Euro Babe of the Week 5: Pénélope

Author	Post
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Dec 29 2002 : 3:14PM Europe is of course much more than Eastern Europe; Euro porn and even Euro Babes can be found aplenty in Western Europe as well. So for the first time, let's check out some Western European Babe of the Week. Let's take a visit to France. A lot of French girls are quite familiar to American porn viewers. A lot of them have at some point or other travelled to the USA to work in porn. Some of them have stayed (Rebecca Lord and Liza Harper come to mind), most of them however made a quick visit: Dolly Golden, Chipy Marlowe, Nomi, Delfynn Delagé, Marine Cartier, Channone, ... and Pénélope. Some of you might remember Pénélope from American releases such as Sodomania 14: Cunt Lickin’, Cum Drinkin’ Bitches!! , Rebecca Lord’s World Tour Volume 1: French Edition and Anabolic's World Sex Tour 1 . Or maybe you know her from her work for Private in Triple X 7 & 9 (she also can be seen in Tania Russof: The Story in a non sex cameo). In case you don't remember her, here is a picture of her: If you like her (I do), it is good to know that she has made many more videos in Europe in 1995 and 1996. As usual, she started out in France by doing the pro-am circuit, mainly working for the leader of the pack at that time, director Laetitia and her company Nanou Video, as many other French stars have done before her (such as Rebecca Lord, Liza Harper, Elodie Chérie, Dalila, Dolly Golden, Océane, Karen Lancaume, Chipy Marlowe, Channone, Raphaela (aka Raphaella Anderson), Jade, Fanny (aka Cherry Lee), Adeline Lange, Magella, Jill Anderson, Vally Verdy, Andschana, Stephanie B, Mylene, Lee Ahn, Zabou, Sophie (aka Trisha Diamond), Charly Spark, Luna, Ketty, Betty Bop, Florence Morley, Marie-Christine and so on.... You can find Pénélope in these Nanou titles: Belles à jouir 7 (recommended viewing if you like her) and Intimité violée par une femme 27 (probably her debut video). After her Nanou period, she dabbled around in some more pro-am work, such as Hotsex Volume 3: 2 Hot 4 Belgium (yeah, right, it wasn't too hot for me) and Hotsex Volume 5: Cannes Connection II . Since she couldn't really force a breakthrough in France, except a supporting role in VMD's Le Désir dans la peau (the first major part of a certain Laure Sainclair), she went to other European countries. In Germany, she worked for Ralf Scott and his XY Pictures in movies such as Danger Love , La croisière d’Anita and Portraits de famille avec exterieur before she landed in Italy, where she finally got some more recognition in films by Alex Perry (Penelope la bonne ) and Joe D'Amato (Homo Erectus ). Edited by - Walter Burns on Dec 29 2002 [Link]
balabala Member 968 Posts 8/02	Posted - Dec 29 2002 : 7:28PM She is really cute. It's a shame she never got a breakthrough in the French porn market. [Link]
grumpy Member 18 Posts 11/02	Posted - Dec 29 2002 : 7:51PM Wasn't Penelope Greek? [Link]
bono-ONE All-Star Member SAMCRO 8571 Posts 8/00	Posted - Dec 29 2002 : 8:13PM Thanks for another hot babe pic!!!! [Link]
David X Member 128 Posts 5/02	Posted - Jan 1 2003 : 1:38PM I only know Penelope from Triple X 7, but I remember her well. MNASSCer in amri called her "drop dead gorgeous" in that movie, and I agree. You certainly have an eye for beauty, for a brainy sort of fellow. I like the way you made her videography into a kind of profile. Very clever. I'm curious to know if her American movies {I had no idea she had done anything else} were her last, as I suspect. Why would she quit after doing that Italian movie evidently about herself? Whereas the American experience might understandably have been traumatic for such a sweet innocent Euro girl, especially if Anabolic got ahold of her. [Link]

Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jan 1 2003 : 5:33PM David X wrote: You certainly have an eye for beauty, for a brainy sort of fellow. Click to expand Is that a compliment or a put-down? And where did you get the idea that I was a "brainy sort of fellow"? I have been nothing but nice in this forum. [Link]
David X Member 128 Posts 5/02	Posted - Jan 1 2003 : 5:51PM A compliment, Walter. Since when must we be ashamed of culture and intelligence? Now: were those American movies her last or not? [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jan 1 2003 : 6:11PM David X wrote: A compliment, Walter. Since when must we be ashamed of culture and intelligence? Now: were those American movies her last or not? Click to expand To anwser your first question, there has been a lot of mistrust in popular culture since the '60s against science and scientists. However, in case it wasn't clear, I was joking, because I found it funny that your statement seemed to imply that "brainy sort of fellows" usually don't have "an eye for beauty". My