"Sadly many pf todays most popular stars are getting some large tattoos covering the back or an arm. I read a theory that the reason why some of them do it is because it's makes them hard to book. After a while they can't get any work and are forced to leave porn behind. Don't know if it's true, but it does make sense."
Sophia Santi (formerly known as Natalia Cruz) and Nikki Nova both have large, garish tatoos and they're still showing up at sites such as danni.com, inthecrack, and marquismodels. Liliane Tiger has shown up with her tats at Pier999, virtualgirlHD, and MCNnudes, among others.
The girls are obviously still in demand, but even without the counterexamples, why would the models actually decide to take that kind of poison-pill approach to leaving the business? Would it be that they are forced to stay unless they took some kind of drastic measures such as this? Who would be forcing them? And in such circumstances, wouldn't deliberately "ruining" their appearance be an invitation to retribution by the parties doing the forcing?
I'll agree that it doesn't make sense for models to get these tatoos when clearly the average porn user doesn't like them, but maybe the model will simply do as she wishes with what belongs to her, her body.
pat362 wrote: "Sadly many pf todays most popular stars are getting some large tattoos covering the back or an arm. I read a theory that the reason why some of them do it is because it's makes them hard to book. After a while they can't get any work and are forced to leave porn behind. Don't know if it's true, but it does make sense.
Hi Pat. I don't understand. Could you explain this to me. Does this mean they're under contract, but they don't want to be in the business any longer and that's their only way out? To make themselves look ugly? Or do I read you wrong?
Pat makes a great point I can not think of hardly any in my collection of lez where a guy is talking unless its leading to a BJ later i dont hear it.
BUT THE GUY TALKING, is my pet peave of all times, its gotten to where I avoid the sites now that are cronic about this.
Pat362, you didn't say too much on this poll, still as a fellow PU of mine, I ask that you please check out this information to prove I am not THE ASSHOLE EVERYONE SAYS I AM..... FUCK!!
Homemade Uncensored - Subscription ID # 208342701000000889 Signup Date: 12/07/08 CCBILL ICQ MAIL Little Liana - Subscription ID # 208305501000009792 Signup Date: 10/31/08 CCBILL YAHOO MAIL Little Lupe - Subscription ID # 107265601000014297 Signup Date: 09/22/2007 CCBILL YAHOO MAIL
Raven Riley - Subscription ID # 107241301000002418 Signup Date: 08/29/2007 CCBILL YAHOO MAIL
Pacino's Adventures - Subscription ID # 108271601000039085 Signup Date: 09/27/2008 CCBILL AOL MAIL
Nubiles - Subscription ID # 108202701000003673 Signup Date: 07/20/2008 CCBILL AOL MAIL
Best Teens.com - Subscription ID # 107147701000005429 Signup Date: 05/27/2007 CCBILL YAHOO MAIL 8th Street Latinas - Subscription ID # 107147701000002410 Signup Date: 05/27/2007 CCBILL YAHOO MAIL Exploited College Girls - Subscription ID # 107131501000001937 Signup Date: 05/11/2007 CCBILL YAHOO MAIL
Night Invasion - Member ID # 1267666873 Order Date: 11/22/2008 EPOCH BILLING Manila Amateurs - Member ID # 1270044479 Order Date: 12/05/2008 EPOCH BILLING
Real Ex Girlfriends, Nasty Angels and Karup's Hometown Amateurs might have changed their billing provider, HOWEVER WILL FIND OUT MY INFORMATION AND YOU WILL SEE!!
(KHAN, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS INFORMATION!! I MUST DO THIS!! THIS IS IMPORTANT!!) >:D
Your explanation of masochism is a very good one, Pat. A better one than I have. :-) Some have also suggested that it is a sign of very low self-esteem and that submissives are trying to expunge guilt about their perceived shortcomings this way.
As to Sadism, I have none. As past and present conditions under dictatorships prove there are plenty of sadists around, they come out of the woodwork once social conditions are right, but what makes a human being enjoy inflicting pain or humiliation on another leaves me without an answer.
