A Porn Journalist’s POV

Lately you've likely noticed my complaints about performers' appearances, and the length of scenes. As a porn journalist who makes it a point to sit through a dvd's entirety due to daily time constraints I often times get a little infuriated if the dvd in question doesn't contain a thoroughly sexy cast, and if the scenes are poorly done in some manner (i.e., Too Short, Too Long, Not Enough Scenes ...). What you have to understand is that as a journalist it is our duty to provide a play-by-play account of the performances, and a proper breakdown of the performers' looks. This means sitting through the entire length of the dvd (even if it is 4+ hours long), and taking notes (mental, or written) as we watch each scene play out. The same goes for the extras that are included on each dvd. While this process would normally be alright, and tolerable for someone who is looking for a quick fapping session I personally have to focus a little more than normal, and hold back my enjoyment so that I don't miss something worth noting in the review.

I remember back in the day, before I was ever into the field of porn journalism. I would enjoy a scene even if the girl/s involved were a little on the fugly (fucking ugly) side. To me it was all about the fuck, and less about who was being fucked. I tuned into the action going on onscreen, and anxiously awaited that ending cumshot that I knew was coming. I absolutely loved watching the girls getting their faces plastered with man goo. It was hotter than hell, back in the day. As I grew up, and matured a bit though (in the porn journalism sense of the meaning) I began noticing the difference between great porn, and mediocre porn. I think Marc Dorcel's French glamor porn might have had something to do with that evolution of thinking. Regardless of that fact I could tell a difference in the quality of porn, and whether or not it was impressive, or mundane. Porn Journalism had taught my eyes to see porn in an entirely different way. In a more professional way.

While my offered perspectives may not jive with the non-journalistic public, or even the performers involved I do give an honest account via a mental judgment system that has become a part of me. I weigh the performers on a scale of greatness as well as their respective performances. On one hand there's the glamor porn of Marc Dorcel filled with the richest of content, and on the other hand there's that studio who stretches 3+ hours of poorly crafted visual content across only a handful of scenes. While my scale of greatness may differ from other Xcritic journalists you have to keep in mind that there is indeed perfect porn out there, and there's shite porn as well. Depending on which studio you turn to it will either be greatly impressive, or it will be mundane to outright horrible. At the end of the day I'm only looking out for you though, and in the process I'm trying to help you dodge the bullets that would cheat you of your hard earned money. As a journalist I'm also trying to get you to appreciate the greater porn that is available, and heighten your expectations past that of desiring shite content with attention whores, or fugly performers. There is greatness awaiting you, but you have to be picky if you are to find those gems.

I hope this blog article helps you to gain a better understanding of my role on Xcritic, and what it is I'm aiming to do as a porn journalist. I'm not simply just pointing out things in a shallow/heartless manner, but I'm instead trying to help you see what's good, and what's not entertainment-wise. I'm sure some of the performers out there who I've given a hard time about their appearance are great folks, but in this business if you don't look the part you should not be flaunting your goods for the world to see. Not even if you can fuck like a pro.

- Vincent Pierce