own question still stands, though: why do you think I am a "brainy sort of fellow"? I don't mind at all being called this, but, as I said before, I have been careful not to impose any of my "intellectual claptrap" (not my choice of wordings) in this forum. To anwser your second question, I don't think so. All these American produced videos were shot in France and they can be labelled as pro-am productions. I therefor believe that they came pretty early in her career. btw, Penelope la bonne is not a film about her. In fact it is a feature wherein she plays a servant girl or a maid, in French "une bonne". It is obviously not the original Italian title, but the title this film was given by its French distributor, who wanted to emphasize that there was a French starlet in the movie. [Link]
David X Member 128 Posts 5/02	Posted - Jan 1 2003 : 7:42PM I don't think you should be intimidated by Patrick, Walter. I saw him bite his tongue when he found out who you were. He has good reason to feel professional rivalry. Regarding Penelope, I was just trying to improve the drama of your profile. I don't know the dates of production of the European movies, but iafd shows she turned to veggie porn here in America after Nasty Nymphos 12, with the DOP of Nasty Girls 16 being '97. Another casualty of Anabolic? Are you a fan of "The Front Page" perchance? [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - Jan 1 2003 : 7:57PM Walter, please don't hold back. We like "intellectual claptrap" :) [Link]
Sbando Boy Euro Babe Magnet 1839 Posts 6/01	Posted - Jan 1 2003 : 8:58PM You're also wrong about holding back the "intellectual claptrap" (from the author of "euro-whores") in rame only because there's a big bully there who rules the sandbox (or moderators who let him get away with it). I may disagree with terms such as "deconstruction", I may even agree with Riley (I'll be damned) on that subject, but that didn't make the read any less interesting or thought-provoking. And that shouldn't be a reason for people to stop writing intelligent posts instead of soapbox rants (very popular in that newsgroup) or spiteful replies. This Forum (the Porn Forum) has improved greatly in the last six, seven months thanks to Steph. So maybe you could try some of that claptrap here, in the form of little essays or articles, I don't dare to say reviews. [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jan 2 2003 : 12:03PM David X wrote: I don't think you should be intimidated by Patrick, Walter. I saw him bite his tongue when he found out who you were. Click to expand Sbando Boy wrote: You're also wrong about holding back the "intellectual claptrap" (from the author of "euro-whores") in rame only because there's a big bully there who rules the sandbox (or moderators who let him get away with it). I may disagree with terms such as "deconstruction", I may even agree with Riley (I'll be damned) on that subject, but that didn't make the read any less interesting or thought-provoking. Click to expand I would like to state for the record that I was in no way intimidated by Patrick Riley. In fact, he is just no match for me at all, really. As was discussed in rame, he doesn't know my game and his reaction to that is to simply dismiss my game. No fun in playing alone. So I stopped arguing with Riley because there was no point. Besides, I take great care in writing these kind of posts and I was tired of trying to formulate in what is my third language exactly what I was trying to say. Try it sometime, writing with a dictionary at hand to check out every 5th word or so. It just seemed to be too much energy and time wasted on a cause that was beyond redemption. Let me illustrate this. For those of you who remember my big pissing contest with Riley on rame some time ago, it ended with a post from Riley. Well, I did have many anwsers ready to this post, but at the time I was too tired, I guess, to elaborate on them. Instead of writing a reply to rame, I e-mailed the moderators on rame to ask them what I should do with this pissing contest between me and Riley. Here is that e-mail: Walter Burns wrote to rame moderators: Hello, You are probably all aware of the pissing contest I have been engaged in with Patrick Riley over the last couple of days. I see that he has continued this pissing contest and I was wondering if an eventual reply to his latest post has any value at all. To be more concrete, I have a specific reply more or less ready and I would like to know what you moderators think of this possible reply before I actually make the effort to write it. I would really want to have your advice on three things: (1) would this reply have any value at all to the rame community: I see that nobody else is butting in to contribute to the discussion; (2) will it serve a meaningful purpose: I have a strong feeling that this thread