Reviewers Recommend Dani Daniels: The Iconic Collection - review by Captain Jack Starring: Toni Ribas, Manuel Ferrara, Ramon Nomar, James Deen, Karlie Montana, Zoey Holloway, Skin Diamond, Dani Daniels, Maddy O'Reilly, Sovereign Syre. Read review
Try a general web search on this title, Rive. Anabolic's ROUGH SEX #1 and ROUGH SEX #2 are still available on DVD from retailers in Europe who will (in some cases) ship to North America. Good luck! - Zen
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 5 2009 : 2:15PM
Why just #2? Have you seen #1? I still have it on VHS, even though I haven't actually watched it in years. No, it isn't that bad. At the time that it was made, rough sex was still a novelty in porn, and was considered controversial. I still don't understand how porn can be too "controversial." It's like saying that boxing/wrestling is too violent. Isn't that the whole nature of it? But I digress. I think Rough Sex only got the attention that it did because it was one of the first gonzo series that specifically focused on extreme rough hardcore sex during the politically-correct age of the late 1990's-2000's. You can perhaps credit it with starting the whole extreme rough gonzo porn trend that occurred during that same time. But if you compare it to alot of the porn that followed (some of which was also taken off the market), it made Rough Sex look like a Disney movie.
One of the girls in one of the movies claimed she was coerced in her scene. People began openly worrying that the story might make it into the mainstream news and result in a general legal backlash against the industry.
Anabolic seems to be releasing Rough Sex again in a few weeks. It'll get sales because of notoriety but as skronker says it's probably going to be no more aggressive than anything else these days. I don't think Donkey Punch is worse that a lot of the slapping and hair pulling that went on in gonzo. The problem is that it focused on it and made distributors uncomfortable. Pull My Hair And Call Me Stupid at least sounds amusing.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 9 2009 : 2:49AM
^Donkey Punch obviously made the producers uncomfortable as well, since they're the ones who took it off the market and no longer released it. I think it was initially supposed to be a series, since I think I remember reading that the guys who made had a sequel in the works. But they stopped it after the first one, presumably because they got scared of all the people who didn't like it and were complaining about it. The way I see it, if you're going to make this type of rough porn, which I don't have a problem with, then atleast have the balls to stand by it and keep it on the market. Don't take it off the market and try to pretend like you never made the movie as soon as people say they don't like it. You knew that was going to happen when you made the movie. So what!?
[Link]
Bluto Deactivated User
511 Posts 3/09
Posted - Sep 9 2009 : 3:29AM
The people who make porn are not porn fans. They don't watch it and don't get it. They throw stuff against the wall and hope some of it sticks. How else can you explain donkey/stomp/hook/puke/spit?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 9 2009 : 4:02AM
No one wants to go to jail. They just want to make money.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 9 2009 : 8:01PM
^I don't mean to go off on a tangent, but I'm getting really tired of the age-old excuse that porn can't show XYZ because showing XYZ will land them in jail. It's all bullshit. We're not talking about things that we all know are explicitly illegal, like bestiality or underaged minors, that nobody wants to see anyway. We're talking about fetishes- legal fetishes- occurring between consensual adults, and that many porn viewers have made it known they would like to see. Let's use fantasy rape as an example. Where is the law that bans filming a woman acting like she's being raped on film? If there is such a law, it would mean that probably 99% of mainstream Hollywood movies and TV shows have broken it. Although there is no such law, if you ask a pornographer why no one in porn shows it, the first excuse they will give you is, "I don't want to go to jail." WTF! It makes no sense. Sure, we all know about Max Hardcore, and how no one else wants to end up in his situation. But if you're making porn, the truth of the matter is that you risk the possibility of ending up there anyway. Plus, Max Hardcore is the exception rather than the norm. The unfortunate conviction of one pornographer who fell victim to fanatical, agenda-seeking prosecution should not be enough to make everyone else suddenly start thinking that shooting XYZ will land them in prison. What if Max Hardcore had won his case? Would it really have made any difference on how easily intimidated other pornographers seem to be? I'm not sure. Let's all just hope that John Stagliano doesn't get convicted. If he does, will that mean that everyone else will stop shooting anal scenes? Pretty soon, the only thing we'll have left will literally be our own imagination, which is something that is really lacking in porn right now. Basically, it has nothing to do with the law and what it allows. It just has to do with laziness, a lack of creativity, and the inexplicable desire to not offend the same people who hate porn regardless of what it shows. There are so many possibilities of what porn can show. The problem is that nobody is showing it. And contrary to this same tired old excuse I keep hearing, there is no law stopping them from doing it.
