Quote:

---

Well, back in the day, I would leave a Blake DVD in the player at all times, so say I just had dinner with a chick and a few drinks, "lets go back to your place and watch a movie" OK. Plop on the couch, turn on the tube, and "oops, oh damn I must have left that in there!"...."no ..hold on..what is that?" and, BAM!, 20 minutes later on floor in front of the TV. It worked everytime, but, when I tried it with just "bump and grind" porn I always got a weird look.

---

Quote:

---

Can you go back to the Mr. Belvedere pic? That thing made this place just a bit funner.

---

Quote:

---

to me last time I saw that...its artsy...but most of my "right" friends say...anything nude...is porn....so we are back to square 1.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

to me last time I saw that...its artsy...but most of my "right" friends say...anything nude...is porn....so we are back to square 1.

---

tru dat. but if you say that to some of those "erotic models" they take great offense to a lumping what they do in with "porn".

I was introducing a friend of mine to as girl who works as a erotic model, and was totally fumbling as to saying what she does as I'm used to explaining porn chicks....

---

Quote:

---

Blake's stuff is by-and-large 'plotless' as in there's no interconnected storyline and script/dialogue to speak of. It's as close to free form or improv as you're going to get...jazz porn, so to speak.

Perhaps Blake's niche of 'moving wallpaper', and the inherent appeal it seems to have with those of the fairer sex (aside from gangbang enthusiasts like Holly Randall), can be traced back to the old adage that 'It is better to stay silent and be thought an idiot than to open you mouth and confirm it'.

When the character has no voice, you are forced to imagine one of your owwn, and thus it is easier for the female to relate to the performer on screen. Whereas with either a conventional feature or gonzo, there are stumbling blocks in the form of the actions of the character ('Oh gosh...if you could replace that fuse that has blown, I'll suck your cock') and indeed the quality of the performer's delivery (i.e., if they look and sound completely unconvincing and out of their depth while delivering their lines). The stumbling block is that the woman does not consider herself a simpering bimbo that just takes it up the ass at the drop of a hat. The lack of plot and dialogue forces the viewer to create their own interpretation of what is transpiring before their very eyes...it merely adds to the mystique and mystery. If a girl gets caught shoplifting by some security guard, or her car breaks down and she has to call out a mechanic, then you know exactly what is going to happen next.

If we contrast this with Blake's approach...wherein there are no such stumbling blocks to the female viewer identifying with the performer, and the performer is well made up, well dressed, in a stylish, well-lit location...with (insert Brandon Iron screencap here), then we see that what transpires on the screen becomes aspirational erotica, i.e., porn that does not degrade women, but rather upgrades them.






That, and you don't have to listen to any stunt cocks running their mouths incessantly either.

---

Well put. I actually like his stuff. I guess if I had my choice of scenarios I would rather have a "model" looking girl in some La Perla and Gucci heels than just some big tits in someones basement.

Quote:

---

Blake's stuff is by-and-large 'plotless' as in there's no interconnected storyline and script/dialogue to speak of. It's as close to free form or improv as you're going to get...jazz porn, so to speak.

Perhaps Blake's niche of 'moving wallpaper', and the inherent appeal it seems to have with those of the fairer sex (aside from gangbang enthusiasts like Holly Randall), can be traced back to the old adage that 'It is better to stay silent and be thought an idiot than to open you mouth and confirm it'.

When the character has no voice, you are forced to imagine one of your owwn, and thus it is easier for the female to relate to the performer on screen. Whereas with either a conventional feature or gonzo, there are stumbling blocks in the form of the actions of the character ('Oh gosh...if you could replace that fuse that has blown, I'll suck your cock') and indeed the quality of the performer's delivery (i.e., if they look and sound completely unconvincing and out of their depth while delivering their lines). The stumbling block is that the woman does not consider herself a simpering bimbo that just takes it up the ass at the drop of a hat. The lack of plot and dialogue forces the viewer to create their own interpretation of what is transpiring before their very eyes...it merely adds to the mystique and mystery. If a girl gets caught shoplifting by some security guard, or her car breaks down and she has to call out a mechanic, then you know exactly what is going to happen next.

If we contrast this with Blake's approach...wherein there are no such stumbling blocks to the female viewer identifying with the performer, and the performer is well made up, well dressed, in a stylish, well-lit location...with (insert Brandon Iron screencap here), then we see that what transpires on the screen becomes aspirational erotica, i.e., porn that does not degrade women, but rather upgrades them.






That, and you don't have to listen to any stunt cocks running their mouths incessantly either.

---

I am a bit closed minded when it comes down to content.....

its either straight HARDCORE FUCKING with 2.3 sec of plot and/or dialogue...or the "blake" shit....more couples/female friendly....chick porn...

its like watching unauthorized signals before HBO was scrambled....watching waiting for a tit...yes I saw a tit....

some my senses are a bit distorted or simply just desentisized ...