is going nowhere very fast and that it will "solve" nothing, except create more hostilities between two "old farts" and (3) in fact, I have a feeling that the thread is indeed going somewhere very fast: it is going towards off topic territory and as such is a likely candidate for a rejection. In short, would it be sensible of me to just call it quits at this point. Before you answer me, please do read this through till the end. It will give you an idea of what my reply to Riley's post will look like, so that you have something to go by when answering my three questions. The reply would concentrate on the following aspects of Riley post: (In the following I have indicated what Riley had written by putting "(PR):" in front of the text and what I had written by putting "(WB):" in front of the text.) >>> Walter Burns wrote: > > > I remember such an occasion where you were discussing > >a performer called Linda / Andrea / Brooke / Penelope / Trinity, who appeared in > >the following videos: "Naughty College Schoolgirls 16", "More Dirty Debutantes > >194", "Barely Legal 20", "Finally 18 #3", "Hot Showers 2" and "North Pole 23". btw, > >if all of this information is correct, and I assume it is, it is a powerful sign of > >your expertise. > > (PR): For someone who claims not to read reviews and who considers them > useless you seem to have read a lot of mine. My reply would be: yes and no. I don't consider reviews useless (they help me with identification problems, among other things; in previous posts I have hinted that I can see 4 different functions of reviews); but I also haven't read a lot of Riley's reviews: the info on the different videos above was all stated in the same review. > > > > (WB): And finally, you show your true colors. You call me pretentious and elitists and > >then you have the balls to write this: > > >> (PR): So my signature line stands: it is the truth for you and all others > >> and you're misguided (or worse) if you see it otherwise. > > >(WB): If I understand this correctly, especially in light of your reference to religious > >truth, you are nothing but a fundamentalist who thinks his truth is the only truth > >and who believes that everybody who doesn't agree with you, is misguided (or > >worse). So in fact, everybody who expresses a different standpoint than you, is in > >fact inferior to you, an unbeliever or even worse an infidel. Who has pretensions > >now? > > (PR): So according to you anyone with principles is a fundamentalist? Have I > got that right? You have none I presume. You think that fat women are > pretty or ugly, or that absent any convincing plot, if old guys are > screwing young girls the pretend orgasm on the part of the young girl > is perfectly normal or ludicrous, or that girls just love kneeling > guppy-mouthed waiting for that facial or they hate it, or that gagging > the girl with a dick a la Gag Factor is really erotic or it's ugly, or > having Max call the girl a cocksocket or cunt or slut is really erotic > or just plain unpleasant...etc. IOW there are no truths in your life > or in your porn viewing. Everything is equal. This would contain the main portion of the intended reply. Riley seems to think that 1) I don't have principles, 2) that I think that everybody who has principles is a fundamentalist. He is extremely wrong and either naive or malignant to make these statements. He seems to relate principles with some sort of universal truth, while principles are in fact related to value and belief systems. They are related to what I, as a person, or we, as a social group, BELIEVE to be the truth or VALUE as such and that belief can and does change according to evolving definitions of social reality. I would make this clear by using some examples about both evolutions in Islamic belief systems and principles and about the changing value and belief systems in America after 9/11. These examples make it clear that principles based on value and belief systems can and do change over time, something which is incompatible with the idea of universal truth. In short, I don't think that having principles means that you are a fundamentalist, but I do believe that someone who states that HIS principles are the truth for everybody else is indeed a fundamentalist. In his previous post he called everybody that doesn't share his "truth" as misguided, now he is claiming they are "obviously a degenerate" (look a few paragraph further in this post, when he is discussing the hypothetical guy who loves fat women). That is a very small step from labeling everybody who doesn't agree with your "truth" as "abnormal" (which Riley has done already on numerous occasions), as a "danger for society", as someone who either has to be put away, kept under close surveillance or be "re-educated" to accept the correct "principles". In fact, I believe that this kind