avanfurwet wrote:Because I'm too fucking old.
And the pretty girls I remember from my past were all natural.
Dig!
There is a big difference in emotional reaction from the 70's porn I was exposed to, compared to what high-def. images evoke of today.
The "tramp stamp" back in the day had more of bad/biker-girl symbolism, usually accompanied by the raunchy/harder sex acts that were rarer (Like DP) and a bald pussy had extra kink.
Having hair-down-there is not a turn-off for me per se. When I want to look at Hirsute or very-hairy beavers, I go to other places for that than here and usually translate better in still photos than motion anyway.
Even if an LP model has a full muff but is cropped down so I can see all the goods during the act, it's all good. I don't think it makes the pussy 'dirty' looking like to some. Yet again, I can understand how people don't like seeing hair.
However, I would think a guy who usually has hair, but is completely turned off by female hair: has a bald pussy fetish. And that can be taken by some...for just being into pubescent girls (which is totally untrue for the general population).
It's more about the aesthetics of the pussy itself for me. I may be totally enthralled with a model until I see her perineum area. Being stuffed up suddenly changes that though.
A less than good looking or attractive model to me, might just have a more aesthetically appealing vag/asshole, tits, body-type and form etc, so may be more of a turn on at that moment. It never really an issue for me though.
Many "ugly-ducklings" have made the best pornstars over the years, perhaps not in sales....but to in regards to their sexual performance and prowess and influence to the industry.
I mean come on...prolapsing isn't exactly, um... pretty .... but I like it see sometimes, for some reason. And not all girls look good (from personal perspective) doing it . If your just into prolapsing, it does not matter what the model looks like.
I would like to see all my favourite models naturally hairy as well, just to compare the difference..If you're someone like me who enjoys eating pussy, we're gonna have to accept that your woman may want to take a shaving break.
It is healthy for the porn industry to have hair come back as trend now and then. I treat it as being akin to the rare shave kitty from the 60/70's, pussy hair can be titillating in today's bald hair-phobic porn climate.
Tattoos and body mods that don't accentuate/seem-to-suit a model (according to the voyeur), can definitely take away from attraction and appeal depending on personal natural-tastes,. Some people have tattoo fetishes, so any kind of tattoo would be needed to get excited.
But if the scene provides a person with what they want and desire at the moment, the costuming tends to disappear.
Why bother watching a scene with Leigh Raven if her tongue is bothersome....It's not like the same sex act can't be found with the raunchier Bonnie Rotten...some are attracted to and prefer Leigh's body type vs. Bonnie's with them both being adorned with tats. Their mannerisms can make the difference regardless of appearance.
I personally could do without facial tats, but hey.....if the scene is hot, I can get past them....or I just won't be bothered with viewing it.
I can get past them on a female star, even if I don't find the tats particularly becoming on them. So I understand the lack of attraction they could create.
I personally can't 'relate' to and/or have difficulties putting myself in-the-shoes of certain male models: because of their kind/abundance of tattoos.
Tattoos aside, the 'best' female stars seem to enjoy fucking (personally) unattractive studs, as much as the aesthetically good-looking ones. Some cocks are not exactly pleasant to look at after all.
Which is at the end of the day...hopeful for the rest of us lol!
Skinny to me is: the slightly-underweight side of a slim/thin body type...Different than the 'skinny jeans' fashion.
But technically: voluptuous and/or bigger-boned woman can lose so much mass, that they can become skinny for their body type and they start to look unhealthy.
Obese used to be defined as 15lbs+ (as Object_O pointed out: body > fat ratio) and out of shape 30yrs ago, especially regarding people who naturally have fleshy/slower metabolism body types. Now obese is improperly used pop-culturally for the extreme side of fat.
Any woman who can handle putting on, or lose weight is my 'ideal' range. I'm guilty of the: I wish she was just a little fleshier, or less buxom.
Having flat-titties and undefined hips in-of-itself, does not translate into a female being pubescent and certainly not less feminine. Having enhanced breasts doesn't equate into womanly.
