yeah, LP should really start exercising some more self censorship before the government start doing it for them. That sounds like a great plan.

So first goes the pissing scenes. Then no mother and daughter scenes or scenes with the twins together. And now people are calling for ban on 0% pussy scenes and scenes with any display of male dominance.
I guess after that anal sex will go and after that penetration sex altogether. We will be left with scenes where the guy just licks the girls pussy for 30 minutes straight . That will be "explosive" as fuck for sure!

You know what, i would actually prefer it if the government would ban porn altogether rather than the producers slowly giving in to overly sensitive people with moral panic. People like TheVulture who writes upset posts the size of a small novel every time he see a girl get a slap on the ass in a scene.

This doesn't address any of my points though. In what way does my post suggest that I want to ban any of the things you're talking about? My main gripe with modern porn isn't with regard to the content as such but more the "feel" and tone of it. I think I make that quite clear in my posts.

Specifically with regard to this point, what do you think? Is it OK for a male porn actor to physically prevent a female porn actress from playing with her clit? If so, why?

If it fits the tone of the film, then of course it's okay. Not everybody likes to see clit play in porn. Some do, and that's totally reasonable if that's what they enjoy. I feel clit play is visually distracting and I prefer, especially in such anal-centric content, to focus purely on anal stimulation. And it's not about denying pleasure.

In my personal life, my experience with women who can orgasm from anal sex alone has been that they often (this is anecdotal and does not apply to women in general or women who can orgasm from anal sex in general, just my own experiences and conversations) find that clitoral stimulation can lessen the pleasure of just focusing on pure anal and letting a far more explosive and pleasurable anal orgasm build on its own. So I often like to explore clitoral denial in that sense personally, and I enjoy seeing it in porn as well as a result.

So there's a reason someone might enjoy or appreciate it that has nothing to do with male supremacy but actually increased female pleasure. Again, doesn't apply to everyone, and there's no doubt a place for some scenes with it and some without. Which can be said about just about anything people have a complaint with.

analsexonly wrote:If it fits the tone of the film, then of course it's okay. Not everybody likes to see clit play in porn. Some do, and that's totally reasonable if that's what they enjoy. I feel clit play is visually distracting and I prefer, especially in such anal-centric content, to focus purely on anal stimulation. And it's not about denying pleasure.

In my personal life, my experience with women who can orgasm from anal sex alone has been that they often (this is anecdotal and does not apply to women in general or women who can orgasm from anal sex in general, just my own experiences and conversations) find that clitoral stimulation can lessen the pleasure of just focusing on pure anal and letting a far more explosive and pleasurable anal orgasm build on its own. So I often like to explore clitoral denial in that sense personally, and I enjoy seeing it in porn as well as a result.

So there's a reason someone might enjoy or appreciate it that has nothing to do with male supremacy but actually increased female pleasure. Again, doesn't apply to everyone, and there's no doubt a place for some scenes with it and some without. Which can be said about just about anything people have a complaint with.

Interesting points but if the girl is specifically trying to play with her clit and being prevented from doing so then it is clearly about denying pleasure. I'm struggling to believe that Brooklyn was doing it for Luna's own good. At the end of the day it's for her to determine how she enjoys the sex and not him, surely?

You're saying that you "explore clitoral denial"? Well fair enough! But I assume this would be explaining to a girl the benefits of not rubbing her clit as opposed to outright banning it, no? I can't imagine the act of swatting away a girl's hand from her clit being commonplace in normal sex activity somehow. It sounds like a surefire way to kill the mood and end in the bloke having to knock one out to me.

People are in different types of relationships, and different porn scenes have a different tone to them. Some (relationships and scenes both) do have more explicit dominance and submission. There's nothing wrong with that, though it may not appeal to you, while it does to others.

analsexonly wrote:People are in different types of relationships, and different porn scenes have a different tone to them. Some (relationships and scenes both) do have more explicit dominance and submission. There's nothing wrong with that, though it may not appeal to you, while it does to others.

So what is the appeal in seeing a guy denying a girl from playing with her clit during sex? I'm struggling with that. Isn't that just getting off on a guy acting like a pig?

Furthermore, whilst I don't like throat grabbing or excessive bum slapping, for example, I can well see that any girl might well have signed up to them and that they have a place. This seems different somehow. It seems like an abuse of power/physicality. If Luna had signed up to a scene where she was specifically told not to touch her clit then I very much doubt she would have tried it 3 times.

I think hjohjole's reply indicates further prohibiting certain niches whereas your original point is regarding something impromptu done by an actress that was impromptu prevented by an actor. That is a totally different ball game.

In any porn, if it's part of the type of scene being shot then all good. Crossing the fence into the scenario described re: Luna and Brooklyn is not part of the fabric and probably goes a long way to explain why Brooklyn is such a hugely unpopular guy off camera

TheVulture wrote:

analsexonly wrote:People are in different types of relationships, and different porn scenes have a different tone to them. Some (relationships and scenes both) do have more explicit dominance and submission. There's nothing wrong with that, though it may not appeal to you, while it does to others.

