"If you don't like it, don't watch it"

I keep hearing this phrase over and over - and in most instances I agree with the sentiment, but how far should it extend?
Take Rob Black & Lizzy Borden, please. Most of us don't find their sociopathic smut arousing in the least, and aren't watching it. The problem is, there is a certain percentage of the population who DO enjoy seeing others in pain. The ones who haven't been incarcerated yet want us to defend their right to see depictions of simulated rape, throat slashings, etc. Making someone like Richard Ramiriz a hero? PLEASE! This guy is nothing but a punk who broke into people's homes when they were most vulnerable, and wet his pants when they got ahold of him in the barrio. Just because people are consenting adults, does this mean that they have a right to feed and nuture this segment of society?
There most certainly SHOULD be lines drawn, or we run the risk of validating the religious right's contention that pornography in general leads to this kind of depravity.
The problem with the kind of people who do find this stuff stimulating is they can't see much further than their own dicks, and they really don't see the big picture, nor do they care - it's all about THEM.

Some contend that it makes little difference, that Ashcroft has his agenda, and he'll go after everyone regardless. Frankly, this isn't about Ashcroft. Shouldn't we, as thinking people, just do the right thing?

Just what is the 'right thing' to do? This is where it gets troublesome. I think starting open discussions like this is a step in the right direction. They will be quick to point out that it's only 'simulated' rape (or, as someone slipped in another thread, 'stimulated' rape), so let me say first, we KNOW this, that isn't the point.
I'd too would be interested to hear thoughts on this.

[Link]

Firstly lets differentiate between Law and morality.

For the most part's the Law is very clear with regards to issues relating to age of porn performers, constitutional rights and so on.
On this point EXTREME are well within their right to make the types' of films some of you are objecting to.

That leaves the issue of morality.
Clearly we all have limits to what we find tasteful (or arousing), and individuals like 'BigMike' and 'dumblonde' feel EXTREME's FORCED ENTRY is pushing the limits of acceptable taste.
Hypothetically speaking, does this give them the right to impose their morality upon others?
I would say NO because I would not wish to push my morals upon them.

The Law should be the basis of acceptable behaviour and those who wish to change the Law should challenge it in a constitutional manner.

dumblonde wrote

Don't get me wrong, there are people in our society who have psychopathic disorders and quite frankly, these individuals will 'get off' on any type of material from news broadcasts to 'crime night on the Discovery channel'.

dumblonde wrote

I could go on because this subject is very interesting but will end with this:

People trying to enforce their morality because they believe they understand the codes of social behaviour, should look beyond their social circle.

[Link]

Hardz,
Though I'm pressed for time right now, I would like you to know that my knowledge does not come from my 'social circle'
as you call it in your assumption.
I was married at age 16 for two years to a diagnosed sociopath before I managed to escape. I survived by my wits
only, and I am only too familiar with this type of person,
what feeds them, drives them, what they find arousing, and how they HATE having a bright light shown on them. There's
nothing wrong with THEM, it's other people's silly morality
that's all screwed up!
Yes my friend, don't talk down to me about things you know nothing about.

[Link]

I wasn't talking down to you, and am quite saddened to hear about your past.

My mother and I were both physically and mentally abused by my father whilst I was growing up, so I do have a little insight in to people suffering with psychosis.

Sociopath's do indeed display extreme antisocial behaviour caused by a personality disorder.
This is a medical condition and not one caused by or directly related to the topic at hand.

I'm sure some sociopath's will be attracted to a porn film about Richie Ramierz, but these individuals will also get off watching ‘THE DEER HUNTER’ or ‘Friday the 13th’.

Where would you draw the line for acceptable celluloid entertainment ?

I firmly believe that a film made, whilst respecting the LAW of the Land, should be available for viewing by all consenting adults.

[Link]

I love Extreme Associates. Don't get me wrong, but with some of these films, they are really pushing the level of it. I would not object to a anyone's right to free speech. But what about the people who lack the ability to reason, you know there are people like that out there...