Not being attracted to 'formless' female model is completely understandable, but immediately viewing her as a boy instead is a completely different issue all together. I see vaginas as girls and penises as boys, regardless of how developed they are.
If an 18yr or older's, undefined female body is making a person think of little pubescent girls or boys, some soul searching needs to be had.
I'm not 20 any more....So ya, (especially in soft-core) there are female models that have developed bodies, but very young faces/eyes that can and should put me off, no more than an unrefined body with the same young face though....Isn't every model is supposed to be 18yr+ old regardless of how they appear?
There is of course a wide range of androgyny-like features. A female with a well defined 'womanly' body, can have masculine facial features and/or expressions that might set off the voyeur.
As a Canuck, it's not as if female, eastern-block Olympic athletes were the cream of the crop in comeliness or femininity 40 years ago. Things have changed quite drastically over a couple generations and Eurasia has 'softened' up drastically.
North-American females may be becoming less-comely or edgier to Europeans and eastern-block residents. But I think that is more due to differences in cultural bigotry and personality types portrayed, than appearance.
North Americans seem to appreciate Eurasians more than the other way around.
The 90's and 2000's may very well have been the 'best' of eras for porn (from across both oceans): This was the period that started to create standards of hardcore and pushed the envelope....but alas, no hi-definition..and those old scenes regardless of how exciting, stimulating and still up-to-date according to today's sexual content standards...are obviouly visually lacking something now.
I wish I could view my favourite 70/80's old-school Swedish Erotica/Euro-raunch DP scene in Hi-def!
Hi-definition porn influences the fashion world, more than the fashion world influences porn. and now we can see every 'flaw' if it's not hidden under make-up effects. I think those covered up idiosyncrasies can sometimes add greatly to the model if left unmasked.
Bad make-up is just bad make-up no matter what. It should subtly highlight features not cover up. If it doesn't suit her, it's been done poorly, regardless of how extreme or subtle it is. Most of the exceptional models, don't need make-up at all
We are seeing the next evolution to detail and visual stimulation.
Scenes that are white-washed and/or poorly filmed and/or have clicky noises (Made from shirt-buttons or wrist-ware?) and/or lackluster energy, can make flixxx less than what they could have been; regardless of one's attraction to the model and/or how amazing the sex acts performed may or may not be.
That's no different from any media format; When I watch hard-core, I want my sensations to be almost intensely-overwhelmed. I want to immerse myself in the moment like I'm filming and/or performing in it myself. I want clarity and definition.
I personally think that the image quality of the recent Mr. Anderson's/Georgio's Labs and the AmericanAnal vids is what LP should be striving for, that's the direction porn is going.
They vastly improve the visual side of things, presenting an improved/more realistic contrast and the clarity is night and day, almost making the other scenes not filmed like that at LP, seeming to be like the old films of yesteryear in overall visual experience; they just happen to be 'hi-def' and 16:9.
Often it isn't the model or sex scene, it's what has become a less-than-par visual experience as a whole....because we been spoiled and have glimpsed the evolution of visual stimulation. The sooner LP accommodates that visual platform and quality as a whole, the more lucrative it would be by catering to a broader audience.
Don't get me wrong, an amazingly performed scene that is captured, is still amazing regardless, but that's not what I'm referring to. AmericaAnal has added to LP as a leader in visual photo quality to the site. Take heed and progress.
I'd outfit all the pornographers with new gear if I could afford it myself.
Regardless of what turns me on, I'd rather see John Strong's avg-sized hard-on preforming well like he tends to do with some gusto, than a not-quite-fully-erect monster of a cock that struggles to stay hard...only penetrating a little and hardly thrusting, therefore wasting it's visual potential.
I can watch large toy porn if it was just about seeing a butthole or Vag stretched to it's limits. I can only truly be completely turned on with the big guns, if the female can handle them with relative ease and the guys aren't struggling to stay hard.