of project is exactly what Riley thinks he is doing by posting on rame. I would probably also use the distinction between epistémè and doxa, made by Aristotle, to make it clear why I do indeed have principles and that Riley's value and belief system (just as anybody else's, including mine) can never be a basis for the construction of THE truth. And this in turn is related to both my academic work and my reluctance to share MY personal truth with other rame members. Not because I am afraid to "defend" my principles, but because I believe that 1) MY principles are most relevant to me and , at this point, to me alone and 2) one of the principles I subscribe to can be described as tolerance: I will on some occasions offer you MY truth, but in no way am I prepared to put this personal truth above anybody else's, except when I can apply 1 criterion: empirically verifiable data. To come to a conclusion: that is why I do have an interest in pointing out instances of misinformation (something Riley has stated is unworthy as a motivation for posting on rame): it is one of the principles I believe in. > > > (snip) > > >> > (WB): I disagree. You may call it fluff, but a good understanding of the way this > >> >fluff operates is no trivial matter at all. For starters, it certainly can > >> >and often does more than simply "pulling on your emotional strings for a > >> >short while". > > >> (PR): Really? Well it doesn't do anything more for me. > > >(WB): Of course it does. At the minimum, it has informed your view on porn stars and the > >way the "bad guys" have ruined porn for you. > > (PR): Huh? What has this got to do with how porn operates? Surely you > weren't talking about an expose of the inner workings of the porn > industry when you used the word "operates". My reply to this would be based on explaining why it is important to understand how porn/film or whatever cultural form of expression "operate" when someone engages in a discussion on the social implications of those forms. All these forms of expression offer representations of the real world and a "proper" understanding of the way these representations offer viewers/readers knowledge of the real word, is indeed very important. If Riley doubts that porn offers such representations that can "teach" or inform people about the real world, albeit in a non-linear and very problematic way indeed, than we only have to point to the very popular discussions on rame that are centered on the relationship between porn and the real world: do non porn girls shave or not, are European girls more mature at an earlier age or not, etc. To be more precise, the explanation will focus on the complex and problematic relationship between "realism", 'social reality" and "poetical norms" and will be grounded in the idea of what is called the "depragmatization" of social norms in fictional and non fictional texts. By doing this, I will also be able to demonstrate that Riley often doesn't seem to understand even a basic distinction between the real world and the diegetical world, depicted in the fictional text. Anyway, should I start writing such a reply, or would you consider it wasted energy? Click to expand One moderator advised me not to post such an article, another replied that he could see nothing wrong with it, except that I would find out sooner or later that it was useless to discuss such things with Riley. So I decided to invest my energy and time in something more useful and pleasant, like watching Euro and American Babes doing what they do best. For Sbando, about the term "deconstruction". I am tired to explain this, but I did/do agree up to a point with Riley and you that a lot of academic work on "deconstruction" is intellectual claptrap (see, no parenthesis this time). I don't know if it is useful to go into this again in this forum, but my academic work on film theory and film history is in a large part based on the critique of the very popular "cultural studies", a so called "grand theory" which has been mainly concerned with "deconstruction". I think that the only way in which I can make this clear, is by oversimplifying things: while "grand theories" such as "cultural studies" and "subject-position theories" are mainly concerned with "deconstruction", "historical poetics", the discipline I adher to, is mainly concerned with "reconstruction". To make it even more clear cut: I am in direct intellectual opposition to David Aaron Clark. I am not concerned with "meaning" but with "understanding". And that shouldn't be a reason for people to stop writing intelligent posts instead of soapbox rants (very popular in that newsgroup) or spiteful replies. Click to expand Yes, the soapbox rants. I have been desperately trying to avoid these kinds of rants, since most of them DO insult my intelligence. As I have said many times before, on rame at