There are sites specializing in humiliation and I share your distaste when it comes to verbal abuse and spitting and face slapping. However the models are informed of this beforehand (anything else would make the site owners subject to a sexual abuse/assault suit) and these sites are not true BDSM sites in my eyes.
Real BDSM, despite Drooler's misgivings, is not usually a case where one of the participants is being degraded and there is no equality between the sexes.
For some people, for whatever reason, experiencing pain is actually an erotic event while for the dominant the infliction of pain accomplishes the same. Both are equal in their need and complement one another.
It is an aberration, and personally I don't have the slightest desire to either inflict pain or experience it. Just thought I'd set the record straight. This is a wild and wonderful world where sexual tastes range from the mild and "normal" to the absolutely bizarre.
In my case, despite my feeble attempts to understand human sexuality, I could never understand that head to toe latex or rubber fetish that goes so often with BDSM. :-)
I like your thinking. I was trying to select more than one choice in the poll, but the poll mechanism does not allow that.
I've seen very few sites where a real loyalty program offers a better deal for remaining a member. Instead, most porn sites (and other types of businesses) offer a better deal (price) to potential subscribers than they do to existing subscribers.
(I'm not including the type of "loyalty programs" where the longer you remain a member, the more sites you have access to, or the more areas of a site you have access to.)
That has always bugged me. I figure if I am an existing customer, I should be treated better than a potential customer (in price of a subscription/membership). But that's not the way it works in the real world.
> Does anyone think that a stuntman would allow himself to be set on
> fire for that big scene without first putting some protection on?
Right, they take precautions - EXACTLY PRECAUTIONS THAT THEY THINK ARE APPROPRIATE. Why models should be denied THE SAME CHOICE?
> Yes some of them do get hurt, but it's not because of the lack of precautions.
Come on, when anybody get hurt in an accident it's ALMOST ALWAYS because of the lack of precautions, and is ALWAYS this way for stunts (to start with, they could easily refuse to participate in the particular stunt if they consider it too risky). BTW, the same is true for car accidents - the very basic precaution is to avoid driving completely, but very few people are taking it.
IMHO it is MUCH more complicated than simple "people have contracted some serious illnesses". People get infected and even get killed in all kinds of jobs (starting with medical ones), so IMHO just mere EXISTENCE of the chance doesn't make some thing "too bad" or not, for me it is important to know HOW BIG this chance is. To complete analogy with stuntman - some of them die or get permanently injured, but this doesn't mean that I won't watch "regular" movies which include stunts. Also it's quite obvious that using condoms does not GUARANTEE anything, it just reduces the chance, which again supports my point of view that it is all about "HOW BIG the chance is". EVERYTHING has some risk, even driving to work (this one is probably MUCH higher than any job-related risk BTW), so I tend to consider SOME risks as "normal" (yes, it is very sad if somebody dies in the car accident, but we won't give up cars because of it, will we?)
Now to the "HOW BIG the chance is" question for condomless porn - while I don't have any statistics on it (maybe somebody has? - then it would be interesting to compare it to statistics on stuntman injuries), I've got a feeling that with all the people who REALLY HATE porn, any such cases would be made VERY high-profile as a tool to fight porn, so as I don't hear of it every second day, it shouldn't be too bad even as it stands now. This obviously is just a wild speculation on my part, and I will be glad to see any real statistics (which in turn can make me reconsider my view of condomless porn).
What Pat362 said, that's me...but I answered "Model Videos" because that's what I'm interested in. Adding to my inventory of videos of my babes list.
If the new site has reruns of old stuff that I already have I will still download it to compare quality and content (some vids have been edited down) and keep the best one.
Then I'll check out the inventory of babes to see if there are any that are new to me that catch my interest.
I used to be into photo heavy sites, I guess because I've been doing this since 2001 when videos were lousy and short. But the video quality and quantity has exploded so dramatically I've lost interest in stills.
