Online free porn at mobile phone

jaydogbones · 13th January 2025, 09:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallingford

Here's one that will fit under both don't understand and dislike:

Sasquatch porn!

Warning! This reveal contains Sasquatch porn!

hidden content may not be quoted

Don't say I didn't warn you.

HiTrack99 · 17th January 2025, 21:45

Zazie! Does an orgy with three other girls but isn't allowed to fuck the other guys! In a way I think it teaches Mikki a lesson as he can't fuck the other girls either!

jaydogbones · 18th January 2025, 12:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiTrack99

Zazie! Does an orgy with three other girls but isn't allowed to fuck the other guys! In a way I think it teaches Mikki a lesson as he can't fuck the other girls either!

stream of consciousness

Wallingford · 18th January 2025, 14:53

Never understood the whole self wedgie thing.

Coochie floss?

Easymuse · 18th January 2025, 21:33

.

Lately (last coupla months) I'm finding FAR TOO MANY chicks with regular-sized bodies (no skinnies or plumpers) with NO TITS, they've all got A or B cups. GOSH-GOLLY I HATE THAT!!! On the other hand ... I can't stand FAKE TITS, which is way too much lately. I also hate the "new" look of "Kim K. HUGE ASS".

HiTrack99 · 18th January 2025, 23:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaydogbones

stream of consciousness

Zazie Skrym's latest scene for Private.

conflicted100 · 19th January 2025, 03:50

I know tastes vary a lot, so many Suziers won't agree with my particular pet peeves, but for me these are major deals. I wish they weren't; otherwise masturbating would be a much easier part of my life. Unfortunately, I feel so strongly about these issues that I can't simply watch a clip from beginning to end. If my criteria aren't met, I'm not stimulated and the vibe vanishes. Indeed, I'm de-stimulated; it's worse than watching nothing at all. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I've got a lot of artistic talent--did some pretty advanced stuff in high school and certainly could have majored in art in college if I hadn't been so scared of the economic risks. So maybe aesthetics affect me a lot more than the average Joe. Anyhow, my porn peeves are so strong that I use a video-editing program to cut most of the parts so that I'm left only with the stuff I like. On average, I end up with about 2 minutes from the typical pro-studio 20-minute clip.

BTW, I don't count factors specific to model bodies: hip type, big-boned vs. skeletal, natural breasts vs. fake. These things I can control by simply not watching models whose physical aspects I don't find attractive. I'm only counting factors controlled wholly by studio production, precisely because I only get models I know I like. But then the studio screws them up.

So here are my peeves:
1. Directors insisting on female models in scrunched-up positions (mostly in missionary but often dogstyle too)
I'm really picky about a model's position. The model's pose is super-critical for me; I want to see her in positions where her torso isn't scrunched and legs are more naturally placed (i.e. below the waist, not above it). However, most studios seem to lean toward having their models scrunched up like a pretzel for at least some of the clip. Now, I'm not completely sure that this is something the studio controls, but I'm pretty sure it is. It seems only reasonable that the director will tell the models what s/he wants them to do. As evidence, consider the following sequence which I've seen in tons of videos: first, the female model assumes a standard missionary position with her legs flat on the bed in the Y shape (on either side of the man's legs) that most women will take naturally. That, in fact, is what I prefer to see by far. But it almost never lasts beyond a couple of seconds. The male model grabs one or both of her legs and reverses the angle of one or worse both of her legs so she looks like a W instead of a more natural Y. Or brings her leg up on his shoulder, etc. Boy do I hate that--and it happens about 95% of the time in pro clips. I almost never get the natural Y look in missionary.