Some people just can't differentiate between right and wrong, so those are the ones who ruin it for everyone.

When you glorify rape, murder, torture you leave yourself open to prosecution.

I just don't see the appeal of depicting murder or rape. And I'll admit, my views are slightly awkward compared to the norm, but I have the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong.

I read in a magazine: "I can not explain what obscene is, but I'll know it when I see it" -that's the additude that could ruin porn. Because if there would be a definition of obscene, they could use Extreme Associates as the definition.

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

Edited by - BIGmike on Feb 9 2002

[Link]

Here is a quote from your WHACK ATTACK # 12 review:

[Link]

But in the eyes of the law, they will pigeonhole the whole studio into the category of obscene. So when I say I like just Tom Byron, I know that he will be included, just because he is under the Extreme label.

Even if he isn't as "obscene" as the others, when the shit hits the fan, he will be there along with the rest of them.

which is a shame!

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]

i, for one, am wanting to see FORCED ENTRY. while i do think that the glorification of murder and rapists is morally irreprehensible and beyond reason--i don't think much porn out there has pushed far enough to be extremely rough. as a rough porn fan, i'm always looking for that next level of excitement, to get the blood pumpin, etc. and the element of rape has always been a turn-on for me - whether that qualifies me as sick or perverted is another story - but at least i am able to draw the line between reality and fantasy. my main worry is that FORCED ENTRY will land into the hands of REALLY disturbed individuals who can't make the distinction, and spawn a whole legion of Ramirez copycats... *shudder * ....

it's difficult to draw the line for the "conscientious" fans of this kind of stuff - you can think about yourself, but what about outside yourself. it's a hard one to judge.

anyone know the release date?

Edited by - MulePat on Feb 9 2002

[Link]

and Lizzy Better be sucking some dick or taking an ass ramming,because Im getting tierd of her not fucking in her new releases and getting the goddess treatment.

LIZZY WE DON'T WANNA SEE YOU HOLD A CAMARA OR YELL OUT FUCK THAT SLUT!

WE WANNA SEE YOU GET FUCKED,IN YOUR ASS,MOUTH,PUSSY...ECT!

SO BE LIKE NIKE AND JUST DO IT!

[Link]

However, I find it sad that intelligence can't be brought to bear. One bad apple should not taint the barrel. Extreme Associates are only representative of a small section of the adult industry. I have no interest in their products whatsoever, I believe in their right to free speech even if they use it to condemn themselves.

I would draw a line between people who get off on depictions of forced, non-consensual sex with no appreciation of boundaries, and people who enjoy mutually consensual giving and receiving of pain, with an awareness of the issues involved. Again it is not something that I have a particular passion for but I do consider it a perfectly legitimate form of sexual expression.

I don't know how serious their threat to the adult industry is, but don't Ashcroft and the religious right consider any porn offensive? They are the kind of people who complain about movies that they haven't even seen.

I understand the concern that Extreme's movies will ruin it from everyone, but I don't see why it should do in an even-handed sensible debate, with a full presentation of representative evidence. Shouldn't the constitution prevent this kind of religious imposition of values? I realise the community standards thing makes the obscenity issue somewhat obscure. But then over the whole USA, porn is much in demand. People are buying it by the truckload, so whose standards are Ashcroft and co really representing, other than their own, which they want to impose on a multi-cultural society?

I have read (rather disingenous) comments from Ben Dover (Lindsay Honey) and other British porn producers to the effect that, for example, Rocco's movies cast a similar shadow on their efforts to have porn accepted in the UK. I don't believe that for a minute, but you can see how the thinking runs.
Taken on its own, with no knowledge of the form, a first viewing of a Rocco movie can be shocking. But is it really any less "offensive" to a non-porn viewer than Ben Dover taking a girl to a hotel room and having his mates shag her up the arse and spunk on her face?

