Why do you like vintage?

[petethepilot]

Because the girls lived next door and where real. We had a "lady" on my paper round in 1970 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (don't go there????) Who later I discovered on the front cover of a R***ox magazine, her name was Pia as I remember and it caused me endless sleepless nights.

I eventually brought a house a few doors from her and found out while I was doing some decorating for her that she still did some "modelling" and she and her husband where into the swinging scene, I got myself invited and spent hours watching her get it from just about everybody in the room even though she was then in her mid-50's I still see her now and again and she still gives me blow-jobs. She is still REALLY good for 63. but I cant persuade her to let me take photo's of her!!!!!!!!!!
we talk about her days and she is very proud of what she did.
my other claim to fame was that I kissed Mary millington at Keele University, the photo appeared in Playbirds magazine in the late 70's.
So Vintage erotica has been a part of my life since about the age of 12

[dj_poms]

Vintage is an art
women were more natural ;
Women have a thick hairy bush that is much sexier than bald ones
stockings & nylons also are very sexy ;
scarfs making models looking very classic

vintage loops are priceless

[loveroffur]

Whatever happened to the days when women looked and acted like women? Where has the ladylikeness gone? As far as hairy pussy, well, I always thought hairy pussy was a beautiful and womanly thing. Women had hairy bushes since the dawn of humanity. It was a completely normal thing up until the early 1990s, then it was starting to become outcast.

Most of the modern day women I don't even find attractive. Now, I'm not gay by any means, but most women today just don't look good to me now. That probably explains why I have been single for such a long time. Women were so much more attractive back in the golden eras. Now days, the only time you'll see a lady wear hi-heels and stockings is in a porno. But along with that, you'll see tons of tattoos and piercings so that just ruins the whole ladylike image. And of course, she'll have a completely shaved muff. GOD, I HATE THE 21ST CENTURY!!!

[negevax]

In the late 70,s I and my "chick" as she called herself did 4 photo and video sessions for a small group of amateur photographers ,both on our own and in a group of six. We were paid but we were not pro in any way ,just met the organizer by chance. Anyway it was a massive turn on for all involved ,and I'll never forget the rush of blood to the head and dick the first time we were naked and the cameras rolled. It was all dripping quims,and multiple orgasms for the girls and the best sex of our lives for us guys.We all came when we wanted- the photographers wanked all the way through and the volume of sperm produced in 2 hours was more than a lifetime of pro porn could offer [this was before aids of course]. If the early euro porn had the same atmosphere as ours when filming I can assure you they were really enjoying it!!

[baan2]

Most of the women these days had great natural bodies,they all seem to have
fun when having sex in the movies . The guys were natural too which makes
it easy to identify yourself .There are some details that would really turn me on such
as the cheesy walpapers in the rooms ( I would not want to have this decoration in
my house but in a porn movie I luv it !! ) ,the auld LCD/Quartz watch the actors were
wearing sometimes .Another point that I find important is that sex was a real taboo these
times and was always portrayed as something "dirty" and very secret,wheras nowadays we are
constantly bombarded by porn stuff which can quickly becomes a turn off seeing that sex
has become officialised and that any kind of sex materials has become so easily accessible,let alone all
the extreme stuff which refers more to surgery than anything else

[Gnostic]

Hi! I'm a newbie here and pretty much a lurker still, but I turned 17 in 1969 and was already a big porn fan and in the mid-1970s I went to grad school in NYC and met a number of American porn stars of that era and earlier who worked out of New York (yes, a lot of American porn was actually made in NYC, not Hollywood in those days!), so I hope that you won't mind if I offer a couple of comments on this topic.

To begin with, you have to understand that, at least in the US, making and distributing porn--and in many areas acting or posing for hardcore porn or engaging in certain kinds of sex acts (ie oral and anal sex)--was illegal until the mid-1960s (and in some areas, much later:* Harry Rheems, of Deep Throat fame, was prosecuted in Tennessee in the 1980s, Larry Flynt was prosecuted in Ohio and Georgia in the 1970s). As a result, the porn industry--if you could call it that--was a very small, underground operation. The actors were often college students or strippers or housewives who were desperate for money and happy to be paid the pittance that they were given by the directors. In the 1960s, the college students were rebelling against authority and the porn that they did often reflected their youthful enthusiasm and rebelliousness against the establishment. A lot of the directors were also college film students or recent graduates who wanted to make serious films, but were willing to make porn under a pseudonym or anonymously to make some money to finance their non-sexual film projects: Francis Ford Coppola has admitted to making a couple of softcore porn flicks and Lasse Braun made some of the best movies to come out under the CC label. For the most part, at least in the US, the producers were a rather sleazy bunch of men who were recruited from the fringes of the entertainment industry in NYC and LA (later SF, where the Mitchell Brothers decided to start making films to show in the theatre(s) that they owned there and struck gold with "Behind the Green Door" very early on, which funded their later ventures) to be front-men for the Mob, which had an absolute stranglehold over the distribution of porn (as well as strip clubs and gay nightclubs, etc.).

