If he absolutely has to be jacked off, then 2 and/or 3. I prefer it to be more "natural" though -- the guy aims and fires freely, not stand there and risk pulling a muscle in his arm or dislocate his shoulder.
Monahan has a good point here, but I think if most guys came too easily then they would not be able to last that long with the knockout babes, or even the "average" ones, so sometimes they really have to sprint their way to the finish.
One question: if the guy climaxes really quickly is it possible, subconsciously, he just doesn't like her and that his body is just trying to speed up so he can leave?
Yeah, seriously, who is Uncle Jessie (I am trying hard not to think of "Full House")?
Plus, what exactly, besides gender, makes someone a "dirty old man"? If an eighteen year old girl does a scene with a thirty-six year old -- twice her age -- does that make him a dirty old man? I don't think so. In fact, I think it just makes him lucky, nothing else. Men are pretty much "dirty" regardless of their age, or the age difference between partners, so I really don't care. But if a woman fucks a younger man, does that then make her a dirty old woman?
I think it's easier for us younger users to complain about older men, but read Drooler's reply, and you might understand, or maybe he is just a dirty old dog instead...
I agree with Ik2fireone here; I start reading PU more than daily newspaper. At least PU doesn't tell me what hot new pill I should take, or what new "crisis" or "epidemic" to worry about.
I don't think I have been a 100% disappointed because I have usually been looking for something or someone specific, only to join and find little to none of what I am looking for. I have been lucky in that I at least find a little to enjoy.
Sometimes it is just a site's overall approach to making porn that I don't like; too soft, Photoshopped, amateur, fake, the list goes on... So even if they have good, maybe even mind-blowingly great content, it has been captured in a way that just is not my fancy.
I think this is a fear of mine Wittyguy, though I guess it's better than her leaving me for another dude...
What people do on camera and what they do in real life are probably not one and the same; just because these girls are "total sluts" onscreen doesn't mean they just screw guy after guy in their personal lives (though it might help their acting), and just because they are lovin' it with girls doesn't make them lesbians either.
Guys on the other hand do not seem so flexible, or at least as secure, to just play gay. I think the nature of porn makes girls -- especially newer ones -- more comfortable trying things with another girl than with a guy, whereas guys seem far more comfortable with just a girl than even a boy-girl-boy scene.
It's all a part of the overall fantasy aspect; a primarily male audience simply enjoys girl-girl action even if the girls are not really lesbos or even bi.
I can't say I care too much, but shots to the eyes were talked about in ramscrota's recent cumshots thread.
There is a "Pink Eye" video series where the objective is to specifically target a (usually) reluctantly held open eye. The whole point there is to not have anything protecting the girls eyes.
I occasionally see girls with glasses -- which can make for a hot studious look -- but I hate it when they splatter the glasses. It looks awkward and mean for the girl, like some sort of dumb Jackass-style porn prank. Plus, it always makes me wonder if they're the girl's glasses because she would then have to go and sanitize them afterward (boiling, a strong acid, etc.).
It's dirty work, and everyone has eyelids anyways.
Yes, too high and too low, despite how predictable ratings become (big chests, blondes always getting high marks), I am still surprised how often looks alone will get the ratings. I have seen quite a few models who I thought had incredible looks, and then when I watch their videos I wish I had never see them in the first place. Sometimes a model won't even do that well in a photoshoot either, so I never even watch her videos.
Attitude counts too, so just being "super hot" doesn't cut it for me. When I do really like a girl's looks it usually one or two things that that never fair too well in polls (like non-blonde hair color, or normal size breasts).
Ratings are not really a big deal until they affect content release; that is, if a model is not rated too well and less of her content is uploaded to a site. ALS Scan does this, and I think it hurts them because you never get to see a lot of girls' work after they been judged "not popular enough."
I would say "None" because it's the girl that makes something "attractive," not the device.
I have seen quite a few videos with girls using the Hitachi Wand, that damn personal "massager" that looks like an over sized hair dryer with a long cord and makes lots of noise. It's such an eyesore by itself that I am always amazed how hot a girl can look using it.
Oh, and how are fingers and tongues considered toys? The FCC doesn't need any more suggestions on what to censor, plus moral crusaders worldwide have enough trouble keeping up with the parts of the body they already consider "filthy."
I've only directly submitted to ALS Scan, but they are about the only site I trust, plus it's not as if they are some overseas "company" thousands of miles away that you may never be able to contact.
No, but I hope I do in the future: that is, seeing someone I know personally on the web and getting to personally know someone I have seen on the web (but preferably the girls).
Uh, sometimes...but I am sure if I was running a porn site (if would be girls only material) I would be getting so "involved" in my work that I am sure I would frequently lose pics and videos.
Most of the time though I think it is a bunch of hype; just like all the other so-called limited time/collector's edition/previously unreleased junk that gets promoted. Come on, why would all these guys (and girls) shoot stuff just to never release it or "lose" it?
I generally like things outside the mainstream, though that's not my sole reason for enjoying porn, but it's still a nice aspect. The more mainstream it gets, the less I tend to like it. That's why people like Jenna Jameson, or things like Playboy (if you consider it porn), just don't appeal to me. They are too popular to have much meaning or pleasure.