{RECOMMENDATION} The new version (ver. 9.4) of the VLC alternative to WMP offers a neat snapshot feature that is instantaneous so anyone can make photos from a video that are as good in quality as the video itself.
VLC is free at VideoLAN. It's got some great features like the snapshots, a fast aspect ratio correction, and a better operating console. The one negative is that, unlike WMP, you cannot adjust color and/or contrast.
[I'm repeating this recommendation on the Forum, so if it seems familiar, that may be why.
I agree with pat362. The raffle is a bonus, not the objective. If it's handled fairly, then there should be no "affirmative action" added to the process.
This site has made me and, no doubt many others, more money through the great reviews by people like me that steer me away from sites that are not up to their hype.
Don't worry - if they could replace Lloyd Bridges' tongue with one supplied by a Labrador Retriever, I think they can do it for your nose. They have the technology. They will rebuild you.
You have my invitation too.
We can stay home watch Resident Evil on DVD and eat LOTS of popcorn and then have a complete discussion about zombies nature (if there are any of them lol).
You are more than welcome in my fortified zombie-repellent compound, pat362. I hadn't thought of large snowblowers - those are designed to take some serious punishment, no doubt.
As for the reason zombies eat brains - well there are a number of possible explanations. Most experts say zombies need living human blood to get the right nutrients, enzymes, chemicals and so on to function optimally. The brain is an excellent blood source and is a great protein source. Another idea is that zombies can regenerate some of their brain either by eating active synapses or perhaps the stem cells. The idea is that your basic zombie has little more than their brain stem working. That is why almost all upper level functions are down - they are like a common house fly, running on nothing but reflex. It is possible that a zombie fed healthy human blood regularly will retain near human appearance and cognitive abilities.
Of course, a zombie is also 100% uninhibited. This means that unlike normal humans, they have a continual supply of adrenalin, so they aren't exactly inhumanly strong, they just will happily tear their own ligaments and break their own bones to achieve their goal - whatever it may be. Eating you is probably pretty high on their list.
All things considered, it is unlikely the goal of a zombie is to eat your brains specifically. The idea that zombies hunger for the brains of the living may stem from a witness seeing a zombie consume the head of a human. A zombie will eat your brain, but that is because they will eat just about anything with a heart beat. (Though only human blood is certain to benefit human zombies.) It is important to note that zombies do not need their heart. They will continue operating without any part of their body excluding the brain stem. If you destroy that, you destroy the zombie. It is unfortunate for those who behead zombies low on the neck only to find the disembodied head gnawing on their ankle moments later.
Another note on killing zombies, while fire can destroy them, it'll take a little while. Just because a zombie is in flames doesn't mean it isn't still dangerous. Keep your distance from any active zombie.
Pat362 said: "... but I'd classify the movie "The Wild Side" as porn. I don't think anyone remmebers the incredible complex storyline, but they sure as hell remember Denise Richards and Neve Campbell making out."
For the sake of accuracy, I'm pretty sure the movie you're referring to is "Wild Things".
Thanks. That's why I was in the affirmative on this question. If it's intended to cause arousal, it's porn, no matter what the form or medium is. Little Annie Fanny, for example. Part porn, part satire.
You should go to some of the European topless beaches, pat362. The first couple of times you ogle, after that you still appreciate feminine beauty but breasts are no longer a fixation. I am not entirely sure if the guys on the blogs and forums are entirely honest because I've read too often, coming from women, my boy friend (husband) would like for me to get my breasts enhanced. But I sincerely hope they are lying and that YOU are right. I love natural! :-)
I voted yes, but reluctantly, because after a while topless women would become such a normal sight that breasts would lose their sexual attraction and resume their rightful place as sources of nourishment for babies. Still nice to look at but no longer idolized! Come to think of it, that might not be such a bad thing. No more silicone, no more botched boob jobs and scars under breasts. No more unscrupulous plastic surgeons who mess up what nature created. Yeah, let's go for it, equal rights for all! :-)
06-02-0807:30pm
*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
