OK, real talk. Am I the only one who's disappointed with 99% of the ass-oriented nude pics that are out there?
I mean, it should be simple: what we all want is beautiful women, maximum exposure of the ass and a sexy overall touch. But while there are chicks and asses galore, the last element is where most pornographers fail.
Porn is about illusion. The illusion of sex. A successful pornographic photo is a photo which lures the viewer into feeling that he (or she) is part of the sexual activities - be it seduction (as in photos of naked women) or in actual fucking (as in hardcore photos). Problem is, most porn is about the looks of the woman, the shape of her body, the angle of the photo and the resolution of the image. It seems that the photographers and the companies assume that sexiness is automatically included, but it's not.
It may sound corny or pretentious, but good porn needs some soul to really work - otherwise the image is dead, the illusion is nonexistent, and it's annoyingly obvious how much the girl fakes her horniness. A good pornographer makes the faked horniness seem real. But most are too lazy these days. For example, do you know Pierre Woodman, the most famous Private director? His early flicks like "Cape Town" and "Kruger Park" were great and full of steaming sex, but his later efforts (the "Hustler XXX" and "Anal Intensive" series) were the complete opposite - the sex was mechanical and the scenes were predictable, like a ritual almost. No dialogue, no story, no build-up, no chemistry between the girls and the guys whatsoever. Sure, we got (more or less) gorgeous chicks and (always) hard anal pounding, but still the flicks were completely lacking of sexiness. It was like eating food with no salt.
It takes more that a perfect ass to make a good ass pic. We've all seen a perfect ass - in thousands of pics, picturing hundreds of starlets. Those pics don't really say anything, they don't communicate sex - for all I know, they could be anatomical studies by ass-researching scientists. It's so obvious when a girl is not comfortable with the photos taken - she does it for cash and nothing else, she looks cold and remote, the horniness is superficial. Of course, all porn is about cash (let's not *** ourselves), but a successful pornographic photographer knows how to make the girl look comfortable, make her look like she is actually turned on, have her look at the viewer with a "I-want-to-fuck-RIGHT-NOW" look on her face. That, my friends, is a turnon. That's a hot pic. That's what we all want.
Any girl can spread their ass cheeks for the viewer, but in a sense those pics make the viewer a freak. Sexiness requires more than just a nice ass, it requires personality, a human being - a bit of soul, as I mentioned earlier. To me, most pics where you can't see the girl's face are totally meaningless, because they make the girl completely anonymous - they become only flesh, without personality and libido.
What do you think? Do you agree with me when I say that there is a difference between high quality porn and high quality SEXY porn? Take a look at this pic, for example. To me, it's a really hot pic. It would be great if you have any links to similar pics.
I mean, it should be simple: what we all want is beautiful women, maximum exposure of the ass and a sexy overall touch. But while there are chicks and asses galore, the last element is where most pornographers fail.
Porn is about illusion. The illusion of sex. A successful pornographic photo is a photo which lures the viewer into feeling that he (or she) is part of the sexual activities - be it seduction (as in photos of naked women) or in actual fucking (as in hardcore photos). Problem is, most porn is about the looks of the woman, the shape of her body, the angle of the photo and the resolution of the image. It seems that the photographers and the companies assume that sexiness is automatically included, but it's not.
It may sound corny or pretentious, but good porn needs some soul to really work - otherwise the image is dead, the illusion is nonexistent, and it's annoyingly obvious how much the girl fakes her horniness. A good pornographer makes the faked horniness seem real. But most are too lazy these days. For example, do you know Pierre Woodman, the most famous Private director? His early flicks like "Cape Town" and "Kruger Park" were great and full of steaming sex, but his later efforts (the "Hustler XXX" and "Anal Intensive" series) were the complete opposite - the sex was mechanical and the scenes were predictable, like a ritual almost. No dialogue, no story, no build-up, no chemistry between the girls and the guys whatsoever. Sure, we got (more or less) gorgeous chicks and (always) hard anal pounding, but still the flicks were completely lacking of sexiness. It was like eating food with no salt.
It takes more that a perfect ass to make a good ass pic. We've all seen a perfect ass - in thousands of pics, picturing hundreds of starlets. Those pics don't really say anything, they don't communicate sex - for all I know, they could be anatomical studies by ass-researching scientists. It's so obvious when a girl is not comfortable with the photos taken - she does it for cash and nothing else, she looks cold and remote, the horniness is superficial. Of course, all porn is about cash (let's not *** ourselves), but a successful pornographic photographer knows how to make the girl look comfortable, make her look like she is actually turned on, have her look at the viewer with a "I-want-to-fuck-RIGHT-NOW" look on her face. That, my friends, is a turnon. That's a hot pic. That's what we all want.
Any girl can spread their ass cheeks for the viewer, but in a sense those pics make the viewer a freak. Sexiness requires more than just a nice ass, it requires personality, a human being - a bit of soul, as I mentioned earlier. To me, most pics where you can't see the girl's face are totally meaningless, because they make the girl completely anonymous - they become only flesh, without personality and libido.
What do you think? Do you agree with me when I say that there is a difference between high quality porn and high quality SEXY porn? Take a look at this pic, for example. To me, it's a really hot pic. It would be great if you have any links to similar pics.
