egafd.com

So does she do hardcore? Yes, no?
If not, why even bother with a filmo or a picture?

She is not hardcore. Delete.

You might profit by reading this- especially 'The Definition of an Adult Film'.

In this case, add a picture.

I am familiar with that definition which was written long ago.
I am less familiar with Euro porn than with the US counterpart.
If you gleam through US porn titles of the 1970's and early 1980's you will find a large number
of male and female individuals (and performers) who frequently appeared in
non sex roles or brief non-sex cameos.
A lot of directors even frequently appeared in non sex roles/cameos.
And yes there were actresses like the very attractive Catherine Burgess who appeared
in several high profile porn movies (like "Through the Looking Glass" and "Double Exposure of Holly")
in which she did not perform explicit sex.
Russ Meyer's ex-squeeze Kitten Natividad did a lot of non-sex or simulated sex
scenes in her early "porn" career.
Another Russ Meyer starlet Edy Williams did some simulated and soft core scenes in the high profile
LADY LUST (1983) and even tepid g/g scenes in obscure movies like SNATCH MASTERS 6 and a scene with
Becky Sunshine. Those hardly qualify as hc performances. Yet IAFD indicates "lez only" for "LADY
LUST" even though it is essentially a soft core scene.
Yes, they are listed in IAFD, but there is no other way to get around it (at least IAFD defines whether
their appearance in that particular title was hc or not).
The "problem" with EGAFD, is that sometimes/often performers who have never
performed hc scenes have their own film page, but there is no that much indication what they have
done in that particular title. If EGAFD should feel it is justified to list them in those titles, it should be prepared
to outline what they have done in that movie or else that listing becomes extremely
confusing and misleading.
And if a mainstream, soft core movie had meaningless hc inserts in some country or other, it does not change
that actresses overall performance (which was NOT or ever hc to begin with).

Sigismund wrote:
> In this case, add a picture.
We do not take orders from you. We may grant your polite requests.
Even allowing for poor English-language skills, your post was IMO framed very
rudely.

And for information- simply linking a picture or a webpage does not suffice.
Firstly the pic may be unattributed and we are not anxious to use such pics
unless absolutely avoidable. Ideally we want caps from movies listed here-
pics from [attributable] photosets may sometimes be used, as a stopgap.
Some of the pics you have linked have been substandard in terms of quality-
you will note that I managed to obtain some far superior ones with very little
effort- apart from an expenditure of time which would have been more productively
used elsewhere. If you genuinely wanted to help this is a task that you could-
and should- have undertaken yourself.
We already have a list of actresses requiring images and so do not need you
constantly 'reminding' us of the shortfall. We will add them as soon as humanly
possible- criticizing omissions of which we are already well aware is a waste
of time for you to write and for us to read.

I think we've been very patient with your 'foibles' but you have demonstrated
a consistent inability to understand the idea of what exactly we need here.
I suggest you read some of the many older posts that have contributed
significant information and use them as a 'style guide' for any future
contributions you might wish to make. Capping and then uploading pics, for
example, is very easy and saves the admins a considerable amount of time
which may be more usefully spent researching and refining more recondite
info.
I have explained, at considerable length and as best I can, what types of
info we can use. We'll happily answer substantive queries on that topic.
But if you post any more criticism-disguised-as-contribution, expect to be
ignored, or worse.
Final warning.

Len801 wrote:
> I am familiar with that definition which was written long ago.
Check the threading- I was replying [much against my better judgment] to
Sigismund. My attempts to teach him 'the Tao of egafd' seem doomed to
failure : -)

As to the rest- I tend to agree, in part- but it's very much Alec's province;
and his judgment-call on what should be included from the 'Classic' era.
Personally I would normally tend to argue for an inclusion, but less so for an
exclusion- particularly where a case is marginal. And the argument that the
borderline was much more fuzzy in the past is, I think, a cogent one.

My position is for inclusion if the whole movie was intended/released as hardcore and
the lady in question was chosen solely for marketing purposes, and in which she either
performed in simulated or soft-core scenes (see my previous post).

If the movie was either mainstream or soft core, and either the director/producer
or foreign distributor shot some brief hard-core sequences just to spice up the mnovie
release, then I see no justification for including even the title to the EGAFD.
However should EGAFD feel compelled to do so for historical purposes then it should detail how the
the original theatrical (non hc) release differs from the altered version (much the way that
IMDB does with movies that have "alternate" versions.

If Laura Gemser appeared in a soft-core mainstream movie that contained a scene (involving
another performer) with a horse, then if such a title were to be included, then EGAFD should
explain why. If she appeared in a orgy scene, in which some participants (and I an not talking
about inserts/or scenes that were filmed when she was or was not present on the set) were having explicit
sex, then some explanation should be given for that title's inclusion.

Sometimes hc "inserts"/scenes were indeed part of the movie (and eliminated/edited out) in some countries
with more stringent censorship laws. But in most movies those hc inserts had no relevance whatsoever to the movie
and were just edited in (and they could be easily detected by the average viewer) just tospice up the lame
content. In either case should EGAFD so choose to leave them in the database it
should explain their presence there. Just listing the movie or some or all of the cast
members tells you absolutely nothing about why the title is there.
Like I said, when a mainstream movie has alternate versions floating around, usually
IMDB details the various discrepancies and content, and even providing outside links for more
additional info. I cannot understand why EGAFD would be unable/unwilling to go the same route.

If EGAFD truly means "The European Girls Adult Film Database" then it should reflect a European actress'
adult performance. If the actress in question does not perform any hc action in
any of the films, it should list them only with either a general qualifier,
or by detailing title per title what alternate versions are floating around. If EGAFDit does not know
then at least it should give some explanation why that title or her inclusion in the cast
members is justified.

Again, in general I agree [at least, with the info part].
But as you've hinted it really comes down [as usual] to time, expertise and
resources.

As you know, I have very little of the first and not much of the second : -)
Alec has very much more of the second but even less of the first.