So what is the appeal in seeing a guy denying a girl from playing with her clit during sex? I'm struggling with that. Isn't that just getting off on a guy acting like a pig?

Furthermore, whilst I don't like throat grabbing or excessive bum slapping, for example, I can well see that any girl might well have signed up to them and that they have a place. This seems different somehow. It seems like an abuse of power/physicality. If Luna had signed up to a scene where she was specifically told not to touch her clit then I very much doubt she would have tried it 3 times.

A lot of people, men and women both, do enjoy a bit of male dominance. Not necessarily supremacy, just some dominance. Especially in a fantasy context, like porn. The man taking control and using the woman for his pleasure. It appeals to many. This isn't a real world relationship here, it's porn. And there are those who want such things (consensually) in their real world relationships too. A lot of people do enjoy stimulation denial and orgasm denial. Some just because they get off on denial, some because they like the delay of denial for a period of time with increased pleasure later, and some because they want to unlock other pleasure triggers.

I definitely enjoy seeing a woman starting to rub her clit and be told not to. It appeals to a variety of fantasies and preferences of my own, and I strongly approve of more of it in porn. I might go buy this one even though it isn't 0% Pussy just to support more of this. And it seems I'm not alone—a recent poll on clit stimulation had the highest votes for people wanting to see "no clit stimulation at all".

JohnMcSpunkencock wrote:I think hjohjole's reply indicates further prohibiting certain niches whereas your original point is regarding something impromptu done by an actress that was impromptu prevented by an actor. That is a totally different ball game.

In any porn, if it's part of the type of scene being shot then all good. Crossing the fence into the scenario described re: Luna and Brooklyn is not part of the fabric and probably goes a long way to explain why Brooklyn is such a hugely unpopular guy off camera

Makes sense.

Depends if what's being acted on screen is playful or something more unpleasant.

That Luna scene looks to me (just from the trailer) to be a happy-themed scene about rough(ish) sex, but with a degree of give and take.
Mike Chapman generally seems to manage it well as he gets girls on screen to slap him back, and spit in his face etc. and the girls appear to enjoy it.

There's a difference between being playful with someone and just acting like a domineering bell-end.
Some actors on LP appear to me to act in ways I find unpleasant. But some customers at LP seem to like that.

So as long as the girl isn't harmed or physically or mentally subjected to more than she signed up to, I guess we have to accept that and just buy the scenes we like and learn which actors to seek out or avoid.

JohnMcSpunkencock wrote:I think hjohjole's reply indicates further prohibiting certain niches whereas your original point is regarding something impromptu done by an actress that was impromptu prevented by an actor. That is a totally different ball game.

In any porn, if it's part of the type of scene being shot then all good. Crossing the fence into the scenario described re: Luna and Brooklyn is not part of the fabric and probably goes a long way to explain why Brooklyn is such a hugely unpopular guy off camera

Makes sense.

Depends if what's being acted on screen is playful or something more unpleasant.

That Luna scene looks to me (just from the trailer) to be a happy-themed scene about rough(ish) sex, but with a degree of give and take.
Mike Chapman generally seems to manage it well as he gets girls on screen to slap him back, and spit in his face etc. and the girls appear to enjoy it.

There's a difference between being playful with someone and just acting like a self-aggrandizing domineering bell-end.
Some actors on LP act in ways I find unpleasant. But some customers at LP seem to like that.

So as long as the girl isn't harmed or physically or mentally subjected to more than she signed up to, I guess we have to accept that and just buy the scenes we like and learn which actors to seek out or avoid.

analsexonly wrote:A lot of people, men and women both, do enjoy a bit of male dominance. Not necessarily supremacy, just some dominance. Especially in a fantasy context, like porn. The man taking control and using the woman for his pleasure. It appeals to many. This isn't a real world relationship here, it's porn. And there are those who want such things (consensually) in their real world relationships too. A lot of people do enjoy stimulation denial and orgasm denial. Some just because they get off on denial, some because they like the delay of denial for a period of time with increased pleasure later, and some because they want to unlock other pleasure triggers.

I definitely enjoy seeing a woman starting to rub her clit and be told not to. It appeals to a variety of fantasies and preferences of my own, and I strongly approve of more of it in porn. I might go buy this one even though it isn't 0% Pussy just to support more of this. And it seems I'm not alone—a recent poll on clit stimulation had the highest votes for people wanting to see "no clit stimulation at all".

