New Narrator...NOT

[lesit78]

I totally agree RR. I like Matthew. He's feeling his way along as he figures out what works for a straight fet site. His last video got a 4.5 rating! That's an extremely good rating for what might have been only a week or two on the job.

If he can give us a 4.5 vid just after he walks in the door...can you imagine what he'll be able to do for us 6 months down the road when he actually gets GOOD at this?? The sky's the limit!

Go Matthew!!

Um Tampa, I must politely raise my hand, but I don't think most of us rate the scene based on how good or bad the interviewer did. I think instead we tend to rate it based on the guys you actually see in the scene.

- Clearwater (Abe)

 

[lesit78]

I respect your opinion, bostnbilly. You are certainly representing what I would consider to be the "norm" among gay men. However, I am curious as to why you came to this site, when there are so many well produced sites featuring hot handsome, gay models who openly acknowledge their sexuality and are proud to be making passionate love to a fellow gay man?

I came to this site because I am a devotee of what I perceive to be a minority fetish, of enjoying watching masculine straight young guys, performing gay sex acts against their normal nature. I have passed on taking memberships to sites that feature all gay models for that reason.

As far as the comparison between the new narrator, and David, I can recall many episodes where David featured a gay boy, offered him a lot less money than he was supposedly paying to his straight partner, and requested that the straight boy fuck the gay boy very hard, and used terminology and showed a similar attitude as to what "Matthew" has shown in the first three episodes. I loved David's work very much, and thought he did a wonderful job, and that is why I've been a continuous member of this site for so long. Over the many year's that David shot Broke Straight Boys, there were many types of models, and scenarios presented on this site. I would like to give Mark, and "Matthew" more than three episodes before making any sweeping judgements about where the site is going.

Well said Mike.

Abe

 

[Ms. Kianna]

Let's hope Ms. K, let me buy us some popcorn and we can sit back and watch it together!

Abe

It's a date Abe!

 

[silvercamel]

Great interview with Zakk. I love that soft spoken kid.

So he's gay. Who knew?

It's excellent his parents are being so supportive.

Zakk was one of my favorite BSBs....great to hear he's got a boy friend.

 

[JLipps4u]

I don't know where or how long ago, but Matthew sounds much like the voice on another site. I want to say its the same voice from BFT. Maybe not, but his voice sounds very familiar.

Okay, so as for his (Matthew's) first shoots, they are about what I expected. however, I do think he chatters way tooooo much! Yes, I understand that he needs to talk these boys into submission, but most of the shoot is spent talking. Enough already.
Although I have seduced hundreds of young straight men, I never used money as the incentive. I can't really say how many I could have seduced, had I only used money as the incentive. I understand it's a whole different scenario, still, I for one would like to see more action and less conversation.

And lets be honest. David was not perfect. For one, David was frequently bringing in his gay friends to "help" him with a new straight guy. Those gay boys he brought were not always the best choices. Then, after he hired Tyler, David and Tyler would spend most of the shoot chatting endlessly, dulling many a potentially good shoot. Don't get me wrong, I think David did a fantastic job, but he was not beyond reproach. I suspect that Matthew will be the same. Some piss poor shoots, but many many great ones. Just quit yacking so damned much! LOL
Just saying.

 

[qscott86]

I don't know where or how long ago, but Matthew sounds much like the voice on another site. I want to say its the same voice from BFT. Maybe not, but his voice sounds very familiar.

Okay, so as for his (Matthew's) first shoots, they are about what I expected. however, I do think he chatters way tooooo much! Yes, I understand that he needs to talk these boys into submission, but most of the shoot is spent talking. Enough already.
Although I have seduced hundreds of young straight men, I never used money as the incentive. I can't really say how many I could have seduced, had I only used money as the incentive. I understand it's a whole different scenario, still, I for one would like to see more action and less conversation.

And lets be honest. David was not perfect. For one, David was frequently bringing in his gay friends to "help" him with a new straight guy. Those gay boys he brought were not always the best choices. Then, after he hired Tyler, David and Tyler would spend most of the shoot chatting endlessly, dulling many a potentially good shoot. Don't get me wrong, I think David did a fantastic job, but he was not beyond reproach. I suspect that Matthew will be the same. Some piss poor shoots, but many many great ones. Just quit yacking so damned much! LOL
Just saying.