Sure there is. I believe it is the very vagueness of the law that is effective in stopping them from doing it. Cambria put together a list of what he thought was most likely to get prosecuted, but it wasn't based upon the specific text of any federal law that I know of. As for Max Hardcore, I don't believe he got prosecuted because he was inviting it. I doubt the DoJ pays that much attention to porn, much less any particular pornographer. I think he got prosecuted because a certain type of teenage boy finds his movies hilarious in the same way destroying somebody's house is hilarious. Few parents who find their kid watching that stuff are going to have the guts to blame themselves for their child's behavior. It's so much easier to blame the pornographer, and when you happen to be rich and politically connected, it is so much easier to get the DoJ to do something about it. Regarding the Rough Sex series, let's not forget that many women live in abusive relationships. They wouldn't find anything remotely amusing in such a series, so it wouldn't be at all surprising to see the movies brought to the DoJ's attention. PS - Stagliano isn't being prosecuted for shooting anal scenes. It's the milk enemas and such that the DoJ think they can get a jury to find obscene. It takes intestinal fortitude to stand up for that kind of stuff based upon principle, especially when your fellow jurors are acting so disgusted by it.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 10 2009 : 1:03AM
Vagueness of law is not the same as presence of law. Modern obscenity laws have always been vague in America. That is nothing new. Hell, even Abercrombie & Fitch has been charged with obscenity for showing shirtless guys in their ads. How taboo! Nonetheless, our societal taboos have been becoming less stringent over the years, despite these vague laws. But for some ironic reason, porn is the only place where these vague obscenity threats have any effect by restricting peoples' personal freedoms as opposed to expanding them. If the rest of society reacted the same way porn does, we would go back to seeing married couples sleeping in separate beds on TV. As for the Cambria list which outlines the acts that supposedly will most likely cause pornographers to face obscenity prosecutions, doesn't that list also include facials and IR? Those acts, for example, certainly haven't disappeared. So, if pornographers aren't afraid that filming IR or facials will land then in jail, then why are they afraid of filming everything else that's legal? Plus, it just further goes to show how senselessly arbitrary all this obscenity bullshit is. It is also very disappointing to think that so many people who either make porn, or enjoy viewing it (and there are a whole lot of us), are content to just sit around helplessly while people with personal and political motives erode our freedoms. No, watching porn may not be on the same level as fighting for suffrage. Even so, why should someone else get to decide what I can watch just because he doesn't want his kid jerking off to Max Hardcore? Sorry, but being a lousy parent is not a good enough excuse to try to be mine.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Sep 10 2009 : 2:44AM
Khan Tusion and the guys who made Donkey Punch don't give a shit about freedom of speech, they care about making money, once their material put them in danger of jail time they retreat. These types are not concerned with principle.
There is no such thing as "legal fetishes" in the sense of sex acts whose visual depiction is protected by statute. As Hardware pointed out, there's no legislation establishing what's legal and what's illegal to show in porn (except for sex acts involving minors, rape, bestiality - which are sex acts that are illegal to perform, whether or not they're being filmed). That's the whole point of the vague "community standards" part of the obscenity law. Nothing is legally protected or legally unprotected a priori. Producers have to make their best guess based on prior legal actions and decide how much risk they want to take on.The fact that there's always some theoretical risk of prosecution does not mean that producers should go all-out all the time. What you're saying is like saying that, since I might be killed while driving to work no matter how careful I am, I might as well drive blindfolded, going 90 mph in reverse while steering with my feet. Risk is always a matter of probabilites, and some sex acts in porn, like some ways of driving, are more likely than others to have a bad result.Well, some porn is currently at the outside limit of what might be considered obscene according to some "community standards." Shirtless models in clothing ads and married couples sharing a bed on TV, these things certainly are no longer at the outside limit. So, maybe at some point in the future rough-sex porn will be as broadly accepted as sitcom couples sleeping together. Perhaps one day we'll look back on the obscenity charges against Max Hardcore as a quaint relic of the past. The keywords are perhaps and in the future. But porn producers do not live in the future; they live in the present. I doubt it would be much consolation to Max to know that he'll maybe be vindicated 50 years later.