You talk about "the man taking control and using the woman for his pleasure" and I get that. That isn't by and large my favoured kind of porn scenario (I prefer the woman in control and the guy acting as delighted giver of her pleasure) but I understand it. But that isn't what's happening here. If Luna is allowed to rub her clit then both her and Brooklyn are getting theirs (I assume Luna via the DP is enjoying herself but obviously not to her maximum satisfaction or else she wouldn't reach for her clit in the first place). Brooklyn is in essence already using Luna for his pleasure isn't he, unless of course we accept that Brooklyn's pleasure is inextricably linked to Luna's non-pleasure. In which case this isn't very pleasant porn is it?

I think when all is said and done there is surely 1 word that should never appear in any porn scene and that word is "no". It either signifies someone being unhappy with something that is being done or (as in this case) with something that someone else is trying to do. I really can't fathom why any porn star or director would ever introduce a "no" aspect into their scene (with the possible exception of a deliberately contrived intro of a girl playing hard to get, which again I'm not huge on but can see its place). But when the scene is underway all we should see is glorious, wanton, filthy (and positive) sex action. The flip side of that is either rape apeing porn or bully porn. If the clit playing bit was contrary to the scene or in some way aesthetically damaging then cut that section. But better still, let the girl do what she wants. Am I the only guy left who wants to see porn girls having the time of their lives? Perhaps I am just old fashioned. Oh well.

I am a bit disturbed that this aspect appeals to you in the same way that I'm disturbed that people here like to see girls in pain (and we're surely a spit away from someone requesting a list of the recent scenes with bleeding for their gratification, no?) Notwithstanding the occasional outburst deriding my displeasure and suggesting that I shouldn't be sharing it, I reserve the right to be disturbed and to voice my disapproval on this forum. If it's acceptable for people to ask for more DAP, TAP, gagging, choking etc. then it's acceptable for me to ask for more porn without unnecessary antagonistic bullshit and where the performers are clearly on the same page.

If you ask me, somewhere between about 2006 and now all of the fun got pretty much sucked out of porn. With the additional "hardness" that was ushered in was allowed through the back door (no pun intended ha ha ha) a massive dose of misogyny and macho bullshit under the banner of "Oh it's just harmless fun".

If LP are not prepared to make unabashedly joyous and entirely consensual porn with girls bursting from the screen and guys knowing their place and boundaries then maybe it's time someone else did.

TheVulture wrote:Just had my first chance to watch Luna Rival's scene with Mike Chapman and Tony Brooklyn (GIO241) in full after having enjoyed watching clips on my PC previously.

As I said on Luna's page this is (mostly) a great scene. However, it has an extraordinary sequence in it that I think sadly sums up where LP (and porn in general) seems to be going.

Luna is getting a really good face-up DP with Brooklyn on top so in her pussy. Luna's clearly really enjoying it but, not unreasonably, decides she wants to top up her pleasure by playing with her clit. Astonishingly, Brooklyn isn't having this - he says "No" and brushes her hand away. Luna, probably a little surprised/perturbed, does the same again and again "No" and her hand is brushed away. Luna seems to get the message but after maybe 30 seconds has a 3rd (and final) attempt. "Perhaps Brooklyn will get the message", I suppose she's thinking. "Surely he realises that most women can't orgasm without clitoral stimulation?" Brooklyn stands firm - "No", the swat and that's the last time that Luna tries. Brooklyn has won his victory.

Seriously, WTF? Can anyone explain this?

For me this is poor on 2 levels. Firstly, for me enjoyment of porn is inextricably linked to the girls having a great time (and furthermore being in control or at least not in any way subdued). So this action opposes that principle. On another level, though, it is just really poor aesthetically. Is there really any better sight than a beautiful woman being fucked and playing with her clit? My favourite ever porn star is Simony Diamond and some of my favourite porn moments are when she's either receiving single anal or DP and is playing with her clit. It's astonishingly horny. So as far as I'm concerned Brooklyn really made a concerted effort to make a porn scene look less horny. Again, WTF?

I just don't get it. I do like LP but I think so many of their scenes are hindered by a sense of antagonism between the performers. Great porn for me can only happen if you have men and women in perfect (slutty) harmony and totally oblivious to any degree of superiority/mind games. I know most here disagree with me but I see a constant sense of love of control with Kid Jamaica - it's like he's more into the ego trip of being a porn guy than the sex. He doesn't abandon himself. I can only assume that this is what's happening with Brooklyn as well. These guys can't just let go; relinquish their control and just immerse themselves in the sex. That's the epitomy of being a porn guy for me.

When any performer is denying a co-performer of pleasure then your porn scene has a problem. Imagine a girl demanding that a guy stop wanking his cock over her! Horny! What's the difference?

I think this is also a bit of a debunk of the oft-mooted defence on here that the girls "know what they're signing up for". I'd be very surprised if written into Luna's contract is a "no clit playing" clause or something that demands she seeks approval from her male co-stars before doing something with her own body. She must have been annoyed by that. Is this really the best way to encourage this beautiful young woman to shoot more porn with LP?

Has this happened before? Is it a Brooklyn "thing"? Do I have to add him to my LP male star blacklist (growing by the day pretty much)?