You've got to be kidding.. David chatted more than Matthew ever has.. David spent the first 5 minutes of the shoot speaking. And yes, David brought back the same tired gay men over and over and over it was annoying.

 

[tampa24]

You've got to be kidding.. David chatted more than Matthew ever has.. David spent the first 5 minutes of the shoot speaking. And yes, David brought back the same tired gay men over and over and over it was annoying.

I tend to agree with your assesment about the talking Qscott.

 

[tampa24]

Um Tampa, I must politely raise my hand, but I don't think most of us rate the scene based on how good or bad the interviewer did. I think instead we tend to rate it based on the guys you actually see in the scene.

- Clearwater (Abe)

Fair enough Abe. My fellow Floridian. You are right that the ratings are not in and of themselves a referendum on the director. But the director is also often the person who usually vets the models being hired and placed into the scene. If we think the models are ugly or do a lousy job with the sex acts asssigned to them, then we rate the scene low. But if that happens we also tend to blame the director and his staff for hiring those models in the first place and/or giving poor direction to them.

So you're quite right that most times we are not thinking of David or Matthew when we are rating a scene very well. We are thinking only of how hot the models were. But if the scene comes across poorly and we give it a low score... many of us are reacting and voting for the staff and the director's performance as much as for the models themselves. So my point is that if a scene has models in it that we find hot...and they do the sex acts assingned to them very well...then the director (and staff) deserve a fair share of the credit for that. Not 100% of the credit as you point out. But some.

 

[tampa24]

Maybe I'm missing something . . .The agenda (clearly articulated by David) should be to have reticent men actually experience the real joys of gay sex.

I'm sorry Billy but I don't remember David ever articulating that kind of mission statement for the site. Clearly or unclearly. That does tend to be the mission statement over at another site called Corbin Fisher. Where they want to "teach" the guys the joys of gay sex. But over here the mission seems to be to pay the guys to try gay sex. And if indeed the straight models see the light and experience the joys and pleasures of it...then so much the better.

 

[mikeyank]

I'm sorry Billy but I don't remember David ever articulating that kind of mission statement for the site. Clearly or unclearly. That does tend to be the mission statement over at another site called Corbin Fisher. Where they want to "teach" the guys the joys of gay sex. But over here the mission seems to be to pay the guys to try gay sex. And if indeed the straight models see the light and experience the joys and pleasures of it...then so much the better.

Well said, Tampa. I was as big a fan as David had, but I don't believe in revisionist history. Let's not change the fact's of the past, to make our point in the present. The whole concept of Broke Straight Boys, has a "dark" aspect to it, of "taking advantage" of a young guy down on his luck, desperate for some quick easy cash. (That is not exactly what really goes on in either version one or two, but that is the core concept behind the site).

 

[qscott86]

I'm sorry Billy but I don't remember David ever articulating that kind of mission statement for the site. Clearly or unclearly. That does tend to be the mission statement over at another site called Corbin Fisher. Where they want to "teach" the guys the joys of gay sex. But over here the mission seems to be to pay the guys to try gay sex. And if indeed the straight models see the light and experience the joys and pleasures of it...then so much the better.

Well said, Tampa. I was as big a fan as David had, but I don't believe in revisionist history. Let's not change the fact's of the past, to make our point in the present. The whole concept of Broke Straight Boys, has a "dark" aspect to it, of "taking advantage" of a young guy down on his luck, desperate for some quick easy cash. (That is not exactly what really goes on in either version one or two, but that is the core concept behind the site).

I think you all have hit the nail on the head. There are some people who want this to be a site about GAY men. The title of this site is Broke Straight Boys If you want to see gay men, there are MANY other sites.

 

[JLipps4u]

I think you all have hit the nail on the head. There are some people who want this to be a site about GAY men. The title of this site is Broke Straight Boys If you want to see gay men, there are MANY other sites.

I have got to agree with you on this one qscott! My sentiments as well.

 

[cumrag27]

Enough already!

I think you all have hit the nail on the head. There are some people who want this to be a site about GAY men. The title of this site is Broke Straight Boys If you want to see gay men, there are MANY other sites.