least and also in the e-mail quoted above, there is 1 criterion I will always refer to when judging these kind of things, and that is clear instances of misinformation that can be pointed out through a careful research of empirically verifiable data. However, even this very neutral argument hasn't been received very well by some people. One of them even ended his reply to one of my posts of this kind with the following line: "I will not be silenced." As if I was trying to shut him up. Furthermore, when these soapbox rants are discussing historical processes or arguments, I tend to expect that the author of the rant knows a thing or two about historiographic principles. I guess I am expecting too much. This Forum (the Porn Forum) has improved greatly in the last six, seven months thanks to Steph. So maybe you could try some of that claptrap here, in the form of little essays or articles, I don't dare to say reviews. Click to expand My experience in rame has taught me that this kind of forum is not the place to be doing this kind of thing. No offense, but I have found out that not many people have participated in the few discussions of this nature I have tried to start on rame, and the few that have responded, have shown that they really didn't get what I was trying to say. Even Sbando, who I regard very highly, didn't get that I am very suspicious of "deconstruction". Maybe that is my fault, and the clumsy and "difficult" way (the use of many "$10 words" which are bread and butter to me, but...) in which I am trying to explain things, which are in fact very complex and difficult anyway, not in the least for me. And you are right to assume that I will probably never write reviews. This must be connected to the fact that I am not concerned with "meaning" but with "understanding". I don't do reviews, I do (textual and contextual) analysis. I don't evaluate, I describe and (try to) explain. David X wrote: Are you a fan of "The Front Page" perchance? Click to expand Well, I made an analysis of this film (the 1931 version directed by Lewis Milestone). To give you an idea, the analysis in 600 pages long and in those pages, I have said nothing on what the "meaning" of that film is or how I evaluate it. I do have plenty to say about the way other people - historians, comtemporary critics, film industry personel, contemporary local theatre owners, State Censor Boards, ... — have tried to make sense of it. But that is just a part of my historical-analytical arguments. OTOH, I am interested to learn if you are a fan or even know the play and its 4 film versions. Who do you think is the best Walter Burns: Adolphe Menjou, Cary Grant, Walter Matthau or Burt Reynolds? OK, I will step down from my own soapbox now, and please, let's get back to porn and the wonderful girls who work in it. Let's all ask Tricia, Kimi, Tina and all the other porn girls who frequent this forum, to post what they consider the most beautiful picture of themselves, so I can add to my picture collection. [Link]
David X Member 128 Posts 5/02	Posted - Jan 2 2003 : 9:04PM Oh, Cary Grant, no question. I must have missed the one with Burt Reynolds. Wish I had missed Billy Wilder's. I'm visualizing you as Adolphe Menjou. So, what's your fascination with this movie? A 600-page analysis is a lot of trouble. [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Jan 3 2003 : 1:17AM David X wrote: Oh, Cary Grant, no question. I must have missed the one with Burt Reynolds. Click to expand That's Switching Channels , with Kathleen Turner. Don't bother seeking it out, it is not worth it. I'm visualizing you as Adolphe Menjou. Click to expand Ouch, that hurts. A 600-page analysis is a lot of trouble. Click to expand You are telling me!!! It took me 6 years and three trips to the USA, to 15 different research libraries and archives in 9 different cities, spread all over the country, from New York and Washington D.C. to L.A.. Why did I bother? Let's just say that this was a very thankful film to do the kind of analysis on I was trying to do. [Link]
Fumetto Member Europe 164 Posts 5/03	Posted - Sep 8 2003 : 3:12PM Not to forget her appearences in some italian productions like "lady laszivia", "topmodel", "pentaxx" more can be found here [Link]

Texxx Member 39 Posts 6/03	Posted - Sep 8 2003 : 3:46PM Walter, the original Italian title for "Penelope - La bonne" is "Penelope - Una domestica particolare". Other titles released in Italy are: "Matrimonio particolare" (1996)(non-sex cameo) by Alex Perry as Alexandra della Rocca; and "Terrore sul mare" feat. Anita Dark [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Sep 8 2003 : 3:52PM Walter wrote: I would like to state for the record................ <snippety snippety snip> ...............so I can add to my picture collection. Click to expand Welcome back Walter. SNP. [Link]
