Simulated sex in unripped tights (dry humping)

[Heroine Addict]

I've seen this done in a few videos recently and it just looks... WEIRD! Like a bizarre version of the Conga or something.

Now, I'm a massive nylon fetishist, so I'm all in favor of tights staying on as much as possible. However, if the tights remain pulled-up and fully intact, there's the awkward issue of how the Hell can the guy penetrate the heroine believably? Maybe we're supposed to believe he has a Nightcrawler cock which can pass through unripped nylon?

I understand that a lot of actresses and models don't want to do frontal nudity with the full gynecological shot of legs spread wide open. But even in a non-nude video, could we at least hear the sound effect of the tights being ripped open, just so the sex scene makes sense in the story world?

Or, alternatively, use a vibrator or something which allows the heroine to stay dressed. Anything would be more convincing than dry humping in intact tights presented as penetrative sex.

[tallyho]

Yes I don't get it either and I'm not a hose fetishist (before the death threats start I like bare legs and hose in equal measure)

NovaWoman 2 has it between Randy and JC Marie and in that they are still wearing Sorts/skirts but making moans and groans and I just thought wtf? Just what was it supposed to be? 'Oh no she's bumping her pelvis against my ass, I can't go on'.In that vid it was especially ridiculous as Karlie Montana was dildoing Paris Kennedy 4ft away. (It was all implied/simmed, and I was happy with that)

I love the vid but that bit is just pointless.

So yeah I'm with you anything that makes it plausible.

[kingles]

I've seen this done in a few videos recently and it just looks... WEIRD! Like a bizarre version of the Conga or something.

Now, I'm a massive nylon fetishist, so I'm all in favor of tights staying on as much as possible. However, if the tights remain pulled-up and fully intact, there's the awkward issue of how the Hell can the guy penetrate the heroine believably? Maybe we're supposed to believe he has a Nightcrawler cock which can pass through unripped nylon?

I understand that a lot of actresses and models don't want to do frontal nudity with the full gynecological shot of legs spread wide open. But even in a non-nude video, could we at least hear the sound effect of the tights being ripped open, just so the sex scene makes sense in the story world?

Or, alternatively, use a vibrator or something which allows the heroine to stay dressed. Anything would be more convincing than dry humping in intact tights presented as penetrative sex.

I've even seen this in videos without tights, where all they'd really have to do is show the villain make the motion of pulling the crotch of the panties or leotard to the side. It seems like in these cases it's just not considered a priority to make the simulated sex scenes realistic. Like they don't think it will be that much of a concern to anybody, since the sex is simulated anyway. Clearly no producer could be blind to the fact that nobody could have sex with a woman who's entire crotch is obviously covered with fabric.

ANYTHING that allows the suspension of disbelief within the context of the story is important.

[kingles]

Yes I don't get it either and I'm not a hose fetishist (before the death threats start I like bare legs and hose in equal measure)

NovaWoman 2 has it between Randy and JC Marie and in that they are still wearing Sorts/skirts but making moans and groans and I just thought wtf? Just what was it supposed to be? 'Oh no she's bumping her pelvis against my ass, I can't go on'.In that vid it was especially ridiculous as Karlie Montana was dildoing Paris Kennedy 4ft away. (It was all implied/simmed, and I was happy with that)

I love the vid but that bit is just pointless.

So yeah I'm with you anything that makes it plausible.

I'm pretty sure Alex said that was part of the custom. It didn't make sense to me either, but I didn't pay for the custom.

[Femina]

Well... It isn't like nylon and silk panties are hardwood oak and titanium steel defensive walls or anything... I have to assume that leggings and leotards in particular are actually stretchy enough that it makes penetration more than plausible, panties are probably tougher and sturdier though true enough.

[TightsLover]

I tend to go for the lighter fare but I don't mind hardcore if I see it. But this title and the ensuing posts gave me a chuckle because it's so true! It just looks strange! At least go watch some skinemax movies to see how to do it right!

[Imagineer]

Skinemax "sex" scenes have their own absurdity. Something about the overacted thrusting, it's like they're riding children's playground equipment or practicing an off-Broadway show dance step.

If dry-humping is presented as such, i.e. there's something about the plot or characters or prior reaction to simple touching that establishes dry-humping as extraordinarily potent, okay.

But if I'm expected to believe penetration, I need something that addresses the clothing barrier. Hell, even a "wumm wumm wumm wumm" sound effect for thrusting that suggests magical penetration is better than "make something up on your own to suspend disbelief; we can't be bothered."

