XRCO Announces Peter van Aarle to be Inducted Into Hall of Fame

We got word yesterday that IAFD co-founder, Peter van Aarle, is being posthumously inducted into the X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) Hall of Fame for his efforts in “bringing a host of porn knowledge together in the early days of the internet.”

For those of you new to the site, Peter’s data was the foundation upon which this site was built.  At the time of his passing, there were 50,000+ titles listed, almost all of the data on which was hand compiled by him.

I was quoted by XRCO as saying “To my mind, the four faces on the Mt. Rushmore of porn historians are Jim Holliday, Robert Rimmer, Patrick Riley and Peter Van Aarle.  In three of the cases, they wrote the book and Peter made a website instead.”

We maintain a copy of Peter’s personal website at http://www.rame.net/aarle.  He stopped maintaining his personal site around 1999 once the IAFD started to take off.  Once there, among the broken links, you can read his thoughts and his widely-pirated treatise on the Golden Age of Porn.

It’s been our goal to honor Peter’s memory with the continued operation and improvements in this site.  We honor him and the rest of the XRCO Hall of Fame Class of 2011:

Trailer Porn: Lost and Found

I thought maybe I’d start a new section highlighting some of the more memorable trailers to make their away across my mediafeed.   As with mainstream movies, a good trailer can make a shitty movie look pretty good, and there’s nothing wrong with highlighting fine examples of the craft.

So kudos to the editor who cut together our inaugural entry, the trailer for New Sensations: Romance’s upcoming release Eddie Powell‘s “Lost and Found

Initially, it looks like a Doritos ad — it captures the commerical sheen that Madison Ave ascribes to the “modern stoner” generation perfectly — but then we see Kimberly Kane and we know it’s not nachos we’re supposed to be eating. (Zing!)

The trailer sets up the plot - Allie Haze loves her dog, Xander Corvus has a crush on Allie… so a plot is hatched between Xander and his roommate Chad Alva to “borrow” Allie’s dog, so Xander can help her find it.  I suspect that some sex happens along the way (capping with an Allie/Xander pairing, perhaps?) but we’re not given any hint of it in this trailer.  Also on hand are Allie’s poster-maker friend Lexi Belle and Chad’s girlfriend played by the aforementioned Kimberly Kane (who really needs a more recent headshot on our site… must make a note to get on that…)

I have no idea how the movie is going to be, but the trailer is as shaggily charming as they come.


Lost and Found hits the streets on 2/28/11.

How The IAFD Works, And Why Some People Don’t Like Us For It

Recently, we’ve been under some criticism from the Twitterverse via @LezFemmez for shortcomings in our site.  He posted a snarky blog article on the subject — My Beef with IAFD.COM — and I figured I’d address his complaints here, in an effort to start a dialog.  (There’s only so much productive back and forth you can do in 140 characters.)

The biggest issue I have is the “LezOnly” marking. Why for fuck’s sake don’t they mark every G/G appearance by a girl in a particular movie? Now that would really be super helpful, but of course it would be a lot of work, so that sure ain’t gonna happen.

The LezOnly tag was designed by our esteemed founder to let visitors know that a girl ONLY did g/g in a movie.  In other words, she only did it with other girls in the movie.

Now, this may be an awesome thing — “Yes! I don’t have to see Nikki Rhodes swallow cock in Fuck the World!” — or it may be a bad thing — “Shit!  I was hoping Nikki Dial did more than just munch box in Rump Humpers 2” — but in either event, you know not to get that movie for one reason or another.

Now, we admit, there may be a place for the tag that LezFemmez is looking for, sort of a LezToo tag — which is to say she both gobbles knob and eats a girl out.  He’s also right in saying it’s some work to implement it — maybe not as much as he might think — we can certainly make some assumptions based on scene breakdowns and auto-generate the tags that way.

Also, LezFemmez seems to imply we’re not interested in doing any work (“…so that sure ain’t gonna happen“).  Somehow, in the last year,  data on over 10,000 movies happened… and it was a fair amount of work.  We’re not afraid of work — but we do like to prioritize so we can make sure we’re working smart.

The next worst problem is that obviously some people working for IAFD don’t really get what is a G/G scene and what is not. Admittedly, things in those 70s movies can get a little fuzzy, but two women talking to each other with a little groping involved does not qualify as a lez scene you need to write down in the database. Something unfortunately happening all too often, which leaves you with a profound longing to hurt somebody because once again you relied on the assessment of this one person who thinks that was a G/G scene.

Tomato, tomato on this one.  One man’s trash is another man’s treasure, etc.

What are the guidelines for a g/g scene?  Is a kiss enough?  Not enough?  Do we have to have fingering?  Full nudity?  Ice dildoes? Is there an empirical

Data on the older movies is a tough nut to manage because so many of the movies are out of print and if they’re in print, it’s very possible they’re in a different cut than they were when the database entry was generated.

This database has been in existence since 1982 or so, when Peter first started compiling the data for it.  So, the data from these older movies may be 20 years old and who knows how many versions ago.

So, while YOUR copy may have some conversation and a little groping, it’s very possible that there was an awesome fisting scene that was cut — or maybe only released in Europe — that we saw which is why it was tagged that way.  Sadly, we can’t ask Peter for clarification, since he’s no longer with us… but we do tend to defer to his data on the older stuff.