Dear qscott86,

Thank you for being so very DISINVITING! I GUESS TOLERANCE FOR DIFFERING TASTES IS A HARD THING FOR YOU TO ABIDE BY. After all I pay my monthly fees just like you do!

There was always room for the occasional gay men before Broke Straight Boys-2.

 

[rrhill]

If the gay guys are young and attractive like Zach, and willing to bottom, they can make a seen hotter than just two straight guys that are not into gay sex at all.

But who looks forward to watch older, feminine queens?

 

[qscott86]

Dear qscott86,

Thank you for being so very DISINVITING! I GUESS TOLERANCE FOR DIFFERING TASTES IS A HARD THING FOR YOU TO ABIDE BY. After all I pay my monthly fees just like you do!

There was always room for the occasional gay men before Broke Straight Boys-2.

Umm no.. before Broke Straight Boys 2.0 it was almost all gay men.

If the gay guys are young and attractive like Zach, and willing to bottom, they can make a seen hotter than just two straight guys that are not into gay sex at all.

But who looks forward to watch older, feminine queens?

That would be true if this site wasn't called Broke Straight Boys. this is a specialty site... there are plenty of sites if you want to watch gay men have sex.

 

[rrhill]

Please name a few sites where I can watch handsome straight guys get sucked by cute gay boys. Been looking for those sites a long time...

 

[akrasia]

I feel like I need to chime in here. I've read the, "There are other sites if you want to see gay boys having sex," line a few times now since the new content went live. I must respectfully point out that that is hardly the meat of the difference between Broke Straight Boys and the other porn I've found on the internet.

While I do appreciate guys that don't act like queens, the real difference here was the quality of the models, the (apparent) honesty of the encounters, the lack of obviously fake moaning (if sitcoms have laugh tracks, are there moan tracks for porn?), the generally quite good camera work, the very high quality video, the thematic/serial nature of the videos. I could continue, I think. I don't think anyone would honestly say that someone like Shane detracted from the Quality of the videos, here.

So I suppose I have to admit, then, that the broke-straight-boy-that-really-doesn't-give-a-shit-and-just-wants-money isn't the thing that drew me to this site. It was all those other things. I'll echo what Mr. Hill said, somewhat: if there's a site with everything else this site has except without the straight boy shtick, tell me where it is. I haven't found it.

 

[Ms. Kianna]

I feel like I need to chime in here. I've read the, "There are other sites if you want to see gay boys having sex," line a few times now since the new content went live. I must respectfully point out that that is hardly the meat of the difference between Broke Straight Boys and the other porn I've found on the internet.

While I do appreciate guys that don't act like queens, the real difference here was the quality of the models, the (apparent) honesty of the encounters, the lack of obviously fake moaning (if sitcoms have laugh tracks, are there moan tracks for porn?), the generally quite good camera work, the very high quality video, the thematic/serial nature of the videos. I could continue, I think. I don't think anyone would honestly say that someone like Shane detracted from the Quality of the videos, here.

So I suppose I have to admit, then, that the broke-straight-boy-that-really-doesn't-give-a-shit-and-just-wants-money isn't the thing that drew me to this site. It was all those other things. I'll echo what Mr. Hill said, somewhat: if there's a site with everything else this site has except without the straight boy shtick, tell me where it is. I haven't found it.

Exactly!!!!!!!! No one has said it better. You are definitely the hero of the day!

 

[qscott86]

So I suppose I have to admit, then, that the broke-straight-boy-that-really-doesn't-give-a-shit-and-just-wants-money isn't the thing that drew me to this site. It was all those other things. I'll echo what Mr. Hill said, somewhat: if there's a site with everything else this site has except without the straight boy shtick, tell me where it is. I haven't found it.

Sounds like you basically want straight men acting like gay men.. how appealing.. not. Now if you want it the other way around, look at the archive from the past 6 years.. enjoy.

 

[Smiley]

That's not what akrasia said at all. He said the straightness of the boys isn't his primary concern. It's other things about the shoots that are more important to him.

You have valid enough points without filtering everything through a particular point of view. He said nothing about straight men acting like gay men, or even got close to that issue.

Criminy.