[tallyho]

Yes I don't get it either and I'm not a hose fetishist (before the death threats start I like bare legs and hose in equal measure)

NovaWoman 2 has it between Randy and JC Marie and in that they are still wearing Sorts/skirts but making moans and groans and I just thought wtf? Just what was it supposed to be? 'Oh no she's bumping her pelvis against my ass, I can't go on'.In that vid it was especially ridiculous as Karlie Montana was dildoing Paris Kennedy 4ft away. (It was all implied/simmed, and I was happy with that)

I love the vid but that bit is just pointless.

So yeah I'm with you anything that makes it plausible.

I'm pretty sure Alex said that was part of the custom. It didn't make sense to me either, but I didn't pay for the custom.

True it was a custom vid, and yeah, absolutely if thats what the guy wanted its his right. But it still seemed absurd, given they are both clothed and as the same customer had JC screwed with a strap-on by Randy in the first Novawoman it was a big 'wtf?' moment. I suppose if he was on a budget and full nudity of JC and Paris was beyond his price range, then maybe, but I still would have thought they could have dropped the short-shorts or pulled up the skirt without revealing anything and just implying the sex.

But, yeah point taken, its a custom, but I think its still valid as an example of instances where it (dry humping) goes on in a meaningless manner.

[Heroine Addict]

True it was a custom vid, and yeah, absolutely if thats what the guy wanted its his right. But it still seemed absurd, given they are both clothed and as the same customer had JC screwed with a strap-on by Randy in the first Novawoman it was a big 'wtf?' moment. I suppose if he was on a budget and full nudity of JC and Paris was beyond his price range, then maybe, but I still would have thought they could have dropped the short-shorts or pulled up the skirt without revealing anything and just implying the sex.

But, yeah point taken, its a custom, but I think its still valid as an example of instances where it (dry humping) goes on in a meaningless manner.

That's it, really. It's just a matter of creating the illusion of sex. Even if the performers are strictly non-nude, it's up to the producer to convince us that the characters on screen are genuinely having sex.

This stuff could work so well just through the power of suggestion. A sound effect of ripping fabric, a close-up of the heroine's reaction as her costume is breached and she is entered. It would just take a few small touches to make it seem more authentic. As opposed to a training video on the Heimlich maneuver.

[kingles]

I'm pretty sure Alex said that was part of the custom. It didn't make sense to me either, but I didn't pay for the custom.

True it was a custom vid, and yeah, absolutely if thats what the guy wanted its his right. But it still seemed absurd, given they are both clothed and as the same customer had JC screwed with a strap-on by Randy in the first Novawoman it was a big 'wtf?' moment. I suppose if he was on a budget and full nudity of JC and Paris was beyond his price range, then maybe, but I still would have thought they could have dropped the short-shorts or pulled up the skirt without revealing anything and just implying the sex.

But, yeah point taken, its a custom, but I think its still valid as an example of instances where it (dry humping) goes on in a meaningless manner.

It was an excellent example. It even goes further in that case because not only were all access points covered...there was no 'penis' involved either. So even if the shorts, etc. came down, you'd still have just had Randy bumping her pelvis against JC's bare ass. An improvement no doubt, but not a solution to the main issue. If the entire scene had simply been shot from in front of JC we'd have been completely unaware that she was covered and Randy didn't have a strap-on...on. Instead part of it was intentionally framed in a way that made it crystal clear what was, and wasn't happening. I can't see Alex shooting that the way he did unless the custom buyer requested it. Of course I could be wrong about that, but I don't remember him highlighting the lack of penetration in a sim sex scene before or after that one.

So in light of what I wrote above regarding it being the responsibility of the producer to allow the viewer to suspend disbelief...I'm just saying I don't really blame the producer in the example you brought up. There's no question that it's a great example though, because it unquestionably causes disbelief.

[Incubus]

Well... It isn't like nylon and silk panties are hardwood oak and titanium steel defensive walls or anything... I have to assume that leggings and leotards in particular are actually stretchy enough that it makes penetration more than plausible, panties are probably tougher and sturdier though true enough.

Exactly.

Peculiar, discriminating invisible ink.

Pliable nylons create a conducive condom for juggernaut genitals.

[Femina]

Well... It isn't like nylon and silk panties are hardwood oak and titanium steel defensive walls or anything... I have to assume that leggings and leotards in particular are actually stretchy enough that it makes penetration more than plausible, panties are probably tougher and sturdier though true enough.