More and more these days, the videos seem to slip into the homo-erotic-gangbang-dick-fetish territory and less about the woman.
If a model is more comfortable with smaller dicks and therefore ... can handle deeper penetration (even while totally airtight) which then leads to a more intense scene and I assume...all around pleasure for the female ... that's who she should be working with in general.
When a woman can comfortably take a deeper penetrating fuck, even it isn't the most animalistic...it translates to relating to her pleasure and intimacy....that simply is a better quality scene;
If I was to share my wife in a gangbang, it's not because I want to see tip-fucking or lackluster efforts from the guys. Don't pound into her like you couldn't give a shit about her cervix and don't rip her open...but keep it steady and fuck her, give her time to feel something deeper than just being penetrated.
When the guys and girls need a break, keep it slow but steady...you got at least 4-6 inches on avg. of vaginal depth to work with....fucking use it!
I also don't think people need to read "Monster Cock" consistently in a titles at LP, when most of the male Models are already bigger than the rest of us here I'm-sure. But is it really a monster if it isn't full on rock hard? They are only the big dicks of the already well-endowed LP crew in relativity.
Viewing women struggling to endure the acts in her scene with obvious and overly, prolonged and/or overwhelming discomfort (and we do this see here frequently) to the point that she is just a woman there....as if any woman would do.... as long as she looked relatively appealing.
and then being turned on by said examples, is not really viewing porn for the sex, most definitely not for the beauty and excitement of female pleasure. It's more on the domination and homo-erotic side of perverseness. Which is cool for some, but not the general population who delves into the darker side of porn.
I don't mind that myself sometimes, I suppose......I do after all want to be comfortable naked around other men and not feel judged as well.
However, stars like Anna de Ville not only obviously can take it, but also seems to enjoy being able to handle it.
Even if she's just 'laying there' plugged up and being used...shes more involved somehow, more than gaping holes and the pistons deeply penetrating her.
Being outnumbered and overwhelmed doesn't freeze her up like so many others. Her pleasure or want of it, appears to be involved as well. That's what truly makes or breaks a scene.
The women in the older Sinplex movies generally didn't seem to be as stressed in their scenes, as with the females that come and go through today's LP format. Whether it was double-anally plugged, Classic Dped, taking it in the ass or just simply in the Vag, they still seemed more involved instead of just a piece in the scene.
More than two or three guys and the scene starts to stop being about the woman. She starts to have to focus more on everything else and less upon herself letting go. That doesn't mean that some gangbangs aren't great mind you.
Girls who can take it hard and deep (especially in the ass) are the monster cock girls....there's no need to advertise the men as such.
This comes from 70/80's Hall of Famer: Sharon Mitchell ... to paraphrase:
There is a distinct difference, which often translates on screen between a female star who is just doing it for the money and/or experience, and one who does sex-work for the sheer enjoyment and pleasure of it. The exceptional do it because of the later with all the benefits of the former.
In other-words....The superstars and sometimes even the one-hit-wonder gems do and express more than just being able to take it.
People aren't any better at fucking now than they were 30yrs ago, the films aren't any harder in nature, it's all been done now...but women ARE opening up to be more sexually expressive when it comes to their own pleasure and skills.
I think LP can do better and be improved with less dickcentric focus and shift to allowing their women to let loose with their sexual prowess in those regards, especially when it comes to the Noobies.
Still mix it up, but with fewer outrageous gangbangs, less DAPs unless the model can properly handle it, more classic 2on1 & 2on2 DPs and relatively frequent 1on1/ FFM like retro Sineplex's highly successful genre used to be.
And more rev/cowgirl, with the models off their knees, squatting down, in control, working that cock for as long as they can. That's what the monster cock is really only useful for.
Dimming the lights and using spots in a white room may improve contrast, but I think the general consensus is: to improve video quality, that can go a long way to begin with.
But to say the girls are getting worse....I think not.
.
Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2020 6:11 pm
?