|
How to foresee the success of a porn site (reflection between seriousness and irony)
|
Someone told me that I am as a witty as a man. They is wrong. The world is full of witty women. And the Anglo-saxon world is full of female comedians. Probably the catholic imprinting of our culture made unthinkable that a woman can use her intelligence for different purposes than learning to cook and possibly become a chef, apply bandages and maybe become a doctor or teach. All roles, anyway, that don't question the legitimacy of male supremacy over the culture. I have always liked wittiness since I started using language and reason, so I never found weird criticizing and mocking no matter what topics. Which includes also, for example, desecrate religion and treating porn as a mainstream topic: in both cases committing the crime of heresy, because both porn and religion must have their respective icon and stay there for opposite reasons: apparently the same muddy mainstream that would infringe the purity of religion would be in turn dirtied by the mud of porn.
Well, I don’t know the recipe for a porn website to succeed (nor I know whether there's one, if any), but for sure there's one for it to fail: filling the photosets with unessential, anticlimax pictures that seem to be taken just to ensure a minimum number of shoots per service.
As for what I'm used to see - I mean, as an average girls that looks for aestethics, consistency and (even though minimal) plausibility in a porn scene, the average porn producer must be convinced that the audience is made of people which sex taste is comparable at the most with that of the lower primates.
First of all: what's the point in publishing multiple closeups of male genitalia deeply rammed into female cavities (for the sake of the conversation is irrelevant whether it's about anal or vaginal cavity, or if the host cavity is welcoming only one male genitalia at time instead of two or more) like one weren't enough for good to illustrate the penetration? What's the point? Show us that the photographer is good? Remind us how to do, in case we haven't seen the previous photograph well? Don't the producers think that if the audience were satisfied enough by the closeups there wouldn't be any need to hire for new performers? That you could even hire ugly (male and female) models since it's not their faces that the photographer must focus to, but their crotches? Thus: closeups must be the very exception. Audience want to see full figure models because most of them want to see a nice actress engaging in sex. (and actors, too: as a female friend of mine says, without fair language "I don't want to see only a cock on the porn scene: If I wanted to see nothing but the cock, there's my hubby. I want to fantasize also on the stallion around that cock").
Second: gee, what a crappy lingerie. Not only it would be damping the sex drive of a lifetime inmate, but anyone with a barely better IQ than a sea cucumber's would sense that those stockings wouldn't have been sold even in the cheapest shop of the most bedraggled former Soviet republic. It's realistic a pair of stockings that rip apart ineluctably at the first tug? Now, apart from pretending a luxury that doesn't exist (and that kills the lust), it's the use of lingerie itself that's questionable, regardless of its cost, because it leads to several paradoxes: either in fiction or reality, would you really wear expensive stockings (or suggest to the audience that you're wearing expensive stockings) just to use it for longer than required (say, one second later than it's clear that the evening is going to turn into something funny that requires bare skin?) and ending up seeing them either ripped or spotted with male sperm during sex? Clearly no. Think to that: where does the used lingerie end up once finished the action? Either in the wash machine or in the garbage bin? Thus: no lingerie during sex. You don't wear it at home, thus nobody is going to believe that someone actually engages in sex with such garments that suggest "I can't afford expensive ones".
Third: my gosh, those shoes. Ok, I fall from high heels and the tallest shoes I wear are ballerinas in winter and flip flops in spring, summer and early fall, thus my point of view might seem biased. But, dear gentlemen, let's be honest. Would you REALLY go anywhere with a wife or a partner wearing such platform sandals that performers sometimes wear in their photo shots? Or wouldn't you be worried if she went to office, but even to the supermarket buying milk, with those shoes? Mind you, I am not talking about the idea that such piece of apparel suggest ("she wears pornlike platforms, she must be one chasing for cocks") but just the bad taste of it. They are ugly, unpractical, and when it comes to sex, even cumbersome and dangerous. Knowing women, who are good administrators and care for domestic economy, it's higly improbable that they engage in sex with stilettos that can rip the sheets or damage that lovely pink silk bedcover (well, we lesbians don't do, even if we don't care for satin sheets and use the economic sets bought at Ikea).
Summarizing: there's not a way to foresee the success of a porn website; nonetheless, my impression is that the ones that have abandoned, drastically reduced or even never adopted the abovementioned settings are the longest lasting ones.