Exactly.

Peculiar, discriminating invisible ink.

Pliable nylons create a conducive condom for juggernaut genitals.

Exactly. this is actually a fetish of mine as nudity is not particularly as sexy to me as sexy clothing. So when a villain goes THROUGH the superheroines costume (soiling both her and her icon of justice in the process) it's doubly entertaining.

[Heroine Addict]

Exactly. this is actually a fetish of mine as nudity is not particularly as sexy to me as sexy clothing. So when a villain goes THROUGH the superheroines costume (soiling both her and her icon of justice in the process) it's doubly entertaining.

I agree... to some extent. But the problem is that what you describe never seems to be conveyed well on-screen. I've never seen the concept of the costume becoming a "pliable nylon condom" presented as part of the story, so it's something we (the viewers) might add in our imaginations to make sense of a poorly-realized sex scene. If we go by what's actually shown on-screen, it's often just the awkward dry hump which looks like two drunk colleagues trying to dance erotically at the office Christmas party.

Costume-soiling can work well if the heroine is fondled or vibed until she cums. But the whole dry hump thing just looks weird and unconvincing to me. Particularly when the crotch of the heroine's costume is in full view uncreased, unmoved, unripped while the guy bumps and grinds.

It wouldn't be so bad if the costume remaining intact is part of the story (such as in your idea or the ultra-sensitivity scenario Imagineer suggested). But in many videos, we're supposed to believe that the heroine is actually being screwed and the guy is balls deep inside her when we can clearly see that's not happening.

[CustomSuperheroines]

Lol we ran into this same situation on one of our last shoots where we had realized we forgot to figure out how the insertion was actually going to happen. Had it been simulated, it really would've been the same for us because the obvious thing a viewer (including myself) is going to point out is the mechanics of how something is taking place. Especially if it's not possible ...

I know some people who love pantyhose love to see them get destroyed and that's a thing of its own-- and then there are some who like to keep The pantyhose on as long as possible intact so it's always a struggle to figure out what's going to be the best way to do it. I thought about just ripping it just enough to make the the sex happen but wondered if that was kind of odd the way it would play on camera

[Femina]

I don't think pantyhose is the problem here. Like I said before, Pantyhose isn't steel sheeting, it comes in a three inch by three inch package wrapped around a little cardboard siding and stretches to encompass a woman's entire lower half, it isn't that much of a stretch (no pun intended) to imagine a penis pushing inside of a woman as far as it will go and the nylon stretching accordingly I can basically attest to this. Even leotards made out of certain materials don't provide as much resistance as you might think toward insertion.

Dry humping is something else entirely. It's a fully clothed pelvis slapping against a fully clothed pelvis with no attempt to showcase it as anything other, whilst expecting for the viewer to accept that something else is happening. Even if the woman isn't into penetration, the villain can still take three seconds to pull his pants down a little (or put on a strap-on if she's female) before changing camera angles. Show some damp crotch when its all over and done and the impression could be brought along believably

[Mr. X]

Reminds me of a shoot where I had to diddle the girl at the end so the team is laughing while I'm trying to be all manly and fake doing the girl then half through they tell me I forgot to remove her undies. Couldn't stop laughing for like 20 minutes. Its hard to do those scenes when you have 3 women laughing at you.

[Heroine Addict]

Dry humping is something else entirely. It's a fully clothed pelvis slapping against a fully clothed pelvis with no attempt to showcase it as anything other, whilst expecting for the viewer to accept that something else is happening. Even if the woman isn't into penetration, the villain can still take three seconds to pull his pants down a little (or put on a strap-on if she's female) before changing camera angles. Show some damp crotch when its all over and done and the impression could be brought along believably

It is annoying when the standard of simulation in a fetish video is way below what you'd expect from a mainstream TV show. It's almost as if the issue of clothing is deliberately ignored to make the sim sex look as fake as possible. I get the distinct impression that some of the actresses have been assured "Don't worry. We'll shoot it in such a way that NOBODY could possibly think you were actually having sex on-set."

No matter what fantastical elements (such as super powers) are present in the video, seeing something from the real world presented in a blatantly fake way takes the viewer out of the fantasy. It's the equivalent of replacing gunshots with the noise of someone saying "BANG!"

[Heroine Addict]

On a more positive note, I hear Rye's new (non-nude) UltraGirl video directly addresses the issue of the heroine's tights being ripped open.