Jess West, only does boy/girl with Danny D?

[jj]

one eyed jack wrote:
> Hmmm....So thats what I've been doing right all these years is it?

Errrr. no. I've lost count of the number of scenes you've shot with people
who quite clearly weren't SOs in 'real life'. IOW, WTF? [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/confused.gif[/img]

My comment was about those girls who work 'exclusively' with their current
partner [although that deal often tends to apply only in the female direction,
I've noticed......girl fucks only the one guy, guy fucks armies of gals- at
least that's the way it seems to work in Euroland].
The 'only the BF' thing just seems more prevalent nowadays. Good luck to
them, fine, whatever, but- as I said- I don't count it as porn.
And don't get me started on the 'disappointment factor'- the fanfaronade [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/idontbelieveit.gif[/img]
when the news is announced that 'star x' is finally going to do her first
willy [or first anal; or blow a fruitbat while hanging from a chandelier.....]
**live on cam**, and the almost inevitable letdown when the result doesn't
live up to the billing, leaving one wishing they really hadn't bothered, and
that you hadn't put you life on hold for month or more, trembling with
anticipation [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/rant.gif[/img]

Oh dear, I'd better have a lie-down.... Nurse!! The syrup of figs enema, if
you will....

[jj]

I suppose- logically- if she only ever does the one b/g scene it's
irrelevant who the male is : -)
I usually have no idea of [and even less interest in] the "interpersonal
relationships" of performers [and my recent experience is more with the
Euro scene than the Brit]- in fact it's often only after watching a few
scenes of a particular lass that the 'exclusivity' penny begins to drop.
An example.

[one eyed jack]

Errrr. no. I've lost count of the number of scenes you've shot with people
who quite clearly weren't SOs in 'real life'. IOW, WTF?

Please feel free to pick one or as many as you like that were or not not a real couple JJ. If you come out with these claims at least let me respond. This is a public forum and Im sure some would be interested to know.

I havent met a couple yet that enoyed pretending to be a couple. They know they have to live with the results of that after

I have a feeling I know which ones you will choose but the fact of the matter is usually evident around the scene where they live

By the way I might not be too up on the lingo but what is: SOs in 'real life'. IOW, WTF? I know WTF is what the fuck !happy!

[jj]

one eyed jack wrote:
> Please feel free to pick one or as many as you like that were or not a
real couple JJ.
I don't recall many of the OEJ titles [Muff Riders etc. etc.] being exclusively
populated by couples- at any rate, I seem to remember there were a lot of
'studs about town' in them. But no, I didn't ask the cast if they were
dating each other : -)


> If you come out with these claims at least let me respond.
I was waiting for your response with bated breath [well, OK, I was waiting]-
but where did you get the idea that I was trying to restrict your freedom
of speech? Besides, in your case that would be a pretty futile [not to say
dangerous] exercise : -0)
I'm not sure I was making any specific 'claims', either.....


> I havent met a couple yet that enoyed pretending to be a
> couple. They know they have to live with the results of that after
Not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that couples get asked by prods.
to pretend they're not couples when they appear together, that's an odd
thing for them [the prods.] to do. Is the idea is that they think punters
will be put off? If so, I wonder where they got that idea [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/shocked.gif[/img] ?

My point is not that couples shouldn't appear together, rather that I
feel [yes, entirely personally and however irrationally] that if they ONLY
appear together that's somehow a little off-putting. For me, the idea that
after the shoot they're gonna toddle off to Sainsburys for baked beans,
cat-food and Chianti takes the frisson out of things. For me, if porn isn't
a little transgressive then it doesn't work.
To take a specific 'case-history': I much enjoyed Angie George's RC scene
[no idea if that was one of yours] with Jay Scarman .....
I had/stiil have no idea whether they are or were a 'real couple'; neither
was it any of ny business or, indeed, relevant. For me, it was simply two
peeps having watchable, medium-filthy fun.
However, while watching I was nevertheless aware [subliminally or no] that
Ange was also happily boffing non-Jay males in other titles. Does that sort
of illustrate the mind-set?


> .....I know WTF is what the fuck !happy!
SO [and I hate the term]= "significant other" [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/puke.gif[/img]
IOW= in other words [or Isle of Wight, either is good]

[one eyed jack]

Ok Ill ty and keep my answers simple

You picked Angie George. Good one because she was not Jays real other half.

If you watched the scene (and I can only assume you may have fast forwarded or skipped that bit entirely) it was made clear from the outset that Jay was not her partner and that her real husband (cut and hold on wedding pic of her real husband) was ok with her doing porn and that they are swingers and why he didnt want to do porn as he wasnt comfortable with his first experience and enjoyed watching her with other men on videos. We discussed a bit about her in the porn business and Jay had his fun so that hubby could see the results later.

Every scenario is based on fact.

As for the One Eyed Jack series re Muff Riders etc, no where on that series did I specify couples because it was never about that

[jj]

Ah, I remember that bit now... I usually watch with the sound muted down
coz the dialogue is generally so awful, or worse, dubbed [serves me right for
watching so much Europorn]. The photo made me backtrack and up the
volume. Yes, bad example, I suppose, in the 'RC' context...... but it at least
served the purpose of a lead-in to the big para where I tried to explain my
personal objections to the 'exclusive' thing.

I suspect that I'm not alone in this view, to judge by the fairly regular
appearance of questions such as the one that opened the thread. It's not
wildly important- I really got into it mainly to note that the phenom. has
seemingly become more prevalent recently, especially in the Euro web-content
scene. For these skint young couples I suspect it's a fun way to swell the
old b-balance a bit- but you'll never convince me it's Proper Porn Like Wot
We Had in the Old Days [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/oldie.gif[/img]

[Allelsefails]

Let's just hope she continues to do b/g dispute splitting with Danny

[one eyed jack]

In answer to your last post:

Prague has been a rich source of couples for me and while your views are not far from the truth, the real reason couples choose to work at the exclusion of all others is simply because of the reglar outbreaks of gonorreah and syphillis that has blighted the euro scene.

Or the nicer girls dont do all that hard core stuff because they simply dont like it and there isnt much money in solo, glamour or lesbian

I agree that many couples see it the same way that they are not doing porn because they do it with their partner which some admit are not doing anything that they dont do at home anyway

Its still porn in the eyes of the world though whether you see it that way or not but its interesting that you find it acceptable.

Seems theres something dirty about that porn word

[Emac]

jj wrote:

> Doing it on cam with the BF isn't porn, it's home-movie-making
> for profit. They'll be putting holiday-snaps in the DVD Extras
> next......
>
>

I totally concur; it's pretty much a documentary!

[jj]

D'you know? I literally hadn't thought about the STD angle- I guess I'm so
used to the assumption of regular testing and better awareness that it didn't
occur.... and I'd even already heard about the recent outbreak in E Euro
[Aletta Ocean got a dose, for example]. I can understand people wanting
to be arsed with all that....
And the US system still isn't exactly foolproof- witness Mr Marcus' recent
shitbaggery. And the reaction of the industry has been predictably piss-poor:
i.e. he didn't get the life-ban he so richly deserved. If a dog bites you
once, chances are it'll do it again.... and way to go, giving the US govt.
more ammo for making condoms compulsory.