The actors and actresses looked like real people--the people next door--because that's what they were. While there were some gullibly stupid young aspiring actors and actresses who got into porn, for the most part, anyone who seriously wanted to get into acting knew that appearing in a porn movie would be the "kiss of Death" to any career in Hollywood or for the leading roles on Broadway. Today, there are basically two types of people in porn: failed aspiring actors and actresses who couldn't make it in Hollywood doing straight work and decided to take the money in porn and rank amateurs who don't know a thing about acting or how to present themselves in front of a camera.

Which brings me to the subject of why the porn looked different then than it does now. The reason that vintage porn--particularly the color porn of the late 1950s through the early 1980s looks so different from today's porn is that it was shot on film, not video tape. While some porn (the cheaper, grainier stuff) was shot with an 8mm camera, a great deal of it was shot with professional, 35mm cameras "borrowed" from university film departments or Hollywood movie studios by directors and cameramen who had gone to film school somewhere--that is not the case with today's porn. Film cameras in those days were very expensive, so there weren't that many people who could afford them and the film that was shot had to be developed in a lab. With the advent of videotape in the late 1970s, all of that began to change. Video cameras and video tape were really cheap in comparison to film cameras--anyone could own a video camera and buy tape and the tape that they shot did not need to be processed. And, that meant that anyone could suddenly become a producer or director or cameraman, without knowing the slightest thing about how to shoot or edit a scene, let alone a movie.

While the action in the porn of that era may seem to be more spontaneous than it is in today's porn, don't believe it! Because film and processing was expensive and there was a physical limit to how much film could be wound onto a reel, there was a strict limit to how long a porn movie could be. If the movie was to be distributed on 8mm reels, which most was, the movie could not be longer than 12 minutes, tops (less in Super 8mm because the frames were larger). While there was a fair amount of porn--most of which hasn't survived--that simply showed two or more people going at it, because a lot of the directors and cameramen were serious film students and they produced the best porn of that era (CC, Rodox, Swedish Erotica, etc.), they tried to not only show sex in the 12 minutes that they had, but they tried to "set up" the sex scene by also telling a little bit of a story. As a result, in a lot of these films, the sex took place in some kind of fantasy context. While some of today's porn makers try to create a story and context for the sex their films, because the are able to make the scenes so much longer, the story and context often gets lost.

I can't over-emphasize the impact that the 12 minute limit had on the quality of the porn in those days. First of all, the actors and actresses had to know enough about acting to understand where the camera was and what part of their bodies the camera had to film. If they didn't understand that or catch on to it quickly, they were not around long. While it may appear that they were being more spontaneous than the people in porn today, in fact, they really weren't. Everything was tightly scripted because the more time and film that was used to shoot a scene the more expensive it was. Additionally, because the film could only be 12 minutes long, the raw footage that the director shot was edited afterwards: only the best shots or sequences ultimately ended up being a part of the final product. In a lot of today's porn, if an actor or actress turns the wrong way or the cameraman doesn't shoot the scene from just the right angle, it still ends up being a part of the movie that ends up being sold. That was not the case in the better films of that era--the ones that have largely survived. In today's porn, the actors and actresses may stay in the same position and the cameraman may shoot them from the same angle for 5 minutes or more. In that era, with only 12 minutes to get the actors and actresses out of their clothes, into bed, having sex and reaching their climax, the longest that the people were in the same position and were filmed from the same angle was 3 minutes (I was told this by two different porn actors: J.Stevens and Joey Silvera).

Finally, because the color in color film is more tightly compacted on the film than there are lines of resolution in any of the videotape standards (ie NTSC, PAL, SECAM, etc.), color film transfers to print media, like magazine quality paper, etc., a lot more brilliantly. I don't know if I am explaining this right, but perhaps I can explain it in terms of digital pixels: if an image was on color movie film (especially 35mm) and the same image was on videotape, the image on color film would have considerably more pixels per square inch than the same image would have on videotape. As a result, the image on color film would be sharper and the colors fuller when viewed on a TV screen or printed on a page. When you see a yellow or red tinge in a vintage photo, it is probably due to the fact that the lighting that was used in those days was largely incandescent light, which has a yellow cast (red when too intense or the film is over-processed). Flourescent and LED lighting, on the other hand, has a bluish tint. Film from different companies in those days also had slightly different tints as well: Fuji film had a bluish tint, Kodak a reddish/yellowish tint. All of which accounts for the colors that you see when you see a copy of an vintage film or magazine from that era.