[Link]
Bluto Deactivated User
511 Posts 3/09
Posted - Sep 10 2009 : 8:06AM
Max Hardcore is the exception and more cartoon than reality. Cartoons will always be dismissed as a joke. if the goal is to ensure people have more sex, then combining the watching or porn with avoiding of masturbation would do it. Men especially are turned on visually, and much of the human sex drive is intimately tied to imagination. Porn can supply much imagination for the less imaginative. Of course, in the case of the pandas, they learn by observation. Apparently sex is not a strong instinct in them, and must be learned. Probably not the best reproductive strategy devised by nature unless you have a fairly dense population of pandas. Obviously wouldn’t work with humans, who make sex such a private affair . Of coruse, all instincts can be aided and strengthened by learning — and this includes the sexual instincts as well. So, yes, porn could boost a culture’s criminal tendencies.
My point in citing Cambria wasn't that pornographers had a guide to making safe porn but that they only had one man's opinion to rely upon. Most other professions have the text of the applicable laws to guide them. Again, vagueness works in the censor's favor.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 11 2009 : 2:15AM
johnshaft820: It is true that there are no pornographic sex acts that are explicitly protected by law. But the point again is that they are not illegal either, which contradicts the excuse repeatedly given. It is incomprehensible how any act that is not defined as illegal can still cause such widespread fear of penalty if performed. If it is true that pornographers are making their decisions on prior legal actions, then there would be no porn at all. In the past, prosecutors have charged people for obscenity for anything, from distributing contraception, to using dirty words in rap songs. Larry Flynt was prosecuted for obscenity for publishing an adult magazine. Thus, pornographers today aren't placing themselves at any less risk by being boring. In response to the driving analogy, it's not the same. First, there are laws explicitly prohibiting dangerous driving, while there are no laws prohibiting the visual depiction of sex- any sex- between consensual adults in pornography. Secondly, no one will end up dead because pornographers decide to sway from the status-quo and step outside the box every now and then. Honestly, how is it proven that filming a certain fetish is any riskier than filming vanilla porn? It isn't. If there is risk, then the risk is the same for everyone. Max Hardcore isn't in prison because he was careless or "risky." He did the same thing that every other pornographer does, which is that he filmed sexual acts between consensual adults. The same with John Stagliano. Is what Stagliano filmed any "riskier" than we see released by Jules Jordan, or Vince Voyeur, etc.? Obscenity prosecutions generally don't happen because someone has placed himself at an increased risk compared to someone else doing the same thing. As I said before, they happen simply as a result of personal and political agendas. When these people see someone who looks like a convenient target, they will go after them, regardless of how "careful" they might think they are. As for community standards, it is true that some porn is at the outside limit of obscenity. But according to some "communtity standards," all porn is at the outside limit. There are many places in the country where the guys behind Evasive Angles or WCP could be sent to prison just for releasing IR porn. So where does it end? As you said, there may a time in the future when obscenity charges against pornographers are considered a relic of the past. But the future doesn't just happen on its own. Future changes take place because people in the present make them happen. The capitulation I see by so many who make and watch porn will only lead to regress, not progress. While it may not be any consolation to Max to know that he may vindicated 50 years later, it is even less of a consolation to think that this type of nonsense will still be happening in 50 years due to present apathy.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Sep 11 2009 : 2:45AM
Do you remember something called Citizens for Community Values? At it's inception in 1983, there have been attempts to educate the community about obscenity, its harm, and our community standards. Cincinnati is often called a conservative town. People have confused conservatism with high community values. Yes, conservatives are more likely to fight for high community standards than liberals, but that doesn’t make a community conservative.The Mapplethorpe issue was consistently referred to as conservatives "versus" liberals. Community standards are not left or right. They are high, low or somewhere in between. A liberal community can have high standards just as easily as a conservative community can have low standards. Liberals and conservatives alike, for the most part, want a wholesome, clean community in which to raise their families. They want a community free of sex shops on every corner. Have you ever seen just one adult bookstore or one video store renting