What Makes A Good Smoking Model?

Written by Smoke Signals | 28 February 2013

What Makes A Good Smoking Model?
SMOKE SIGNALS MAGAZINE - March - April 2013

We've had many people ask us what criteria we use to select the smoking models we feature on our sites. And so we thought this might be as good a time as any to answer the questions for everyone to see.

First and foremost, of course, the model has to be a real-life smoker and has to inhale. We're sure you've seen "smoking models" (to put it kindly) who've appeared on porn sites - many of them don't inhale, and even if they do inhale in real life, they often just let the smoke waft out of their mouth for the camera, with what they (or the producer) think is a sexy look. Some people may indeed find it sexy. We find it a waste of a model and a waste of good smoke. On rare occasions, we've used video of models who only inhale lightly, primarily because there's something else in the scene that makes it worthwhile in our eyes. For example, a video we're posting on Smoking Flicks later this week features porn star Angelina Mylee, who has a "light" smoking style. But she's performing smoky oral sex while her real-life mother watches approvingly and smokes in the background - a hot scenario we've never seen filmed by anyone before, and something we found interesting enough to use despite Angelina's shallow inhales. But IRL smoking is the number one requirement we try to enforce for our shoots.

Secondly, the model should enjoy what she's doing. That doesn't mean she has to be perky and bubbly about her smoking, but it does mean she shouldn't look like she's doing something distasteful to her. Not every model smiles when she's doing a shoot of any sort. But if our models smile and let you know they're enjoying their cigarettes, it's definitely a plus. Naturally, you won't hear our models saying they "only smoke because they're addicted." But we want the viewers to know, just by watching, that the models smoke because they enjoy it.

That brings us to our third and most-misunderstood criterion: accomplished smoking. We're always delighted when we have a model who is adept at smoking, and is able to do at least some of the "tricks," as many call techniques like french inhaling or open-mouth inhaling. But contrary to some people's view, we don't make it a requirement. We're not fans of models who look awkward while trying to show off what they can do; for example, we don't want them to "try" to french inhale or make smoke rings and then shake their heads after looking somewhat foolish. What we're after is someone who looks totally natural while doing a snap or french inhale - someone who can toss off a few smoke rings without a second thought - someone whose nose exhales are thick and natural. And just as impressive to us is a model who doesn't do the "tricks," but takes power drags, double drags, shows effortless talking exhales, or in other ways shows her "dominance" over her cigarette. For want of a better way to explain it, the smoke doesn't control her, she controls the smoke.

Finally, there are a few other factors that never show on the finished product, but we look for models who are easy to work with, and who don't find the smoking fetish "weird" (as we've heard from a number of prospective models). We find that leads to more relaxed, enjoyable and productive shoots.

We hope that answers some of the questions we've gotten - and gives you an idea of how we choose models for inclusion. It may sound simplistic. But when you've seen dozens and dozens of models who claim to be real life heavy smokers, claim to love smoking and claim to be good at it - and then find that they don't even inhale (or even vomit after trying to smoke two cigarettes in a row) - the process of screening and selecting models is a lot trickier than you might think.

Enjoy the March-April issue!

Are Peoples' Lungs Different Today?

Written by Smoke Signals | 31 December 2012

Are Peoples' Lungs Different Today?
SMOKE SIGNALS MAGAZINE - January - February 2013

A question popped into our minds recently, as we were watching a few old movies from the 1940s on TV.

As is often the case, smoking was ubiquitous in the movies, with everyone lighting up regularly, no matter where they were, no matter what the circumstances.

The female smoking was, of course, oustanding; style was paramount, particularly in social settings. French inhales, snaps, nose exhales, residual exhales were commonplace. But that's the subject for another lament.

What really hit us, though, was the way that everyone, men and women, young and old, were taking cheek-hollowing drags on their powerful, unfiltered cigarettes - almost non-stop. And that's what got us thinking.

What is it about smokers in the 2000s, that sees most of them taking shallow inhales on light or ultra-light cigarettes, yet often only able to handle a few cigarettes a day?

We understand that the amount people smoke, particularly these days, is often constrained by the price of cigarettes and the difficulty of smoking in public. Even so, it seems that the modern day smoker's ability to "handle smoke" is far from what it used to be.

We see it regularly in filming models, who often complain about being asked to smoke full-flavored cigarettes, who more often than not can't even smoke two cigarettes without a break, and who complain about being "smoked out" when a session isn't even halfway over.

We also see the flip side of it, when members of the community lionize women who chain smoke on camera. It used to be, not so long ago, that chain smoking was almost "required behavior" in social situations. Today, fetishists rhapsodize about women who are able to chain into a second cigarette, and pledge undying love if someone smokes three in a row.

There's no question that regulations and cigarette prices have changed smokers' behavior, and there are therefore sociological reasons why people smoke less than they used to. That has no doubt made it harder for people to chain smoke.

But in watching women devour the smoke form their unfiltered cigarettes in old movies, we also have to wonder if there's been some sort of physiological change as well - making today's lungs less able to tolerate large volumes of smoke. Air pollution, perhaps? A greater prevalence of allergies, weakening lung capacity? More additives in the smoke lowering the lungs' ability to handle even light or ultra-light cigarette smoke? Fear?

There may be some elements of this discussion better suited for Vesperae's analysis - she's better at providing answers. We're better at asking questions. And this one is stuck in our minds, at least this month.

Whatever the explanation - it's certainly a shame from our perspective.

Happy New Year - and enjoy the January-February issue!