2. Camera operators and editors creating video with constantly shifting frames
I feel just as strongly about a couple of other positions, but directors themselves don't seem to interfere with them as much; models will often assume other positions I like (e.g. cowgirl) and the director leaves them alone but then the camera person or studio editor messes it up. Pro studios seem to want to emulate Hollywood in terms of having all sorts of different camera angles and shifting frames. They'll usually have a camera operator moving around as well as two or three stationary cameras, and the editor feels obligated to splice all of this footage in an out constantly. I find this really annoying. When a woman does assume some pose I like--such as doggystyle with a nicely arched back (concave), ass up--and the man thankfully doesn't screw it up somehow such as pushing her head down (happens about 70% of the time, another effing directorial decision, I have to assume), and I get to see the pose in all its perfection full side-on, note that three factors had to converge for me to get a good scene. Three! And then comes this peeve: once I finally get a good scene, it's only good for all of 20 seconds before the camera operator decides they have to move over to the back and get a different angle that's not half so good. Or the editor decides that he has to emulate big-time Hollywood movies and shift to one of the other cameras. Another standard thing they do all the time is this: I get a great full-frontal cowgirl arched backward (concave) with breasts bouncing, but then the idiot camera person zooms in and pans up to ONLY show her face. Are you freaking kidding me? Pretty faces are a nice side bonus but they are not reason we consume this stuff!

So those are my two general peeves, 1) scrunching the woman up, and 2) constantly switching camera perspective so the few times you get a good combination of angle and pose, you only get it for seconds, almost never a full minute, let alone more. These two main problems drive me toward amateur material (b/c often they just set up a camera on a tripod and go at it, so when there's a good pose, the scene doesn't get messed up) even though the production values are usually inferior.

Veronicamars · 19th January 2025, 10:36

That's too long to read.

Kassidiaris · 19th January 2025, 18:01

Serious question here. Why the fuck do 99% of photosets have 40-50 shots of the woman posing in clothes/underwear and like 5 photos of her naked without the mope?? I thought men were supposed to like looking at naked women! (Then again, nowadays they're rarely even naked during the sex...)

Ficiones69 · 19th January 2025, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kassidiaris

Serious question here. Why the fuck do 99% of photosets have 40-50 shots of the woman posing in clothes/underwear and like 5 photos of her naked without the mope?? I thought men were supposed to like looking at naked women! (Then again, nowadays they're rarely even naked during the sex...)

i have exact the opposite problem

woman has hot clothes in start of the scene but gets rid of it then gets fucked naked the whole scene

without hot clothes all the scenes look same

17th January 2025, 21:45	#6392
HiTrack99 V.I.P. Clinically Insane Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Pornland Posts: 4,248 Thanks: 23,852 Thanked 17,824 Times in 3,831 Posts	Zazie! Does an orgy with three other girls but isn't allowed to fuck the other guys! In a way I think it teaches Mikki a lesson as he can't fuck the other girls either! __________________

18th January 2025, 21:33	#6395
Easymuse Class Clown Beyond Redemption Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 23,369 Thanks: 71,393 Thanked 188,768 Times in 20,830 Posts	. Lately (last coupla months) I'm finding FAR TOO MANY chicks with regular-sized bodies (no skinnies or plumpers) with NO TITS, they've all got A or B cups. GOSH-GOLLY I HATE THAT!!! On the other hand ... I can't stand FAKE TITS, which is way too much lately. I also hate the "new" look of "Kim K. HUGE ASS". __________________ * YES, I am a Whore. Let me know if there's any problem with that.