Float_my_boat All-Star Member 1311 Posts 6/09	Posted - May 19 2022 : 3:09AM Please forgive me for resurrecting this fossilized thread. I met Penelope at one of the old CES (Consumer Electronics Shows) in Vegas when there was a separate adult section. Very pretty, petite and demure. I don't think she spoke much English and my French is feeble. Back then Anabolic was a big player and fairly generous with freebies. They were giving out a large poster of her with the title "Butt Banged Ballerina." Don't that one ever saw the light of day. Excuse the mutterings of an old codger. [Link]
rearadmiral All-Star Member 6524 Posts 12/11	Posted - May 19 2022 : 7:06AM ^ Stories from 'back in the day' are fine by me. If I was bothered by mutterings from an old codger I'd stop talking to myself. BTW - I miss Anabolic and Diabolic from those days. Diabolic is back and under the Gamma banner but their porn isn't like it was in their heyday. Anabolic and Diabolic were instant buys or rents for me as they were a known mark of quality. [Link]

I would like to state for the record that I was in no way intimidated by Patrick Riley. In fact, he is just no match for me at all, really. As was discussed in rame, he doesn't know my game and his reaction to that is to simply dismiss my game. No fun in playing alone. So I stopped arguing with Riley because there was no point. Besides, I take great care in writing these kind of posts and I was tired of trying to formulate in what is my third language exactly what I was trying to say. Try it sometime, writing with a dictionary at hand to check out every 5th word or so. It just seemed to be too much energy and time wasted on a cause that was beyond redemption.
Let me illustrate this. For those of you who remember my big pissing contest with Riley on rame some time ago, it ended with a post from Riley. Well, I did have many anwsers ready to this post, but at the time I was too tired, I guess, to elaborate on them. Instead of writing a reply to rame, I e-mailed the moderators on rame to ask them what I should do with this pissing contest between me and Riley. Here is that e-mail:

Walter Burns wrote to rame moderators:
Hello,
You are probably all aware of the pissing contest I have been engaged in with Patrick Riley over the
last couple of days. I see that he has continued this pissing contest and I was wondering if an
eventual reply to his latest post has any value at all. To be more concrete, I have a specific reply
more or less ready and I would like to know what you moderators think of this possible reply before
I actually make the effort to write it. I would really want to have your advice on three things: (1)
would this reply have any value at all to the rame community: I see that nobody else is butting in
to contribute to the discussion; (2) will it serve a meaningful purpose: I have a strong feeling
that this thread is going nowhere very fast and that it will "solve" nothing, except create more
hostilities between two "old farts" and (3) in fact, I have a feeling that the thread is indeed
going somewhere very fast: it is going towards off topic territory and as such is a likely candidate
for a rejection. In short, would it be sensible of me to just call it quits at this point.
Before you answer me, please do read this through till the end. It will give you an idea of what my
reply to Riley's post will look like, so that you have something to go by when answering my three
questions.
The reply would concentrate on the following aspects of Riley post:
(In the following I have indicated what Riley had written by putting "(PR):" in front of the text and what I had written by putting "(WB):" in front of the text.)

>>> Walter Burns wrote:
>
> > I remember such an occasion where you were discussing
> >a performer called Linda / Andrea / Brooke / Penelope / Trinity, who appeared in
> >the following videos: "Naughty College Schoolgirls 16", "More Dirty Debutantes
> >194", "Barely Legal 20", "Finally 18 #3", "Hot Showers 2" and "North Pole 23". btw,
> >if all of this information is correct, and I assume it is, it is a powerful sign of
> >your expertise.
>
> (PR): For someone who claims not to read reviews and who considers them
> useless you seem to have read a lot of mine.
My reply would be: yes and no. I don't consider reviews useless (they help me with identification
problems, among other things; in previous posts I have hinted that I can see 4 different functions of reviews); but I also haven't read a lot of Riley's reviews: the info on the different videos above
was all stated in the same review.
>
>
> > (WB): And finally, you show your true colors. You call me pretentious and elitists and
> >then you have the balls to write this:
>
> >> (PR): So my signature line stands: it is the truth for you and all others
> >> and you're misguided (or worse) if you see it otherwise.