To explain further, in my mind,  Raw Talent includes a scene where Jerry Butler fucks a turkey carcass, cums on it and then serves the cummy sandwich to a difficult customer.  However, to the modern viewer, Jerry Butler walks into the kitchen, grumbles and then delivers a sandwich to a difficult customer.

So, what should the database reflect?  (Let’s assume the turkey in this case was an actual tracked performer.)  Does it reflect the original movie or the version currently available?

We choose the original movie, and we’ll add some explanatory comments;  unless there have been such significant cuts that the movie is then entered a second time (we’re looking at you, Traci Lords) …  For instance, we list both the Traci version of Talk Dirty to Me 3 and the re-released version that had Lisa DeLeeuw in her place - Talk Dirty to Me 3 (new).

IMDB has the superior ability to track “Alternate Versions” and we don’t have a very good way to do that.  We can just link the two together and try to add something to the comments field.

Another thing would be the search option. Why for fuck’s sake isn’t it possible to search for any words? No, it has to be the exact title, otherwise that freakin’ site doesn’t find a thing. Every other site, database or not, is featuring that, but no, not IAFD. Here’s an example: if you’re searching for the movie “The Best Little Whorehouse in San Francisco” you actually have to enter either one word alone or the exact title, but without the “the” in front of course (another superbly annoying feature). But of course “Whorehouse San Francisco” leaves you with nothing. So what the fucking fuck?

We feel your pain.  We do.  And we haven’t done anything about it because we’re (likely mistakenly) afraid of breaking with our own traditions.  (Seriously.)

I will say this, searching for “The Best Little” DOES bring up the title you’re looking for.  As a style guide, we drop the leading THE and A articles from titles.  That’s how Peter did it, so that’s how we do it.  It might not be right, but it’s the path we went down.  The search engine is smart enough to know to drop the leading “THE ” from a search term.

If you search for “whorehouse” you get 12 titles; if you search for “san francisco” you get 43 titles.

Now seems as good time as any to talk about this:

How Our Search Engine Works

It’s stupid.  It’s frightfully, frightfully stupid and oh so 1996.  It is. I can’t defend it as cutting edge, because it’s not — but it does work, if you know how to use it.

We don’t use Full-Text Searching because we’ve found it to be less successful and less precise than substring searching.

In our experience, typing in a small part of your title (“whorehouse”) will get you a better set of results than typing in “whorehouse San Fransisco” since the Fulltext engine is going to shoot back more titles than the substring search will.

How does this 1996 logic work in a 2010 world?

If you know the secret, works well enough.  If you don’t, you can find yourself pissed off and fast.  That’s why we offer the searching tips.

When I say it works well enough, I am leaving out its dirty little secret: It’s Fucking Slow Sometimes.

We know it.  You know it.  Substring searches are the slowest types of searches.  What they gain in accuracy, they lose in speed.  This wasn’t so bad when we were a small site, but as we’ve grown, it’s becoming all too apparent that it doesn’t scale so well.

Clicking around link to link is usually pretty speedy, but searching will occasionally (!!!) take longer than is comfortable.

So, FullText searching as the default way of searching is probably in our not-too-distant future, anyway…

Oh, and please don’t let yourself distract from eventual “BJOnly” markings, because there’s always a good chance the girl also has a G/G scene in that movie. Yah well, IAFD is not an exact science, more of a guessing game, which is really “helpful” on a database.

BJOnly tags are meant to be just that — the gal (or guy, if you’re interested in the gay titles) just blows someone in the movie; they have no other sexual activity.  If she has a G/G scene with someone else, there shouldn’t be a BJOnly tag.  If there is, it’s obviously a mistake, and you should let us know about it — we’ll remove the incorrect tag.  The scene breakdowns should make it pretty clear (but not always).

The tags were intended to let the visitor make informed buying/rental decisions.  If you’re a fan of someone but not a fan of G/G, buying a movie where she’s tagged [LezOnly] won’t satisfy you.  If you want to see someone fucked in the ass ([Anal]) or Peed On ([GoldShower]) you’d look for those tags.  If you want to see someone get fucked, you’ll ignore their [NonSex] or [BJOnly] tagged movies.  If you want to get everything they’ve ever done, you’ll avoid the [Clip] tags.  You might have to read a little deeper to see if the [DVDOnly] tag is new or old footage…

Hopefully this has given a little insight into how we do things.  We’re not above criticism.  Believe me, our editorial forum is a hotbed of self-criticism, sometimes to the point of near-paralysis as an issue is debated and re-debated.

We’re looking to make some changes in the coming year to address some of these criticisms, and I hope as we move forward you’ll all let us know how we’re doing.

Hello WordPress!

We’re moving some of the more administrative stuff to WordPress in an effort to make it easier for us to update the home page and add things like interviews, which up until this time, required manual editing of text files or database tables. (Primitive, I know…)

So, we opened blog.iafd.com which will live its own life over there, but the main content will be mirrored onto our home page.

The Interviews are also hosted over there now, and have their own RSS feed, so you can subscribe using your favorite podcast client.


We recently picked up an advertiser who asked if we would host their campaigns using IFRAMEs. All of our other banner advertising on the site is hosted by us; but this new ad would be hosted by THEM. It’s a legit form of serving ads these days, so we didn’t think much of it…

But now it appears their ad network was compromised and serving up malware. Thanks to the efforts of user @eeggee69 we were able to track down the offending code and better yet, trace its path from the IFRAME to a malicious site. The campaign is no longer running. The only solace we have is that sites as large as the New York Times have fallen prey to the same situation..