I do like LP - almost a year's membership (with a few gaps) is testament to that but I think I need some convincing that its ethos is in line with my tastes. There are too many little moments in otherwise good scenes that I really hate. I want to relax with the scenes more, not have to interpret the mind games and who might be "winning". Nonsense like this Brooklyn incident does not help.

Can we please let these girls express themselves and, you know, have more fun? Can the guys just concentrate on fucking and stop being so "porn guy"? Is this too much to ask?

I think you're assuming a lot. Her hand would have blocked the view, maybe he was more aware of the camera than she was. Her hand might have tightened up her pussy and the guy might have been on the verge of blowing his load early. Who the fuck knows? But jumping to the conclusion that he wanted to dominate her by... not letting her rub her pussy for 10 seconds is a pretty huge leap.

avanfurwet wrote:

JohnMcSpunkencock wrote:I think hjohjole's reply indicates further prohibiting certain niches whereas your original point is regarding something impromptu done by an actress that was impromptu prevented by an actor. That is a totally different ball game.

In any porn, if it's part of the type of scene being shot then all good. Crossing the fence into the scenario described re: Luna and Brooklyn is not part of the fabric and probably goes a long way to explain why Brooklyn is such a hugely unpopular guy off camera

Makes sense.

Depends if what's being acted on screen is playful or something more unpleasant.

That Luna scene looks to me (just from the trailer) to be a happy-themed scene about rough(ish) sex, but with a degree of give and take.
Mike Chapman generally seems to manage it well as he gets girls on screen to slap him back, and spit in his face etc. and the girls appear to enjoy it.

There's a difference between being playful with someone and just acting like a self-aggrandizing domineering bell-end.
Some actors on LP act in ways I find unpleasant. But some customers at LP seem to like that.

So as long as the girl isn't harmed or physically or mentally subjected to more than she signed up to, I guess we have to accept that and just buy the scenes we like and learn which actors to seek out or avoid.

yayporn99 wrote:
I think you're assuming a lot. Her hand would have blocked the view, maybe he was more aware of the camera than she was. Her hand might have tightened up her pussy and the guy might have been on the verge of blowing his load early. Who the fuck knows? But jumping to the conclusion that he wanted to dominate her by... not letting her rub her pussy for 10 seconds is a pretty huge leap.

Her hand didn't block the view. The DP was perfectly framed and her clit playing would have perfected the shot for me and (I would think) many other viewers.

You're making a lot of assumptions there (kinda ironic as you're accusing me of that when I've actually watched the scene). Watch it yourself and then tell me that he isn't simply trying to dominate her/win some kind of mental battle. I'd be surprised if you can.

Porn is not about just simply having sex. Situations where models really enjoy (or even act it on acceptable level) are very rare, so it is bad idea to ruin those seldom occasions. You can film rough scene every day, but one pleasurable for models - not really, and that is noticeable to customers.

Speaking of this, Luna is unique and proportionally often looks like she having some sort of fun on set. I like her scenes, maybe partly because of that.

VBT_2 wrote:Porn is not about just simply having sex. Situations where models really enjoy (or even act it on acceptable level) are very rare, so it is bad idea to ruin those seldom occasions. You can film rough scene every day, but one pleasurable for models - not really, and that is noticeable to customers.

Speaking of this, Luna is unique and proportionally often looks like she having some sort of fun on set. I like her scenes, maybe partly because of that.

Personally, I agree. Although stereotypical porn scenarios tend to showcase male dominance, that doesn't mean the girls can't been seen to enjoy themselves.

But some customers here it seems don't want to see the honeys having fun.

Some posters on this forum seem to actively seek out scenes where a girl appears hurt or distressed. It seems to make them excited.
To me they just seem like inadequate little boys enjoying pulling wings off butterflies.
Which is sad.

But, like the US Army drill sergeants are supposed to say, "it may not take all sorts, but we sure as hell got all sorts".

And LP directors might read the views of the few who post in the forum, but I guess mainly LP take notice of sales figures and just make more of whatever sells the most.

avanfurwet wrote:

VBT_2 wrote:Porn is not about just simply having sex. Situations where models really enjoy (or even act it on acceptable level) are very rare, so it is bad idea to ruin those seldom occasions. You can film rough scene every day, but one pleasurable for models - not really, and that is noticeable to customers.

Speaking of this, Luna is unique and proportionally often looks like she having some sort of fun on set. I like her scenes, maybe partly because of that.

Personally, I agree. Although stereotypical porn scenarios tend to showcase male dominance, that doesn't mean the girls can't been seen to enjoy themselves.

But some customers here it seems don't want to see the honeys having fun.

Some posters on this forum seem to actively seek out scenes where a girl appears hurt or distressed. It seems to make them excited.
To me they just seem like inadequate little boys enjoying pulling wings off butterflies.
Which is sad.