>
> >(WB): If I understand this correctly, especially in light of your reference to religious
> >truth, you are nothing but a fundamentalist who thinks his truth is the only truth
> >and who believes that everybody who doesn't agree with you, is misguided (or
> >worse). So in fact, everybody who expresses a different standpoint than you, is in
> >fact inferior to you, an unbeliever or even worse an infidel. Who has pretensions
> >now?
>
> (PR): So according to you anyone with principles is a fundamentalist? Have I
> got that right? You have none I presume. You think that fat women are
> pretty or ugly, or that absent any convincing plot, if old guys are
> screwing young girls the pretend orgasm on the part of the young girl
> is perfectly normal or ludicrous, or that girls just love kneeling
> guppy-mouthed waiting for that facial or they hate it, or that gagging
> the girl with a dick a la Gag Factor is really erotic or it's ugly, or
> having Max call the girl a cocksocket or cunt or slut is really erotic
> or just plain unpleasant...etc. IOW there are no truths in your life
> or in your porn viewing. Everything is equal.
This would contain the main portion of the intended reply. Riley seems to think that 1) I don't have
principles, 2) that I think that everybody who has principles is a fundamentalist. He is extremely
wrong and either naive or malignant to make these statements. He seems to relate principles with
some sort of universal truth, while principles are in fact related to value and belief systems. They
are related to what I, as a person, or we, as a social group, BELIEVE to be the truth or VALUE as
such and that belief can and does change according to evolving definitions of social reality. I
would make this clear by using some examples about both evolutions in Islamic belief systems and
principles and about the changing value and belief systems in America after 9/11. These examples
make it clear that principles based on value and belief systems can and do change over time,
something which is incompatible with the idea of universal truth.
In short, I don't think that having principles means that you are a fundamentalist, but I do
believe that someone who states that HIS principles are the truth for everybody else is indeed a
fundamentalist. In his previous post he called everybody that doesn't share his "truth" as
misguided, now he is claiming they are "obviously a degenerate" (look a few paragraph further in
this post, when he is discussing the hypothetical guy who loves fat women). That is a very small
step from labeling everybody who doesn't agree with your "truth" as "abnormal" (which Riley has done
already on numerous occasions), as a "danger for society", as someone who either has to be put away,
kept under close surveillance or be "re-educated" to accept the correct "principles". In fact, I
believe that this kind of project is exactly what Riley thinks he is doing by posting on rame.
I would probably also use the distinction between epistémè and doxa, made by Aristotle, to make it
clear why I do indeed have principles and that Riley's value and belief system (just as anybody
else's, including mine) can never be a basis for the construction of THE truth. And this in turn is
related to both my academic work and my reluctance to share MY personal truth with other rame
members. Not because I am afraid to "defend" my principles, but because I believe that 1) MY
principles are most relevant to me and , at this point, to me alone and 2) one of the principles I
subscribe to can be described as tolerance: I will on some occasions offer you MY truth, but in no
way am I prepared to put this personal truth above anybody else's, except when I can apply 1
criterion: empirically verifiable data. To come to a conclusion: that is why I do have an interest
in pointing out instances of misinformation (something Riley has stated is unworthy as a motivation
for posting on rame): it is one of the principles I believe in.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> >> > (WB): I disagree. You may call it fluff, but a good understanding of the way this
> >> >fluff operates is no trivial matter at all. For starters, it certainly can
> >> >and often does more than simply "pulling on your emotional strings for a
> >> >short while".
>
> >> (PR): Really? Well it doesn't do anything more for me.
>
> >(WB): Of course it does. At the minimum, it has informed your view on porn stars and the
> >way the "bad guys" have ruined porn for you.
>
> (PR): Huh? What has this got to do with how porn operates? Surely you
> weren't talking about an expose of the inner workings of the porn
> industry when you used the word "operates".
