|
I've been thinking about this thread since it went live. Here's what I've got so far:
Obviously mainstream, silicone, degrading porn appeals to a large segment of the viewers. If it didn't, they'd be making something else. Personally, I don't watch "professional" porn that was made after about 1990 - I prefer the actors to be less noticably altered. On the rare occassions that I do go looking for something that's more recent, it's in search of a particular actress. The "humiliation porn"/BDSM has its place, and provided it's evident that the actress is enjoying it, it's an every-once-in-a-while thing for me.
I agree that most of the actual and filmed-as-if-actual amateur porn is the way to go. Personally, I've enjoyed FTV, girlsoutwest and Abby Winters recently, mainly because they tend to have more realistic portraits of the women and actually care if there are actual orgasms. Obviously there is a percentage that are faked, but a good enough actress only needs to give plausible deniability.
As a regular viewer of older porn, it's surprising that most of the cumshots back in the day were aimed at a chest, back or straight up in the air. The bukkake scenarios are a recent thing, and if an actress took a load in the face, it was with a smile and nod.
It's no surprise that there's been an arms race-mentality within the porn industry. Thirty years ago, porn was harder to film and deliver. With the advent of the internet, all the various kinksters out there have found their own particular niche libraries. There's not much that's left to explore, and I'll bet that there's a subtle retraction of some of the humiliating aspects of the mainstream industry as more young women become regular porn viewers.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|