But, like the US Army drill sergeants are supposed to say, "it may not take all sorts, but we sure as hell got all sorts".

And LP directors might read the views of the few who post in the forum, but I guess mainly LP take notice of sales figures and just make more of whatever sells the most.

Sales are the main determinant. Higher sales means more people like it from some reasons. If sales are weak it is obvious - something went wrong and people does not like it. We can post here, argue each other etc. but generally in most cases nobody cares about that. Sometimes user's ideas and propositions are really great and directors can use it, but in the most cases is just a noise without any sens . Now maybe few words according to main theme of this topic - generally the porn for those girls is a JOB to earn money. Of course it is always the best scenario to earn $$ and have a good sex on the occasion but unfortunatelly life is not perfect. About Brooklyn behaviour - to be honest I didn't saw this video and I'm basing on your statement but I think that crucifixion of Brooklyn would be step too much. Don't get me wrong such kind of behaviour isn't properly but still it's not a reason to start a rumor.

^ Yeah, IMO this one minor misdemeanor isn't enough to hang Brooklyn. It was an example used by Vulture to illustrate his complaint, but I find it hard to get as worked up about it as him.

avanfurwet wrote:^ Yeah, IMO this one minor misdemeanor isn't enough to hang Brooklyn. It was an example used by Vulture to illustrate his complaint, but I find it hard to get as worked up about it as him.

Of course he should behave himself in proper way and avoid such kind of situation at least if camera is on but anyway I will still insisted it's porn and we just can't take all situations seriously. I bet most of us personally would do it with those girls completely different and with respect and give them great pleasure etc etc etc .

Kriss1986 wrote:

avanfurwet wrote:^ Yeah, IMO this one minor misdemeanor isn't enough to hang Brooklyn. It was an example used by Vulture to illustrate his complaint, but I find it hard to get as worked up about it as him.

Of course he should behave himself in proper way and avoid such kind of situation at least if camera is on but anyway I will still insisted it's porn and we just can't take all situations seriously. I bet most of us personally would do it with those girls completely different and with respect and give them great pleasure etc etc etc .

I agree it's porn and not made for the actresses' pleasure. If she has fun it's better of course and makes for a better movie IMO. But not everything she's asked to do by the director will be for her enjoyment. And the director and editors chose to leave the Brooklyn hand swatting in the scene which will annoy Vulture and maybe please some other viewers. Personally I don't care because for me it's such a tiny little detail. Even if Brooklyn did act like an ass in this case he didn't harm or endanger the girl and IMO did little to change the mood of the scene.

So, unless new evidence is posted for discussion, I think it's case closed.

avanfurwet wrote:

Kriss1986 wrote:

avanfurwet wrote:^ Yeah, IMO this one minor misdemeanor isn't enough to hang Brooklyn. It was an example used by Vulture to illustrate his complaint, but I find it hard to get as worked up about it as him.

Of course he should behave himself in proper way and avoid such kind of situation at least if camera is on but anyway I will still insisted it's porn and we just can't take all situations seriously. I bet most of us personally would do it with those girls completely different and with respect and give them great pleasure etc etc etc .

I agree it's porn and not made for the actresses' pleasure. If she has fun it's better of course and makes for a better movie IMO. But not everything she's asked to do by the director will be for her enjoyment. And the director and editors chose to leave the Brooklyn hand swatting in the scene which will annoy Vulture and maybe please some other viewers. Personally I don't care because for me it's such a tiny little detail. Even if Brooklyn did act like an ass in this case he didn't harm or endanger the girl and IMO did little to change the mood of the scene.

So, unless new evidence is posted for discussion, I think it's case closed.

Yes I agree as you said it was "misdemeanor" in contrast to ZZ action with Nikki Benz which was "felony", so we should still be happy that girls are paired with Tonny. In comparison with Tonny T. our Tonny is prude .

avanfurwet wrote:I agree it's porn and not made for the actresses' pleasure. If she has fun it's better of course and makes for a better movie IMO. But not everything she's asked to do by the director will be for her enjoyment. And the director and editors chose to leave the Brooklyn hand swatting in the scene which will annoy Vulture and maybe please some other viewers. Personally I don't care because for me it's such a tiny little detail. Even if Brooklyn did act like an ass in this case he didn't harm or endanger the girl and IMO did little to change the mood of the scene.

It did change the mood of the scene. That's the whole point. It went from all 3 participants having a great time to just the 2 men having a great time and a "battle of wills" developing on screen. How much more of a change of mood do you want?

And as you yourself have already said, if the hand swatting pleases any viewers then they really need to take a long hard look at themselves.

TheVulture wrote:
It did change the mood of the scene. That's the whole point. It went from all 3 participants having a great time to just the 2 men having a great time and a "battle of wills" developing on screen. How much more of a change of mood do you want?

Obviously I don't want a change of mood. I just didn't see it in the trailer which is all I saw.
From your description it doesn't sound like much of a drama, but without seeing the scene I don't know.

