Now it’s revealing to look through someone else’s porn. You probably learn more about them than administering 20 hours of torture and sleep deprivation. So self-revelatory too!
Initially it occurred to me that my buddy had few decent pics. But then I realized that he just had very different taste. Which ran mainly to rough street-wise looking guys. In unposed shots. Often grainy and faded. No studio big budget studios, with controlled lighting and whatever.
The guys were often hot but not what I tend to collect. It then occurred to me that his ideas of what was a turn-on had been formed in the days of porn mags and the images he found there.
The bods didn’t need to be anything out of the ordinary as long as the dong was right. Definitely not many models here, with bodies worked out to within an inch of their lives.
Now there was another interesting angle on all this. There seems to be a delicate balance between being just rough and unappealing (all relative to me of course) and being rough sexy (and cock-hardening to me).
To prove the point, here are two examples of the former, which are the bulk of my friend's collection:
And a whole bunch of ‘Jarrad’ for the 'rough sexy' category:
Except for the occasional Jarrad!
I think your friend has great taste!!!
ReplyDeleteMind you, it is also hard to say no to the models, but I do like the natural look. :D
jaraad is by no means rough. he is very very pretty but not a model i agree. my taste runs towards the rough as but i also love blonds, and for some reason rough blonds are a rare breed. however (as a side note)I live in los angeles and i must say that billy brant now definately qualifies as a very rough blond. lets just say drugs are bad.
ReplyDelete