Sorry, I am now getting off the track, but the point is that as reprehensible as one movie or director or company may appear to be in isolation, I really hope that common sense will be brought to bear on this, and that the industry will be judged, if it has to come to that, on its common standards, not a worst case scenario.

[Link]

Is fisting illegal? I don't know, try releasing a fisting video, and let a court decide. The same goes for Golden Showers, Bondage videos with penetration.

If I remember correctly, back in the 80's or 90's, an adult company tried to get a court ruling about a tape prior to releasing it. The court wouldn't rule on the tape unless the company released it and then a DA would press charges.

Can you imagine asking the government if it was illegal for you to murder someone, and then they gave you an answer like "We can't tell you until you do it."

Even if a jury finds that a movie is not obscene, that ruling only applies to that "community". What's a community? A neighborhood? A county? A state? A country? Hell don't we live in a "global" community?

If a movie producer wins in a Los Angeles court, what's to stop a San Diego DA from filing an obsenity case against the same title? Unfortunately, if DA's co-ordinate efforts, they can put a company out of business without ever winning a conviction. All they have to do is file charges in many different jursidictions. Companies don't have the money to be able to constantly defend themselves.

Someone has to define what is obscene and what is not. The most foolish statement ever to come out of the US Supreme Court was "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." (paraphrased)

[Link]

Exactly!

Until the judges or law makers or whoever decides what is obscene and not obscene, how will a porn studio know for sure?

I jsut don't want a judge seeing this film and after seeing just that, rules that all porn is similiar.

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]

But it was good to see that the Feb 2002 obscenity trial is about Tampa Tushy Fest. On the plus side, in that video it is woman-to-woman fisting, so it won't seem like it is exploiting women. Also on the plus side, the woman doing the fisting is talking to the camera about Chloe's pleasure, about her having an orgasm - so the idea that it is meant to be sadistic is invalidated.

On the negative side, when Cloe cums she looks like an alien is about to burst out of her chest - the jury might feel that her expression is a sign of incredible pain instead of just the way she looks.

That Setmore Butt's mom works at his company could go either way - shades of Psycho or a family brothel, or, a sign of apple pie.

The question is, with sick *s like Borden making videos, why did they go after Seymore Butts?

[Link]

Apparently, a video containing fisting was previously prosecuted as being "obscene". Therefore, fisting is one of the "magic" acts that trigger obscenity prosecutions. Supposedly, if Seymore wins this case, fisting might fall off of the list of "taboo" topics (at least it will be permitted in Los Angeles).

[Link]

As far as I am concerned, there is a real problem with our justice system, when it is more costly to a company to prove their innocence, than it is to settle a series of court cases.

[Link]

Gabriel Nine, as ever, the voice of reason. If only you were our Attorney General! Unfortunately, Ashcroft tends to agree with large groups such as The AFA, who consider Disney the Great Satan, and K-Mart as 'dealers of pornography'. It would be almost funny, but these people are dead serious.
Certainly anyone can see a difference in more 'couples friendly' porn and 'worst case' such as Forced Entry, but the reason they condemn all porn is because of a belief that it is progressively degenerate, and leads to something such as Forced Entry.

As a female, I'm appalled at some of the swill coming out of Extreme, and I shudder to think of all the adolescent boys wanking off to this stuff. Will someone please just shoot me when these guys hit the streets?

The Seymore Butts case is entirely different, and I don't understand why it's anyone's business, let alone the district attorney's. Although I personally don't see the attraction of fisting, and believe it to be another porn trend that's caught on, I resent anyone dictating what I can or cannot put in any of my orifaces, thank you very much. What's next, limiting the size of dildos? Christ, some porn actors dicks are bigger than someone's fist, lol.
I have the feeling however, that Seymore Butts is only a warm-up. I think they keep the obscenity laws open-ended on purpose, and I don't see this changing anytime soon.