TheVulture wrote:And as you yourself have already said, if the hand swatting pleases any viewers then they really need to take a long hard look at themselves.

Did I? I don't remember saying that.

I think if a scene actually calls for it then hand swatting is fine. Some may like mild sadism/pleasure denial. However, I wouldn't care for that type of scene.
If a scene doesn't call for it then IMO the actor is being an ass, but nothing more, and the director should intervene and get the scene back on track.

You said this:

"Some posters on this forum seem to actively seek out scenes where a girl appears hurt or distressed. It seems to make them excited.
To me they just seem like inadequate little boys enjoying pulling wings off butterflies.
Which is sad."

Which I thought was a very good summation of the whole thing.

Then you seemed to backtrack and suggest it's all something of nothing.

TheVulture wrote:You said this:

"Some posters on this forum seem to actively seek out scenes where a girl appears hurt or distressed. It seems to make them excited.
To me they just seem like inadequate little boys enjoying pulling wings off butterflies.
Which is sad."

Which I thought was a very good summation of the whole thing.

Then you seemed to backtrack and suggest it's all something of nothing.

I thought it was a good summation too, about girls appearing hurt or distressed.
But I didn't say " if the hand swatting pleases any viewers then they really need to take a long hard look at themselves."
And I don't think hand swatting has anything to do with hurting or distressing a girl. I think hand swatting is silly and a bit lame, but not really a big thing. Just IMO.
I guess we differ about what constitutes "distressed". I only saw an edited trailer but Luna didn't appear distressed to me.
To me "distressed" was Angie Moon's reaction when Chris Strokes (I think) whacked her across the chops in Mexico. For me, that was pulling the wings off a butterfly.

Interesting discussion!
First of all I have to say I didnt watch this scene thus I can oly relay on Vultures description.
Reading OP first I though: "Gosh, what the hell is Brooklyn doing?! What an asshole!"
But than to be honest I know Brooklyn as an actor knowing exactly what he does and often adhering best at the directors intentions when others let themselves go.
Thus maybe it was just part of GIO's script, maybe it set a mood, a mood of denial, of encating male suppremacy in a playful porn fantasy way, whatever. If its that, so what is wrong then? It would just show that Brooklyn as well as Luna play their part really fine, that they are good actors.
This I say, supposing Giorgio wanted eactly what happened and Vulture critizes as it doenst fit his personal porn needs and fetishes he's looking for al LP.

IF, however, Luna vs. BBC had a genuin joyful setting, than Brooklyn just did shit, dont know why, but than its for sure very disrespectful against Luna.

Finally: Joy has different forms and all actors/actresses involved do first and formost a job for money. This said the more they enjoy the sex as well as the fetish and role they enact on set the better a scene usually turns out. Sales rates are still another thing, as a lot of it is based on less demanding porn users.
This said fetishes still define a lot of the sales rate, often. Thus if denial is the fetish and that scene sells good, than fine. If equal joy for all is the set and it sells good than most users havent watched that scene as throughfully as Vulture has.

Last but not least: Please dont take porn too serious! Its just part of entertainment... and sure hasnt really much in common with real life relationships.
(What has to be taken serious is on set production standards, though. But here I am not aware of any complaint of Luna, certainly not about Brooklyn.)

Btw, the scene we are talking about about at the point OP decribes:


Luna rubbing her clit while DP-ed by Mike (anchor) and Brooklyn (upper stud) in GIO241.

Thanks dap-addict. Interesting input and good to hear someone else's point of view.

It's a decent post for sure.

However, if female pleasure denial is now a fetish then I'm afraid porn is in a sorry state. You cannot simply frame every new development within porn as a "fetish" by way of validation/excuse. This happens way too often on these forums.

Secondly, I can't take seriously the idea that because Luna hasn't complained (or vocally enough that we as mere consumers would know about it) then she can't have had an issue with it. That simply doesn't stack up with me. Female porn stars - and particularly inexperienced ones such as Luna - have so much to lose by lodging complaints about their male co-stars that it seems instinctively sensible to suspect that - excepting extreme circumstances - they simply put up with a ton of minor bulls--- that they don't like in order to get on in the industry.

That ultimately is the point here. I never said that Luna was abused, nor distressed, nor any of these extreme things; merely that Brooklyn (and Giorgio by virtue of selecting him and keeping the offending sequence) introduced some entirely unnecessary bulls--- into what was otherwise a very good scene. And that by doing so they've possibly placed a barrier between Luna and her continued enjoyment of porn. At the very least, they've quite likely made her cynical to the point that she'll be less likely to step onto a porn set with 100% faith in her male co-stars and just abandon herself to the scene. And that ultimately is what I want Luna to do, unequivocally and without a moment's thought.

