Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnforcer
Different porn appeals to different people. I had a girl pick up a DVD at the show and ask me and a bunch of other people if I'd watch it and my immedaite reply was "if I was in the mood for that type of porn yeah, I'd watch it." and most everyone agreed with my statement.
You and your boyfriend may not have been their target market. Maybe it was an amateur style DVD and you were looking for more slick style studio stuff or vice versa. Different porn sells to different people.
There are SOOOO many different styles of porn that sell and, of course, some are better sellers than others. It's the way it is and thank goodness for that because the day one porn fits all is the day this biz dies. Fortunately that day will never come because there are always different sexual tastes out there to cater too.
|
I'm down for just about anything from Jenna and Ava Rose to Belladonna and Sasha Gray - it's not that, believe me! I had a whole conversation Friday night with a bunch of folks about "porn for women" (yeh, I commented on the dead thread too) and I argue that "porn for women" is "porn that doesn't suck." It's that simple. I like amatuer - I am a huge Abby Winters fan - and I get down on slick production (Ninn Worx makes me smile) too, so it's not even a matter of
that. It's simply that all the talent sucked monkeys for spooge.
It's not hot when the stares at the camera like it's about to bite her and stuffs a set of beads up her ass. It's less hot when a guy enters the frame and spits on her twat and slaps it before stuffing his meat in, while she's half upside down and trying desperately to rub her clit into something resembling interest.
It's just not hot, anyway you cut it.
And you know, I get the arguement that you've gotta take talent where you can in this business, but holy crap, y'all - there are so many single girl sites out there,
some of them have to have some talent for looking like they are actually interested in what's going on below their waists.