So, it looks like there's no stopping Extreme's greed and irresponsibility, and I'm sure this will be a big seller. I wonder if they're taking pre-orders?
I think I'll pass. In fact, it might be time to get in a few more hours on the pistol range.

[Link]

Even I would - shudder - say that I would be in agreement -shudder again - with - shudder once more -Ashcroft on this topic. Films like Forced Entry have NO redeeming social value, as does most porn, but that's another topic, all together.

--I shudder to think of all the adolescent boys wanking off to this

Anyone that can actually get off to this film, would scare me.

On the lighter side:

--some porn actors dicks are bigger than someone's fist

Very true, lol!

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]

Lizzy Borden is making a film "based" on $atanism. Boy she couldn't be more far from the truth if she tried.

First let me start, $atanism does NOT embody killing or human sacrifices. I have done extensive research on this subject. I own and have read the $atanic Bible by Anton Szandor LaVey multiple times, no where does it say killing is part of the ritual.

Secondly, I own the $atanic Rituals Companion and read through that. No where in there does it say killing is part of a ritual.

I would also like to say, as being more of a $atanist, I can tell the difference between what is legal and what is not, no where does it say killing is permited. Nor does it say it is ok to rape or murder women.

--So I ask Lizzy, do you have the faintest idea of what $atanism is about? Because you sure don't look it.

$atanism represents everything that Christianity isn't, but it does not permit murder.

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]

Edited by - Asmodeus on Feb 11 2002

[Link]

--Perhaps I should have labeled the topic, Lizzy Borden is ruining porn.?

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]

You forgot Tom Byron and John Stagliano. lol

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]

Older brothers, Father's cupboards, Parents' hidden stash of porn, descrambling the cable box, being 15 or 16 and looking 18, people at school..

PLUS today we also have:

Newsgroups, Websites, .mpg files, .mov files, DVD Rips to VCD, KaZaR, Morpheus, iMesh, WinMX, and SO much more.

If the internet was where it is today, when I was a teenager I would never have had to bother buying magazines...

Teens aren't stupid. They know how to find this shit at least as well as we do. Remember, we were that age once too, and we managed to get hold of it.

I believe this forum has a few people in their early 20's in it. I'm sure they knew how to get hold of smut a few years ago..

cheers,

scipio

[Link]

I think that the biggest objective risk Extreme runs is providing the anti-porn crowd with a perfect target from which to engage in a renewed crackdown against porn in general. You see, the big thing stopping local DA's and police from conducting major raids is the fact that most people either watch or don't care about porn. Juries see the squirming bodies of "mainstream porn" and they wonder why the government is wasting their time.

Now, if you glorify a petty little loser like Ramirez and show what appears to be a rape along with those same squirming bodies, you start to change the equation. Should losers like Borden and Black be allowed to serve up a dish of shit to those few people so lame that they need such crap to get off? In a perfect world, I think they should-if only to "out" the people in need of being watched. Too bad this isn't a perfect world, huh?

What Extreme risks is the right wing, anti-porn crowd finding common ground with enough left wing feminists and regular old average people to bypass the current jury nullification going on. They may hate porn for different reasons but the ending result could be to fuel the fires of oppression just like they have done before (extremists of both political parties). Once a couple of successful prosecutions take place, usually to establish a local DA's political career, opportunists elsewhere will take note. The fed's will jump in at some point when requested by either pressure group A or junior senator B or whomever.

Do I think the above is a likely scenario? I suppose it all depends on how much longer the war on terrorism keeps the country interested. As long as the WOT keeps Bush's ratings high, porn is fairly safe. The American people have a short attention span though so don't expect that to last forever. The media could easily pick up on titles such as these-how tough is it to think at least one TV news crew asking relatives of Ramirez's victims what they think about it (the media often fan the flames for ratings)?

So, whatever happens-be it the feared crackdown on porn or simply letting more people know how low brow Extreme (and, by extention, it's fans) is-life will go on. Extreme wins whenever someone starts a thread like this or participates in it-remember that the company is mostly hype without substance-so they should be happy to see us bash or defend them as it's what they want...