Critics are welcome. Critics on the grammar too, but keep in mind that I'm not a native English speaker.
|
| |
| |
Posted on : May 1, 2020
|
| |
| |
Add Comment
|
|
|
Commented on Aug 25, 2020
@F4813nfr0mfr4nc3: Merci pour ton message, il a été apprécié.
@BigBob74: yes, but there must be a ground of realism: is it plausible a poolside scene where the performer wears black lingerie and black pumps? I never saw a girl wearing such for sunbathing :D
|
| |
|
|
Commented on Jun 3, 2020
Ok, here's my two cents. I actually agree with most of your points. Religion should never consider itself to be better than us mere mortals. There's an expression in German which basically says, you should brush your own doorstep, before you criticise another. So judging by all the skandals of the last years, the church had better shut up. I won't go into the pros and cons of religion itsself, just so much, that it's both positive and negative so follow something or someone blindly.
Then we come to the closeups. It really is idiotic, like you said. We want to see the bodies of men and women that attract us, not just two crotches going at it. Worst of all, those movies that cut directly from the warm up blowjob or licking to the cock already inside. Why leave out one of the best parts??
I don't quite agree with your view on lingerie though. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes a woman in lingerie, or something as simple as a small black thong, can be more attractive than a fully naked one. Ok, doesn't always apply. I think it might have something to do with the fact, that when we are first attracted to someone, they are mostly wearing clothes. To then get an (un)intentional view of a piece of lingerie instantly spices up the moment. Therefore, we are first drawn to the lingerie, once a woman begins to strip down. At least at the beginning of a relationsship and in a very long one.
And then we have those magical platform shoes, we may make any legs look long and sleek, but also result in 95% percent of those wearing them walking around as if they were a praying mantis on ice. It just looks ridiculos! Especially the young ones, who try and look more grown up, achieve the complete opposite. A really can't help myself and often have to look away to not laugh directly at them. Sorry, am not usually like that, but somethings are just too stupid. On a completely unrelated topic, I react with absolut anger, when I see the idiots of parents, who have their small children in trailors behind their bicycles and weave their way through cars and buses. Absolut idiots! *deep breaths, deep breaths*
Right, where was I? Ah yes, the last thing important to a good website... no damn viruses or stupid background pop-up windows. I'm already on a pornsite, why would I then click on an something that just wants all my data. Advertising, ok I get it. But it really shouldn't get on ones nerves.
Oh, I nearly forgot. Why can't one make pornsites more attractive and a bit more userfriendly. Especially the sort functions are usually complete rubbish.
There. That's my rant over. :-) Thanks for the inspirtation!
P.S. Your English is very good. Just like me, you sometimes leave out some words because you get too emotional whilest writing. ;-)
|
| |
|
|
Commented on May 29, 2020
xD
Made me laugh. Hard.
So, why the whole close up thing : Well it's a common kink among men... I tend to like POV better on a personal level with focus on the upper body (love to see the girl's face as she orgams). Porn is still shot for men mostly cause they are the biggest audience. There are some specialised website and categories though that may suit your fancy better (like the "popular with women" categorie on PH). I know them cause we seem to have similar tastes (too bad you're a lesbian). Yes i watched porn meant for women and i'm not ashamed of it. No it doesn't make me gay, a sissy, a sub or anything. I mean it's like the fuss about coca cola zero when it's just a diet coke made especialy for macho men...
Why pseudo-expensive (more like expendable) lingerie : Once again Macho-men ego strokes (like the diet cola with a different name)... The girl wears expensive lingerie to lure them in and the man either rip or stain them as if it's nothing, his property, and stuff like that.
Why hight-heels : Well same as the first one... it's a common kink, plus the very role of heels is to make legs appear longer, and long legs are another common attraction to men
Summarizing : Funilly enough you're both right and wrong in my opinion. Right because in recent time porn is mostly homemade participative stuff wich don't have time for artifices, as opposed to actual films that were more like what you talk about... Wrong because it's not a search of realism or an answer to a specific demand that leads the market but cost efficiency... Participative stuff is free, you don't have to pay actors, or basically anything (because that's the actual casting, wich is free, that you're gonna sell at best)
You're english isn't amazing, but neither is mine, and i could understand you easily.
On a side note i'd personally say women are more witty than men, they're just more discreet about it
|
| |
|
|
Commented on May 9, 2020
Yes. One wants to see a full body.
|
| |
|
|
Commented on May 2, 2020
Totally agree on the close ups. This is porn, not a beginners guide to gynaecology.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
