- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 7,524
cladre60;727267 said:
what do they want ....no body knows LOL do we care about the stuff they want?
Can you believe that shit?
what do they want ....no body knows LOL do we care about the stuff they want?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 7,524
cladre60;727279 said:
true
I laugh when he clarify that any of these women represented in the chart can vanish at any point in time and re appear anywhere else LOL. Thats exactly how women are. Ive met ��������� who suddenly dissapear from the industry and later in time they are married and they "found God" and vice versa.
doublelongdaddy;727312 said:
It is. But wether if its a beautiful thing or not, my point was the fact that women vanish from one spot in the chart to another completely different. Maybe that was not a good example.
Another example is a girl you could be dating, seems to be the perfect chick, but then she becomes obsessive, controlling and jealous. She ends up practicing santeria on you leaving pigeon rats heads in the front door and shit.
cladre60;727306 said:
Yes, and talking about that, just found out another girl I knew just died in January. Loni Evans. 26 years old. Although the cause of death has not been disclosed, I put all my money on overdose. All these girls are hooked up on drugs. Its an evil horrible industry.
Jackxxx;727319 said:
Don't some companies do drug testing? I thought I had read Dani Woodward lost a contract for failing a drug test.
I'd love to have her deep throat me. On camera she makes choking on cock look like something she enjoys.
Jackxxx;727359 said:
Sounds like I need to start my own little ���� company and require random drug testing with alcohol being okay outside of work hours and marijuana okay just don't look or act baked on camera.
"Honey, we need to buy a high quality camera, a domain name, and a lot of bandwidth..."
cladre60;727376 said:
Thats how currently work, except for the drug testing. Girls are doing drugs during working hours anyways. As long as they don't look fucked up on camera, producers are ok with it. After all, you cant control what a girl is doing in the bathroom.
Generally speaking ���� companies don't give a crap. All the paperwork and hassle involved is just to cover their ass with the dozens of regulations on it. There are hundreds of lawyers with their teeth ready to prosecute the ���� industry in every single possible way. Thats why companies go beyond an extra mile to protect themselves.
Jackxxx;727390 said:
That's why I find the lack of strict random testing policies odd. If you think about it it's a lot easier for a girl to say that she was put on a position where she was doing scenes to pay the producers back for drugs if they're allowed to be high. The ���� industry has had enough trouble over the decades, why allow girls to be high and add to the problem? Some strung out floozie could cause lots of unwanted problems and there's enough girls out there willing to do it sober...I think at least.... they get into it sober and get hooked on drugs later.
cladre60;727397 said:
Not quite. All performers are interviewed on video declaring between other things, participating in ���� absolutely voluntarily, at their own complete will, they declare to be sober at the time of the shoot, they declare to have awareness of being a pornstar for their eternity in multiple media forms, etc.... All this is backed up on video showing 2 forms of ID plus signatures on paper including all federal compliance and model release forms. This process is done before every single ���� shoot. No ����������� is ever filmed without all this documentation completed. So for those who think that the "reality ����" or those ���� "interviews" or those girl street pickups are real, nope, theyre not. Everything is setup and pre arranged.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 111
woman have the worse spacial awareness, they couldn't tell a 5 inch dick form a six incher, depending on the girth, and to be honest neither can most men.
It would be very difficult to perform an accurate survey between women to asses the best size for them. One way to do it would be to provide each woman with a set of realistic dildos of different most common sizes for a period of time, perhaps a couple of weeks, and allow them to play with all of them until she finds the one that gives her the most pleasure and comfortability. Then we collect all those chosen by them and measure them. This way we would have a clear preference based entirely on feeling and not on visual perception of size or measurements from their part. Hard to do this survey, but it would give us a more accurate answer.
The amount of work it would take to make a survey that is accurate in determining this is formidable to say the least. Not only would it take a significant amount of resources to test it in a way that would make each participant have an equal experience (there would be many variables when it comes to something like this) but the sample size would have to be rather large to give an overall picture of the population.
To shrink the idea some, lets just look at it from the US stand point. I'm going to low-ball these estimates by a significant amount so the math will be simple for me right now. With that being said, lets say there are approximately 300 million people in the US and roughly 70 million are children so we exclude them. That leaves us with 230 million, about half of those will be female so that leaves us with 115 million for TOTAL population. Using a survey tool calculator, with a 5% error tolerance, we would need to have about 81 million respondents to the survey! And that's only with a 90% confidence.
Long story short, preference surveys of this nature will only be able to represent the population that their sample was taken from. If this population isn't specified, its not a safe assumption to make a claim that it represents a larger population such as the average american female.
To shrink the idea some, lets just look at it from the US stand point. I'm going to low-ball these estimates by a significant amount so the math will be simple for me right now. With that being said, lets say there are approximately 300 million people in the US and roughly 70 million are children so we exclude them. That leaves us with 230 million, about half of those will be female so that leaves us with 115 million for TOTAL population. Using a survey tool calculator, with a 5% error tolerance, we would need to have about 81 million respondents to the survey! And that's only with a 90% confidence.
Long story short, preference surveys of this nature will only be able to represent the population that their sample was taken from. If this population isn't specified, its not a safe assumption to make a claim that it represents a larger population such as the average american female.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Sticky
