Acidtester wrote:...So I guess I missed my chance to see something like that. Dammit.
We both missed out on things because we thought it would never end.
I waited through all the discussion because I was almost certain to say the wrong thing. Truth is that a lot of our fetish looks the way it does because it's a sexual fetish. Most of the guys shooting the video and taking he pictures were producing what they like which is sexual fantasy. Over the years I was with MPV, Studio 588, Pam and Rob, Kaol, Chuck Lang, Nessie, Kristine and Lance, and others. Most of those producers, or a fair portion of their content, addressed our fetish as something sexual. Maybe not always overtly but it was more often than not at least cheesecake if not "porn." For my own part, even an innocent damsel had to have a fair amount of cleavage and leg showing. It's a sexual tease going all the way back to Vera Miles in
Tarzan's Hidden Jungle with the ripped skirt and open collar. That's not porn but it was about as much as you were going to get away with at the time. It's nothing to go to the movies now and get soft core porn so why wouldn't the material of an actual sexual fetish created by heterosexual guys in the same age bracket look that way?
Villein wrote:What I have always appreciated about quicksand fetishism in general is that it tends to sit on the soft core level of pornography.
I have never enjoyed hardcore pornography, mostly as it often lacks imagination...
But I personally appreciate that this fetish is both a little bit weird and soft core in its presentation of subject matter.
I couldn't agree more.
It's a dirty job but I got to do it for over 20 years. Thank you.