egafd.com

So in truth Viv Thomas, Andrew Blake etc, the makers of top quality product, with genuinely beautiful girls who enjoy sex are what we want. So why are we getting five chavvy girls to every stunner like Sophia Knight or Antonia Stokes?

I am sure that none of us wants to censor or proscribe any of these things, but it is worrying when they seem to become the de facto norm for most porn production. Hopefully, the fashion for tattoos will go away at some point, and piercings, too. Girls may become more savvy about the dangers of boob jobs, and the fact that a lot of men don't like them, but don't hold your breath.

Spitting, which I find disgusting, seems to be part of a move to nasty sex, where the partners snarl obscenities at each other, which is to me unnatural and unappealing. In fact, most of the dirty-talking dialogue we hear sounds fake, as does the annoying whining that many (particularly American) girls employ.

Maybe it is my inferiority complex, but scenes where studs go on for ever without any sign of coming, and at an unnatural speed, do not make for good viewing either. A nicely paced scene building to a convincing climax, probably a total scene length of twenty minutes including foreplay, seems about right.

Despite the enormous volume of material now being produced, really sexy scenes with lovely girls seem to be harder to find.....

(Making notes for next UKAP meeting)

So old fat saggy titted birds with lot of tattoos doing foot fetish and gaping arseholes being spat in and giys gurning faces is the way to go.

That hasnt been done before. Thanks guys.

In answer to the why are we getting "five chavvy girls to every stunner like Sophia Knight or Antonia Stokes?" is simple

Those two girls dont do bg and mores to the point they doont tek it oop tha khyber

Whats a wanker to do meanwhile

Seriously though guys, jesting aside I get where your coming from !happy!

Hugh6821 wrote:

> Those who dislike spitting, what's your stance on a girl either
> taking a facial or taking the load in her mouth? Both clearly
> are bodily fluids ending up somewhere where they aren't
> intended.
>
> Is a facial less degrading that being spit on? And if so, why?
> Is a girl taking a load less degrading than a someone spitting
> in her mouth? If so, why?

As Mysteryman rightly says, spitting is an act of hatred that is degrading, disgusting and carries a risk of disease. It certainly isn't something you would expect to do or see during sex. Most people would rather be punched than spat on.

Arginald Valleywater wrote:

> So in truth Viv Thomas, Andrew Blake etc, the makers of top
> quality product, with genuinely beautiful girls who enjoy sex
> are what we want. So why are we getting five chavvy girls to
> every stunner like Sophia Knight or Antonia Stokes?

One Eyed Jack hits the nail on the head, the prettier girls just don't work to the higher levels (I'm guessing because there isn't enough money and enough work to entice them like there used to be) so if producers want to keep producing they have no choice but to reluctantly accept the less appealling girls.

While I'll buy the disease reasoning, I don't buy the mutually pleasurable experience. Are you saying that women, biologically, somehow get off by men ejaculating on their faces? Is the the substance or the act? (The act being more about dominance than pleasure, which brings us back to spitting...)

And to remove the diseases, how about urine? There are no germs in urine.



---

I'm just making the point that not that long ago the act of finishing by ejaculating on the woman was not considered to be a normal or common thing to do, obviously not unheard of, and that it then was normalized through porn. Which now also can be said about anal for instance.

Boobs jobs can look convincing but it is extremely rare indeed.

With regard to point 5. Bare feet (shoes make a woman, the minute they come off all sex appeal is lost)

I tend to agree. What annoys me are too close camera shots. You never get to see the shoes in the action.

I'd also like to see more 69. This seems to have gone out of fashion.

i know i've said it before but maybe someone needs to take a chance on a girlfriends films/viv thomas rip-off all british all girls movie just to see what happens in terms of sales etc. either using girls who only work to that level or who haven't previously worked up to that level - somebody like jennifer jade on red light tv would be an obvious candidate having done solo stuff. I'd love to see sales for young harlots slutty delinquents and young harlots girls dorm just to see if this all girl movies don't sell as well theory actually holds up - given that it's the same company and a few of the same girls it would be reasonable to make a comparison. reading this thread it's not a surprise that the films of say the last 18 months which have attracted interest and attention on here have been the harmony ones involving higher production values. Maybe less is more for some of the other competitors. less movies with girls who are paid more to attract what might be called the 'higher end' of performers.

is it essential for a film for girls to do anal? I'm not sure that it features in as high a percentage of, for example, recent Brazzers or reality kings scenes as you might expect. I could be wrong though.

Hughes6821, you have misconstrued my rmark s about ejaculation and the mutually pleasurable experience. Ejaculation in itself is the natural conclusion of what should be a mutually pleasurable experience. Spitting has nothing to do with mutually pleasurable sex. Where ejaculate ends up and if it is pleasurable for the recipient would depend on the recipient.