Two? Probably a lot more, unfortunately. I would consider the lifestyle, or lack thereof, that Playboy has tried to effect -- from the breasts, to the materialism, and beyond -- all worse than the "harder" porn that I enjoy over their magazine.
I lived in Germany for a few years as well, and saw quite a bit of nudity displayed: billboards, weekly magazines, TV, film. But it was almost always for the purpose of selling some product or another, so it wasn't really sexual, just purely commercial.
Here we use sex, implied or otherwise, to sell just about everything, all without the benefit of full nudity. It gets ridiculous how we will be up in arms, in a sort of Puritan way, about how something goes a little too far with the sex or the nudity. No one cares about being enslaved to a product or company, but hint at a little nudity and suddenly the apocalypse is nigh!
I would have to disagree with Denner here; I like a lot of solo porn -- focusing on one model at a time -- and it is intended to be porn and nothing else.
Even though Playboy may be seen as nudity and nothing more, its intent still seems very sexual in nature, and not "art." I doubt many subscribe to or read it simply because it has good photography, or care deeply about what the models say. Yes, it is very mild by what creative perverts dream up today, but I don't think that suddenly makes it much more than good ol' smut.
The problem, of course, is that they publish a lot more than just a few photos of nude women every month, but whole articles, interviews, etc, very unrelated to porn. Honestly, I can remember more of what I read than what girls I saw last time I looked at a Playboy.
Recently, I had a 2 day trial and forgot what time I had originally signed up at and canceled with about 30 minutes left until a rebill.
If a site ends the membership when it would have run out (like they all should) and not the second you cancel it, then I will try and cancel early so I don't put it off and forget. How convenient that so many sites offer instantaneous access, but it can take days to "process" a cancellation!
They now offer a 2-day trial, full access, for $4.
A lot cheaper than one month, and even cheaper than VideoBox (okay, a lot shorter too), but it is a cheap way to join and download some videos that you may not find elsewhere.
WARNING: Make sure to UNCHECK the box on the signup page for the Brazzer's Network trial (1 day for $1, then recurs at a healthy $40 monthly). You shouldn't have to scroll any, but it can be very easy to miss, as it is in the same size and style font as everything else.
I have bought a few in the past that came with full length DVDs with them, though these are quite rare. They are good for computer-free situations when you need a quick fix.
Ahh! Hairy ape arm alert! Maybe's it just an extremely realistic wax figure. (Uh oh, weird prop idea.)
Actually, I really don't care about director's previews. In fact, they can make for some pretty hot photos. I just don't like it when there's a nice, relaxing solo masturbation video, and then some guy starts talking (and, really, who likes all the background talking?) and walks in.
Yeah, I emailed him and told him I wrote it. I sort of figured it would get posted, since he mentioned it last Friday.
Alex's response is what I was expecting, and ALS is proud of what they shoot, as well as how they do it (as they should be). If they weren't, all the girls they continue to select might not still be as shaved and hot as the ones were when they first started in the '90s.
I hate fake breasts and too much make-up equally, but pretty much all porn stars are wearing too much once they step in front of a camera.
But fake breasts really get too me because I might see a beautiful girl...then I see her breasts -- d'oh! I think I "got over" breasts about ten years ago because of this. We are so hung up on them that women end up thinking an A or B is a failing grade when it comes to size and see unnecessary surgery as the solution. Now, if I even have a preference, it's on the smaller size, since it almost guarantees the real thing.
I don't have much of a problem with tattoos, but they definitely have become way too trendy to considered anywhere close to "unique" -- today it's the rare model that doesn't have any. Plus, after a while they all end up looking the same: butterfly, flower, Chinese lettering; same handful of designs, different person.
I don't really mind lollipops and the things models do with them as long as they do not do it too much, or with every single model. She has a lollipop, alright, now move on.
I also forgot to mention the "meal" scenes, where a model "eats" a meal -- usually breakfast -- and spills something on herself or inserts some utensil handles; it is just too dumb and repetitive for me, and every one of these scenes ends up looking the same.
I love this site and what it produces, but they have been doing some things in the last few months that need to be changed:
1. No more guys in photos or videos. They used to be pretty good about this, but now with "full" photoset releases (bloopers and outtakes included) they also have the occasional male assistant in some photos. I understand they work for the site and therefore help make it what it is, but I don't think it would too hard to keep them truly behind the scenes, or at least out of frame.
2. Cut down on the lollipops and baby oil. Lollipops and baby oil have been used by a lot of their models since the '90s, but they seem to really overdo it now. At most, they should only have one scene with a single lollipop or baby oil.
3. "Guest" photosets and videos. These are pretty rare, but I am not sure why they are there, maybe for some promotion agreement. They have only been from 1By-Day, usually with ALS models, but bottom line: it is just not ALSScan.
There are some great things they have been doing lately, and they need to keep it up:
1. New HD vid format. They now release new vids in an additional 1920x1080 wmv format – huge files, but huge videos…very nice.
2. Classic model remasters. These are great, especially since older releases were pretty limited in quantity and quality compared to today.
3. Hard with the soft. They might just be a girls-only site, but their hardcore is just as hot as the soft, and hopefully they won’t stop shooting it.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