adult tapes in a community? NO! Where the community standards are low enough to permit their existence, there will never be a shortage of people who are willing to take advantage of fellow human beings’ weaknesses.In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled that each community can set its own community standards. How are they set? It really is simple, here is how you fit into the formula: If you want low community standards, be silent. The law states that all material is protected by the First Amendment until a judge or jury finds the material obscene. Therefore, if you know of a place of business, open to the public, which sells, rents, displays, gives away, or distributes in any way material you believe to be obscene, and you are silent, the material will never be prosecuted. A judge or jury will never make the decision on whether the material is obscene if you are silent. And, consequently, the material will never be prosecuted. As community standards continue to drop, you will begin to see strip clubs, peep booths, and adult bookstores. Tomorrow, a person could open a porno store in downtown Cincinnati selling video tapes of men having sex with animals, and that material would be protected by the First Amendment until it is prosecuted and a judge or jury finds it obscene.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Sep 12 2009 : 4:58AM
^Since localities have zoning laws which usually prevent adult businesses from operating in non-commercial residential areas, the existence of a sex shop violating "communtity standards" is usually not a problem. However, it is a problem when the cry of "community standards" is used as a trump card over individual liberties. A community has the right to disapprove of any establishments that it doesn't want operating in its community. But it does not have the right to undermine the rights of individuals within its community by dictating what they can and cannot do in their own privacy. It reminds of something I saw on a morning news show recently about a community that was trying to drive a woman out of the neighborhood because she was drying her laundry outside on a clothesline, which violated their "community standards." Their rationale was that her clothesline was tarnishing the image of the community. It just shows just goes to show wacky some "community standards" can be when they get to the point of playing "Big Brother" over everyone else. Likewise, whether or not a guy wants to watch a porn video of girls getting swirlies in the privacy of his own home has nothing to do with how high or low the standards of the community are.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Sep 19 2009 : 10:58AM
Wasted $22 for this piece of crap. In a nutshell- a bunch of screaming, naked mopes imitating chimps.
The Cambria list which did include Interracial was meant as a way to negate the explosion of gonzo product which was cutting into the sales of vanilla porn compnanies like Vivid, VCA and Wicked.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Oct 8 2009 : 5:40AM
That's a strange idea, I've never heard anyone else claim that, I understood it came about after the Adam & Eve and VCX cases in the early 80s under Reagan.
So, maybe at some point in the future rough-sex porn will be as broadly accepted as sitcom couples sleeping together. [/quote] Um, I really hope not.... And not even because I'm opposed to the play-acting of Rough Sex-type movies, because I know it's performance and I know (or hope) that all female performers are 100% willing participants. But I honestly don't think I wanna live in a world where it's mainstream.
Of course I agree that it was overrated...but I think the thing about Rough Sex is that it was the first from a major porn company at that time. If you remember after all the hoop la died down along came Extreme Associates and their dominating theme was Rough Sex.
Sorry for bringing this back up but rough sex 2 is not only the roughest scene out there. If your really into that thing Cody Lane in teenlines the blue room is what your after, a VERY serious scene indeed and will stay long in the memory. There is lots of info on this movie already on this site so again appologies for raising it's ugly head.
No matter what size the tits are....play with them.... 732 Posts 12/08
Posted - Nov 13 2009 : 6:41PM
The Blue Room was made Original Productions; they only made a few movies. Anybody who likes a bit of rough sex porn should watch Sore Throat by Original. Scene 6 has Roxy Jezel getting a rough fucking, spanking and tit slapping from Steve Holmes and Brian Surewood. All three deserved their pay check after that scene, especially Roxy, as always she was a true professional.
I saw this movie very long ago, and I did find nothing erotic about a woman polishing mr mcarcus' toenails with her tongue. Yea, they were shining all right, but I nevertheless turned it off pretty quickly. Not my cup of tea...
Just watched a clip of RS2 on Hotmovies. Interesting....Regan Starr broke down and quit the scene....yet had at least three Max movies in her resume...
Dani Daniels: The Iconic Collection - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Sep 5 2009 : 7:22AM