This isn't totally altruistic, btw. I do like to think that my stance comes at least partly from the fact that I'm a decent person but also this relaxed abandoned state I want Luna to be in is the state most likely to get me off in her future scenes.

Finally, I just don't think that any of the great porn stars of "the golden era" ever had to put up with this. The likes of Julie Silver, Claudia Rossi, Sandra Romain, Sandra Demarco etc. all used to dazzle from the screen exactly, I think, because they were relaxed enough with their male co-stars to know that it wasn't an "I'm the boss" scenario and that wanton, filthy sex was going to be the only outcome. That's ultimately the problem for me. Porn is regressing and going into dark and dangerous places and all its' consumers are doing is inventing niches to assist. It's not good enough.

Does all of this make sense? Am I the only one who thinks that these minor points do have a major impact on LP's work? Does no-one else acknowledge the psychological aspect of porn?

At the end of the day, if Brooklyn/Giorgio did what they did in order to squeeze their scene into the latest niche of "female pleasure denial" then, well, words fail me and I'm obviously in the wrong place to find great porn (IMHO). Yet again. Oh well.

Yes I get your point of view and yes it shouldn't never happen. From one side we can assume that sometimes "minor points do have a major impact" - as you said, but from other side doing a big rumor and saying Tony is bastard would be exaggerated - I know you didn't said it but still we have here conversation about whole situation. I'm glad you pay attention for details, it means this girls isn't indifferent for you which is good reaction. But still we can't forget it's a porn and people involved in scene playing their roles in accordance with scenario - usaual. I don't know the details of scenario but I know we should be very carefull with statements like "At the end of the day, if Brooklyn/Giorgio did what they did in order to squeeze their scene into the latest niche of "female pleasure denial"". If you have some doubts you can always send PM to Mr Giorgio and ask for comments. Anyway I hope in the future similar situation will never occur.

TheVulture wrote:It's a decent post for sure.

However, if female pleasure denial is now a fetish then I'm afraid porn is in a sorry state. You cannot simply frame every new development within porn as a "fetish" by way of validation/excuse. This happens way too often on these forums.

All kinds of weird (to me) stuff are fetishes. They don't need to be validated or excused just because you don't like them or you think porn is in a sorry state.

TheVulture wrote:Secondly, I can't take seriously the idea that because Luna hasn't complained (or vocally enough that we as mere consumers would know about it) then she can't have had an issue with it. That simply doesn't stack up with me. Female porn stars - and particularly inexperienced ones such as Luna - have so much to lose by lodging complaints about their male co-stars that it seems instinctively sensible to suspect that - excepting extreme circumstances - they simply put up with a ton of minor bulls--- that they don't like in order to get on in the industry.

Anybody, anywhere, who ever worked at anything for a living has endured varying amounts of shit from bosses, employees, co-workers, customers, suppliers, bureaucrats, etc. etc. Actresses are no different. If Luna got through the scene without being physically or emotionally harmed or put to unreasonable risk or fear of harm then IMO it's just another day at the office.

TheVulture wrote:That ultimately is the point here. I never said that Luna was abused, nor distressed, nor any of these extreme things; merely that Brooklyn (and Giorgio by virtue of selecting him and keeping the offending sequence) introduced some entirely unnecessary bulls--- into what was otherwise a very good scene. And that by doing so they've possibly placed a barrier between Luna and her continued enjoyment of porn. At the very least, they've quite likely made her cynical to the point that she'll be less likely to step onto a porn set with 100% faith in her male co-stars and just abandon herself to the scene. And that ultimately is what I want Luna to do, unequivocally and without a moment's thought.

This isn't totally altruistic, btw. I do like to think that my stance comes at least partly from the fact that I'm a decent person but also this relaxed abandoned state I want Luna to be in is the state most likely to get me off in her future scenes.

You're saying that what you saw in this scene was a big deal. I haven't seen it so I can't really comment. I don't even know how long the swatting continued during a 50 minute scene. Maybe it was acted as part of the scene. Maybe Brooklyn just decided it would be a really good idea to do a little swatting. But it seems possible that you've taken this more to heart than Luna.

You're saying "unnecessary bullshit" i.e. hand swatting spoiled the scene for you. But some others may like that stuff. Some may prefer the actress not to appear happy and abandoned. Others may not care or even notice. Yours is not the only opinion nor are you necessarily "right" just because it's what you want to see. It's just your opinion about a movie made by actors for entertainment. Personally I prefer happy girls in my porn, but I don't expect everyone else to fall in line with my preferences.

TheVulture wrote:Finally, I just don't think that any of the great porn stars of "the golden era" ever had to put up with this. The likes of Julie Silver, Claudia Rossi, Sandra Romain, Sandra Demarco etc. all used to dazzle from the screen exactly, I think, because they were relaxed enough with their male co-stars to know that it wasn't an "I'm the boss" scenario and that wanton, filthy sex was going to be the only outcome. That's ultimately the problem for me. Porn is regressing and going into dark and dangerous places and all its' consumers are doing is inventing niches to assist. It's not good enough.

