Gemma Massey on life as a porn star

[MISTER C]

PS: you're right OEJ. I had to to treble-check before posting to be sure I had got the right girl.

There can't be that many 'Gemma Massey's' in the business! !confused!

[number 6]

God only knows why attractive girls want to make themselves look like aliens.

[RodFraver99]

The Playboy shoot vid, wow stunningly beautiful.

I just don't understand why any natural beauty would want to enhance or think they had to.

[IainT]

The whole interview is misleading bullshit and I hope any young girls don't think they can jump into the porn industry and make a fortune because they can,t and any legitimate industry person knows this.

I'm sure if you ask top UK porn producers like Killergramm, One eyed jack and Jimslip, they will tell you the going rate is maybe ?350 per scene and possibly up to $1000 per scene in the US for a decent mid-range performer.

Gemma Massey was one of the prettiest girls in the UK adult glamour circuit, pre recent surgery and pretty successfull, but not making a fortune by any means and outside of Bluebird she would make a decent living and no more, but it would have to be porn because she has ruined herself for glamour now with the excessive surgery, its to much, even for the USA.

Bluebird are not a real company, simply a vehicle for the owner to shag pretty girls and he will pay way over the odds for the privilige with no hope of getting the money back in sales. He is living the porn fan's dream and good luck to him.

I'm not saying Bluebird are a bad thing, but people shouldn't confuse them with the "real" industry as they are in no way representive of a legitimate company who have to make a profit. Fair play to the people who are benefiting from the Bluebird buck, but there is also a fall-out. All these girls with stupidly excessive surgery, paid for by BB, will simply be left high and dry if they are discarded by the company...as they all eventually will be, as nobody else will look at them.

[Len801]

Score(and) has built their empire on mostly plump and big busty ladies, who for the most part just pose and rub their breasts, and once in a while insert a dildo up their nether parts and on occasion may even do b/g scenes.
If you have seen some of their videos/DVD for the most part it's like watching the grass grow on your front lawn.
If we want to talk about "gay for pay" (whose concept and "justification" some male and female performers lamely offer up, and which I never understood) I can't understand the careers of Felecia, Janine or even the near-catatonic Prinzzess (who works practically exclusively for GFilms).
As far as censored magazines is corncerned some US mags in the 1980's used to be distributed overseas in a censored version with small black squares and rectangles printed over the private parts, and slowly and slowly they would push the envelope with only the black blocks just placed over the very tip of the guy's dick or just lightly over the girl's pussy crack. Was it crazy or what?
I will have to head to my bunker, as I hear bombs being dropped...

[jj]

jimslip wrote:
> the "LA Pornstar look".

Ah, so that's its correct title.
I always thought of it as the 'Faintly surprised haddock" Look.

[max_tranmere]

I think it's a great shame when attractive young women have work done, which is presumably done to make herself look better, but usually ends up making her looking not very attractive at all. I used to like the glamour model Anna Taverner, then she has her knockers enlarged and she now goes around with what looks like two footballs stuck to her chest. Now I don't fancy her at all. The same can be said of what Lolly Badcock has recently done to herself. It is a shame that girls spend thousands of pounds to, apparently, make themselves look better but end up quite unattractive. And all these people are still young. I cant imagine what they will look like when they are middle-aged. This Gemma Massey girl has that 'trout pout' with the lips. She doesn't look very nice and will look a lot worse when she is older.

[jj]

I've just reacquainted myself [after several years] with the FAQ 'definition' of
adult/hardcore.
At the time of writing it wasn't unreasonable; now, however, I very much feel the
net was cast too wide: solo dildo-penetration seems so lame today, with a faint
air of being sold short. In a way I suppose this is a healthy reflection of increasing
maturity [amongst we proles, if not our leaders]. That's why I'd narrow the brief
to 'stimulative' MF genital-contact at a minimum.

I guess, though, that you can never put the soup back into the turtle- as the
recent discussion on boob-jobbery has [more or less massively] emphasized.

[Len801]

I have to agree with JJ. At the dawn of the porn age in the late 1960's-very earlie 1970's when US porners were pushing the enveloppe in making more explicit adult content, they used to make what was termed as "beaver" films, where a young girl/woman (completely unshaved) would basically trash away on a bed, and later on may even appear with a dildo but never really insert it anywhere (or at least that was shown).
To some extent today (in 2011) many web sites offer just about the same content. There are very attractive models who will not do anything beyond lingerie modeling or (heaven forbid) play with some sex toys.
To me if a female model/adult performer is unable or unwilling to frequently do b/g scenes (at at least g/b right off the bat), should not be called a porn actress, and perhaps should not be "rewarded" in being listed in any of the well-known databases like EGAFD/BGAFD/IAFD/EBI. If I wanted to see a woman just rub her tits for 18 minutes, or eternally do rug munching scenes, she should not deserve any recognition as a porn performer or listed in these databases. A porn performer means she is willing to do the "whole deal".

[jimslip]

I'm wondering whether anyone knows who originated the idea that the, "Trout pout, giant false boobs, scrawny, lolly-pop head" look was what every guy on Earth desired? I always thought that Pamela Anderson was a babe, but was it her that launched the look?and if so, surely it's way past its sell by date now. Mind you Pamela wasn't a lolly-pop head, she was nicely proportioned.

I always thought Kelly Brook would be the look that most guys would like. She seems to epitomize the "Nice girl on the outside, slut on the inside" image that most guys crave. I really don't like the, "Lolly-pop body/ Hallibut- face" LA look, its gross as far as I'm concerned.