[Link]

Given this, I have to assume that there is a profitable market for Extreme's products. If this is the case, then I think that a case can be made that their product it within "community standards".

However, I would think that proving this would require some pretty accurate rental/sales records. On Long Island, only about half of the adult video stores are computerized. You would think that computerization would be required to prove something like this.

[Link]

Hardz, deal with the reality that kids/teens are much more experienced, smarter than some of us were when we were than age and than we give them credit for. I bet when u were a teen or a kid, u saw some kind of porn. If not at home, then in the streets. That's LIFE! In a way, it is good for them! We live in the world today where kids/teens are FORCED to grow up fast. What's next? Are u gonna say that AMERICAN PIE was an ADULT movie when TEENS was in/starring in the movie? Wame with American Beauty!
LIFE is rated X! That goes for kids, teens, adults, etc...

GET IT RIGHT!

Sex isn't pornographic. U knoe... Death, murder, terrorism, hate, racism is all pornographic!

JUST LIKE that rapper ICE-T said in a book he wrote...

"When a kid sees a porno or a Playboy magazine, what is he seeing? He's seeing sex & there's NOTHING wrong with that. He's seeing what people do all over the world! It may make him a wild kid that may talk bold in school or do some wild things, but all it is doing is allowing his natural curiosity an outlet. ANY psychiatrist can tell you that surpression & repression is a breeding ground for dysfuntion & being abnormal! If you don't let your son watch violent movies or toy guns, that boy will sneak off every chance he gets to another outlet. The worst harm that can be done to a kid is from his parents & other ADULTS. Not thru TV & music. If you can make people kill through TV & music, news junkies would slay people all day long. If you saw 2 kids hugging eachother, that would just be what they were doing. BUT, if an ADULT EXPLOITS this innocence for their own turn on (or inaedaquete moralities) then they have crossed a line. Nothing in the world substitutes for parental guidance & love."

HARDZ, get it correct before we go any further. Especially if YOU (and I know u have) seen this kind of material before you were 18 or 21. IF NOT, you contradict youself so much. What are you, Spike Lee? Seriously! If teens see porn, there's not much wrong with it (unless they practice a sex act on their family members and not mature enough to keep quiet about certain things in front of certain people). It is up to YOU, as a parent, to give them the PG they need & the structure! Simple as that, god damnit! WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, KIDS ARE WATCHING US! THEY ARE WATCHING THE WORLD & HOW MUCH SHIT IS IN IT! AND IF KIDS/TEENS SEE/HEAR YOU RUBBING SHIT IN THEIR FACES & HEAR U CONTRADICT YOURSELF, LIKE U JUST DID, U WILL GIVE KIDS THE PERFECT EXCUSE IN THE WORLD FOR THEM TO BE ABNORMAL, ETC... So, don't give me that shit about "What is this doing in their hands?"

and I wont have any kids. I dont plan on it, but if I had a son & he saw pornos, I'd give him guidance & teach him about the sex! ILLEGAL OR NOT, teens have sex everyday. And if my 15 year old son wanted to have sex, I'd talk to him about it and give him help, tools, etc... And I wouldn't worry about my son raping anyone. We all have obligations. Just like youth has knowledge, whether your asses likes it or not. END OF FUCKING STORY!

Don't like what I'm saying? Fine! I could give a good shit! The truth hurts. Because in this world, money, happiness, experience, females, sex, education & HARD WORK TALKS!!!!!!!!!

YOU FUCKING VULTURES!