That would be the same "golden era" during which the "meatholes" site was operating. And Max Hardcore. And others. IMO Porn is not regressing, nor progressing. Like the world's oldest profession, it never changes, just the distribution technology changes and degrees of religious, government and societal restraint ebb and flow.

TheVulture wrote:Does all of this make sense? Am I the only one who thinks that these minor points do have a major impact on LP's work? Does no-one else acknowledge the psychological aspect of porn?

At the end of the day, if Brooklyn/Giorgio did what they did in order to squeeze their scene into the latest niche of "female pleasure denial" then, well, words fail me and I'm obviously in the wrong place to find great porn (IMHO). Yet again. Oh well.

Different websites sell different flavours and moods of porn, from vanilla cheescake to the truly horrible and disturbing.
Personally I enjoy the scenes at "Tushy" and sister sites. To me the girls on those sites seem pretty and happy, which is what I like.
Other posters here may diss those sites as too soft or mainstream, but if you haven't already seen them, why not have a look? Maybe you'll like them.

avanfurwet wrote:Some may prefer the actress not to appear happy and abandoned.

In what way should porn be attempting to serve these people?

Genuine question.

TheVulture wrote:

avanfurwet wrote:Some may prefer the actress not to appear happy and abandoned.

In what way should porn be attempting to serve these people?

Genuine question.

Same way any industry will attempt to serve any market segment big enough to attract their attention. Offer them what they want at a price calculated to maximise profit. Why do you ask?

There is a certain anti-porner tone creaping in silently here.
This said I really liked Vulture to recall all those Prague Golden Age scenes with Sandra de Marco, Claudia Rossi, Luiza de Marco etc.
I wouldnt wanna just indulge in a smooth nostalgic feel, though, the more as it was also the time of Chico Wang at Diabolic and some hard US-edge also with Eurogirls at RLD. Also it seems way too easy just to blame the fans for not shareing the classical fetshes you do, not beeing smooth enough etc. Sure LP wa never about vanilla porn or any other white washed glamour note hideing often more hardships on set than we'd like to know. LP on contrary treats the girls fair and is clear about the rules and requirements.

Disclaimer again: I still havnt watched OP scene (GIO241) but I also dont wanna exclude Brooklyn just fellowed a script and also Luna and the more she knew beforehand whats all about. Finally sure this is not the right place for patrionalizing fake-feminism displaying chauvinsm and supprime feels pretending to fight it.

dap-addict wrote:There is a certain anti-porner tone creaping in silently here.
This said I really liked Vulture to recall all those Prague Golden Age scenes with Sandra de Marco, Claudia Rossi, Luiza de Marco etc.
I wouldnt wanna just indulge in a smooth nostalgic feel, though, the more as it was also the time of Chico Wang at Diabolic and some hard US-edge also with Eurogirls at RLD. Also it seems way too easy just to blame the fans for not shareing the classical fetshes you do, not beeing smooth enough etc. Sure LP wa never about vanilla porn or any other white washed glamour note hideing often more hardships on set than we'd like to know. LP on contrary treats the girls fair and is clear about the rules and requirements.

Disclaimer again: I still havnt watched OP scene (GIO241) but I also dont wanna exclude Brooklyn just fellowed a script and also Luna and the more she knew beforehand whats all about. Finally sure this is not the right place for patrionalizing fake-feminism displaying chauvinsm and supprime feels pretending to fight it.

As you said it's not appropriate place to trash Tony. We do not exactly know how agreements/scenario looks like and also we do not know how actress was feeling and what she though after mentioned situation. Maybe the rumor here is far away bigger than it should be. Once again if someone here have some doubts maybe first should contact Mr Giorgio via PM and just ask .

avanfurwet wrote:Same way any industry will attempt to serve any market segment big enough to attract their attention. Offer them what they want at a price calculated to maximise profit. Why do you ask?

Why do I ask why porn should not be serving the needs of males who want to see females in discomfort? Is that not rhetorical enough?

By your reasoning porn should be looking to service the needs of those who like to see women being physically assaulted. At least, if the market segment is big enough, that is.

The complete absence of a moral stance in your argument is exactly what I'm talking about.

Furthermore, the whole concept of pornography is one of voyeuristic pleasure of others' sexual pleasure. When it moves away from that it simply ceases to be pornography and becomes something else. Something infinitely uglier.

Anyway, a positive development in all of this is that I've rejoined Private for the first time in ages. First port of call a brilliant mini gang bang scene with Luna, where not only do they allow her to play with her clit during DP but one of her male co-stars plays with it for her. Good lad. Female pleasure maximisation - presumably a new "niche" then? (although I seem to have spent 10+ years watching this kind of thing). Count me in anyway. Some things never get old.

OP is a cuck.

Keep this social justice warrior bullshit off of LP.