Finally, because porn was an underground industry, when copies were made to be distributed--especially in the US--there was often a noticeable discrepancy in the quality of the processing and reproduction. I can say from experience that you could buy two copies of the same movie from the same stack of films on the same table in the same store in Times Square and see a noticeable difference in color and visual quality when you took them home and played them on your projector at home. The same was true of magazines. I can't tell you how many times I flipped through a stack of copies of a given magazine to make sure that I got a copy that didn't have a blurred picture or photo where the color had been smeared when it was being printed!

Why do I love vintage porn? Well, there are lots of reasons, I suppose. I could start by saying that I fell in love with Bette Page the first time I saw a picture of her when I was about 10 years old. I could say that I prefer the quicker, shorter scenes that tell a story. I could say that this is the porn that I grew up with and the actresses are the ones that I fantasized about. I could say that I love to see women in garterbelts and stockings and other types of sexy lingerie. Or, I could say that I like the the look of scenes that were shot on color film a lot more than the washed out look of videotape. But, the truth is that I love all kinds of porn--I know it's heresy for me to say so, but even some of today's porn--and the porn of that era is some of the very best ever made.

BTW: I know this will sound sexist, but one big reason that today's women do not appear to be as sexy as women of the early 1970s and before then is that the women of today have all grown up wearing pants and flat shoes. The women of that earlier time wore skirts and high heels. Today's women do not know how to walk properly in high heels and a skirt. And, the reason is balance. When a person walks in pants and flat shoes the person swings his or her arms so that the arm opposite the foot that is advancing swings forward (left foot and right arm go forward at the same time; the right foot and left arm go forward at the same time). But, if you do this when walking in high heels and a tight skirt, it is easy to lose your balance and fall. The proper and most balanced way for a woman to walk in high heels and a skirt or dress is with the arm and leg on the same side going forward at the same time (the right arm goes forward as the right leg goes forward; the left arm goes forward as the left leg goes forward). To walk like this, however, it is necessary to shift one's hips--and, consequently, one's gluteus maximus--with each step, creating a wiggle that is very sexy. If you watch some of the really sexy actresses of the 1930s, 40s and 50s, you will see that they shift their hips in this manner and accentuate it when they are trying to act sexy. Today's young women are used to walking in pants and flat shoes or sneakers and they walk the same way that men do--and that is not nearly as sexy as the way that women had to wiggle their hips when they walking in a skirt or dress and high heels every day.

[binett]

Simply put ... it's honest. What passes for adult material today is so disingenuous, it's insulting. and plastic (literally and figuratively!). Nice thread - thanks

[aerosmith]

Good looking, natural women, hairy pussies, feminine women and masculine man - human beings in away they were ment to be, not the artificial plastic ones we have today. In movies and unfortunately also more and more in real life. No silicone, tattoos, piercings, no bald genitalia on both men and women. I hate this brainwash "body hair is dirty and perverse". God, it`s natural!! Grown up people have hair in their bodies!!

[shanafona]

The reason I love vintage is because everything was better "then". Not just porn. If you watch "Dangerman", "The Prisoner" or anything from the sixties or seventies women were just so much more attractive.

Unfortunately I live in a shit country where law and order, immigration and social values dont mean a fucking thing. Today, modern porn, with a few rare exceptions, like Tescos, reflect thye society we live in, i.e bland consumorist crap.

Thank God for this forum

Apologies about the moan.

Shanafona

PS; FF seamed/ RHT stockings Lesbians are the best!

[indotrader]

Well firstly what does vintage mean...(from cambridge dictionary)

adjective
of high quality and lasting value, or showing the best and most typical characteristics of a particular type of thing, especially from the past:

hm that sounds about right

but then from the same dictionary came....Pornography...
books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value which describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting but would be considered unpleasant or offensive by many people:

So the many people who are offended please leave the room while i lobby the cambridge dictionary to change the meaning of pornography.

Back to the point then vintage to me means natural beauty and simplicity like Louise London, Rosemary England,Vikki Scott, Mary Millington and not the plastic fantastic brigade of today who insert all maner of light agricultural equipment in to the pierced shaven tattoed holes,
Its all gone wrong badly wrong, but like most things it will come full circle so its up to us to preserve the past for future generations or we are doomed to a fate worse than IKEA