My reply to this would be based on explaining why it is important to understand how porn/film or
whatever cultural form of expression "operate" when someone engages in a discussion on the social
implications of those forms. All these forms of expression offer representations of the real world
and a "proper" understanding of the way these representations offer viewers/readers knowledge of the
real word, is indeed very important. If Riley doubts that porn offers such representations that can
"teach" or inform people about the real world, albeit in a non-linear and very problematic way
indeed, than we only have to point to the very popular discussions on rame that are centered on the
relationship between porn and the real world: do non porn girls shave or not, are European girls
more mature at an earlier age or not, etc. To be more precise, the explanation will focus on the
complex and problematic relationship between "realism", 'social reality" and "poetical norms" and
will be grounded in the idea of what is called the "depragmatization" of social norms in fictional
and non fictional texts. By doing this, I will also be able to demonstrate that Riley often doesn't
seem to understand even a basic distinction between the real world and the diegetical world,
depicted in the fictional text.

Anyway, should I start writing such a reply, or would you consider it wasted energy?
Click to expand

One moderator advised me not to post such an article, another replied that he could see nothing wrong with it, except that I would find out sooner or later that it was useless to discuss such things with Riley. So I decided to invest my energy and time in something more useful and pleasant, like watching Euro and American Babes doing what they do best.

For Sbando, about the term "deconstruction". I am tired to explain this, but I did/do agree up to a point with Riley and you that a lot of academic work on "deconstruction" is intellectual claptrap (see, no parenthesis this time). I don't know if it is useful to go into this again in this forum, but my academic work on film theory and film history is in a large part based on the critique of the very popular "cultural studies", a so called "grand theory" which has been mainly concerned with "deconstruction". I think that the only way in which I can make this clear, is by oversimplifying things: while "grand theories" such as "cultural studies" and "subject-position theories" are mainly concerned with "deconstruction", "historical poetics", the discipline I adher to, is mainly concerned with "reconstruction". To make it even more clear cut: I am in direct intellectual opposition to David Aaron Clark. I am not concerned with "meaning" but with "understanding".

Yes, the soapbox rants. I have been desperately trying to avoid these kinds of rants, since most of them DO insult my intelligence. As I have said many times before, on rame at least and also in the e-mail quoted above, there is 1 criterion I will always refer to when judging these kind of things, and that is clear instances of misinformation that can be pointed out through a careful research of empirically verifiable data. However, even this very neutral argument hasn't been received very well by some people. One of them even ended his reply to one of my posts of this kind with the following line: "I will not be silenced." As if I was trying to shut him up.
Furthermore, when these soapbox rants are discussing historical processes or arguments, I tend to expect that the author of the rant knows a thing or two about historiographic principles. I guess I am expecting too much.

My experience in rame has taught me that this kind of forum is not the place to be doing this kind of thing. No offense, but I have found out that not many people have participated in the few discussions of this nature I have tried to start on rame, and the few that have responded, have shown that they really didn't get what I was trying to say. Even Sbando, who I regard very highly, didn't get that I am very suspicious of "deconstruction". Maybe that is my fault, and the clumsy and "difficult" way (the use of many "$10 words" which are bread and butter to me, but...) in which I am trying to explain things, which are in fact very complex and difficult anyway, not in the least for me.
And you are right to assume that I will probably never write reviews. This must be connected to the fact that I am not concerned with "meaning" but with "understanding". I don't do reviews, I do (textual and contextual) analysis. I don't evaluate, I describe and (try to) explain.

Well, I made an analysis of this film (the 1931 version directed by Lewis Milestone). To give you an idea, the analysis in 600 pages long and in those pages, I have said nothing on what the "meaning" of that film is or how I evaluate it. I do have plenty to say about the way other people - historians, comtemporary critics, film industry personel, contemporary local theatre owners, State Censor Boards, ... — have tried to make sense of it. But that is just a part of my historical-analytical arguments.
OTOH, I am interested to learn if you are a fan or even know the play and its 4 film versions. Who do you think is the best Walter Burns: Adolphe Menjou, Cary Grant, Walter Matthau or Burt Reynolds?

OK, I will step down from my own soapbox now, and please, let's get back to porn and the wonderful girls who work in it. Let's all ask Tricia, Kimi, Tina and all the other porn girls who frequent this forum, to post what they consider the most beautiful picture of themselves, so I can add to my picture collection.

[Link]