[Link]

No offense to anyone, but the more I think about these sugar-spreaders, these uptight people, the more pissed I get. Even though porn & XXX movies are not my most valuable possesion, it irritates the shit out of me to learn that there are pessimists, ignorant, bitter (Denzel Washington type), contradictors & sugar spreaders out there who are making it in the big, big world. How can these people go about their daily routines & rituals if they get so uptight & offended by something they have absolute NO control over?! Who put the gun to their head & and/or threatened them and said "Go out there in the world, explore all the goods & bads AND YOU HAD BETTER like it all & enjoy it!" Who ever said that life was fair or easy? OR contain everything that you like?! Jesus & Buddha! I mean, really! You think teens/kids seeing porn is offensive & un-acceptable?! NEWSFLASH: LIFE has a load of un-acceptable things that happens everyday! Let alone, offensive! This is not a Lionel Richie WE ARE THE WORLD world that we are living in. This isn't a DISNEY world! This is a DR. LAMB world! You don't go out there and force your opinions on someone else. We all have the right to be the way we want to be UNLESS we annoy someone else. There's lines & rules IN LIFE! Not just rules in school & for 'minors'.

Separate the ugly from the beautiful & stop firing your weapons at noises in the dark
-Quote from an angry White reader for Giant Robot magazine!-

[Link]

D.

[Link]

I didn't want to, but watch for my upcoming review of Ass Clowns #2. You really should stop assuming too much about me, Hardz, you know what they say.

"I'm still waiting for someone to back up the claim that 'Forced Entry' glorifies Richard Ramirez."

You're right, maybe they've chosen the nightstalker in an effort to further scientific study into the mind of a serial killer, for the good of mankind! How myopic of us not to have seen this!

[Link]

The only assumption's I've made from our debate is that you are clearly an intelligent, thoughtful and caring person, who has unfortunately suffered at the hands of a sociopath.

I applaud the fact that you are fighting for your principles, ideals and belief.

On the same topic, I'm sure that many in this thread have probably made assumptions about me.
I hope that any assumptions made are based upon my writings and NOT based on the fact that I've defended Lizzy Bordan's film.

I have extremely strong objections to censorship of consensual porn, and hope people understand why I choose to go against the grain and express views that conflict with popular opinion.

I could have simply wrote, "Yeh, this type of stuff sucks and should never have been made", but I hope that my arguments have at least envoked some thought.

Edited by - Hardz on Feb 12 2002

[Link]

Same here, Hardz.

But there may not be people as intellegent or able to tell the difference between real or fake, such as everyone here.
Who might view this particular film as non-consensual, those are the ones that we, you and everyone, should worry about.

Whoa!
I lit the fire, and man is the fire burning!

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]

Hardz Sez:~

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.

I doubt you really believe that you think Parents/Guardians can police young people to the extent of them never being able to get porn.

I suppose it's mildly possible to police a lot of a teen's life, if you're into checking through their rooms when they're not home looking for contraband, and installing netnanny et al and making sure the computer monitor they're using is always visible from the TV couch.. But then you'll end up with nifty doses of resentment and better once they become even mildly independant.

The Parent/guardian (or Government) is going to watch them, individually 24/7? (As VictoriO pointed out) I think not.

The simple fact is that teens in a western society, if they're so inclined, can get hold of anything that's "marginally illegal" without much trouble. Whether that's porn, cigarettes, booze, light drugs like dope or all of the above.

Legislate and tighten all you like, but the fact is that even in Singapore, kids can get porn without much trouble.

cheers,

scipio

[Link]

I thought maybe someone had a quote from Lizzie Borden where she said "Richard Ramirez is a cool guy and I made this film in his honour!"

Instead, all I could find was this quote from Veronica Caine:

"I spoke with Lizzy and she's already said that she wants to put in some comment that we're not condoning or promoting violence against women and that if you are, we offer a number of a hotline." (August 2001)

I doubt FE glorifies Ramirez in the way that SILENCE OF THE LAMBS glorifies Hannibal Lecter. I doubt that there's time to glorify anything on a three-day porn shoot.

[Link]

The Perverted Mind Of Lizzy Borden Releases The Ultimate, Psychotic Biography Of The Demon Night Stalker, Richard Ramirez!

---I'd rather be anywhere but here, but I’m here and not anywhere---

[Link]