19th January 2025, 03:50	#6397
conflicted100 Registered User Addicted Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 114 Thanks: 164 Thanked 104 Times in 53 Posts	Two main peeves: scrunched women & quick-shifting camera perspective I know tastes vary a lot, so many Suziers won't agree with my particular pet peeves, but for me these are major deals. I wish they weren't; otherwise masturbating would be a much easier part of my life. Unfortunately, I feel so strongly about these issues that I can't simply watch a clip from beginning to end. If my criteria aren't met, I'm not stimulated and the vibe vanishes. Indeed, I'm de-stimulated; it's worse than watching nothing at all. Maybe it has to do with the fact that I've got a lot of artistic talent--did some pretty advanced stuff in high school and certainly could have majored in art in college if I hadn't been so scared of the economic risks. So maybe aesthetics affect me a lot more than the average Joe. Anyhow, my porn peeves are so strong that I use a video-editing program to cut most of the parts so that I'm left only with the stuff I like. On average, I end up with about 2 minutes from the typical pro-studio 20-minute clip. BTW, I don't count factors specific to model bodies: hip type, big-boned vs. skeletal, natural breasts vs. fake. These things I can control by simply not watching models whose physical aspects I don't find attractive. I'm only counting factors controlled wholly by studio production, precisely because I only get models I know I like. But then the studio screws them up. So here are my peeves: 1. Directors insisting on female models in scrunched-up positions (mostly in missionary but often dogstyle too) I'm really picky about a model's position. The model's pose is super-critical for me; I want to see her in positions where her torso isn't scrunched and legs are more naturally placed (i.e. below the waist, not above it). However, most studios seem to lean toward having their models scrunched up like a pretzel for at least some of the clip. Now, I'm not completely sure that this is something the studio controls, but I'm pretty sure it is. It seems only reasonable that the director will tell the models what s/he wants them to do. As evidence, consider the following sequence which I've seen in tons of videos: first, the female model assumes a standard missionary position with her legs flat on the bed in the Y shape (on either side of the man's legs) that most women will take naturally. That, in fact, is what I prefer to see by far. But it almost never lasts beyond a couple of seconds. The male model grabs one or both of her legs and reverses the angle of one or worse both of her legs so she looks like a W instead of a more natural Y. Or brings her leg up on his shoulder, etc. Boy do I hate that--and it happens about 95% of the time in pro clips. I almost never get the natural Y look in missionary. 2. Camera operators and editors creating video with constantly shifting frames I feel just as strongly about a couple of other positions, but directors themselves don't seem to interfere with them as much; models will often assume other positions I like (e.g. cowgirl) and the director leaves them alone but then the camera person or studio editor messes it up. Pro studios seem to want to emulate Hollywood in terms of having all sorts of different camera angles and shifting frames. They'll usually have a camera operator moving around as well as two or three stationary cameras, and the editor feels obligated to splice all of this footage in an out constantly. I find this really annoying. When a woman does assume some pose I like--such as doggystyle with a nicely arched back (concave), ass up--and the man thankfully doesn't screw it up somehow such as pushing her head down (happens about 70% of the time, another effing directorial decision, I have to assume), and I get to see the pose in all its perfection full side-on, note that three factors had to converge for me to get a good scene. Three! And then comes this peeve: once I finally get a good scene, it's only good for all of 20 seconds before the camera operator decides they have to move over to the back and get a different angle that's not half so good. Or the editor decides that he has to emulate big-time Hollywood movies and shift to one of the other cameras. Another standard thing they do all the time is this: I get a great full-frontal cowgirl arched backward (concave) with breasts bouncing, but then the idiot camera person zooms in and pans up to ONLY show her face. Are you freaking kidding me? Pretty faces are a nice side bonus but they are not reason we consume this stuff! So those are my two general peeves, 1) scrunching the woman up, and 2) constantly switching camera perspective so the few times you get a good combination of angle and pose, you only get it for seconds, almost never a full minute, let alone more. These two main problems drive me toward amateur material (b/c often they just set up a camera on a tripod and go at it, so when there's a good pose, the scene doesn't get messed up) even though the production values are usually inferior.

18th January 2025, 14:53	#6394
Wallingford Meanwhile . . . . . . . . Postaholic Join Date: May 2012 Location: Destination Unknown Posts: 7,168 Thanks: 53,986 Thanked 25,832 Times in 6,570 Posts	Never understood the whole self wedgie thing. Coochie floss?

19th January 2025, 10:36	#6398
Veronicamars Registered User Addicted Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 926 Thanks: 2,599 Thanked 2,020 Times in 710 Posts	That's too long to read.

19th January 2025, 18:01	#6399
Kassidiaris Registered User Addicted Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 899 Thanks: 9,565 Thanked 2,389 Times in 758 Posts	Serious question here. Why the fuck do 99% of photosets have 40-50 shots of the woman posing in clothes/underwear and like 5 photos of her naked without the mope?? I thought men were supposed to like looking at naked women! (Then again, nowadays they're rarely even naked during the sex...)