The dismissal of Seymore Butts obscenity charges seems to have made some manufacurers a little bold lately.
I have bought two different DVD's this week that contained fisting scenes without even knowing that I was doing so.
Candy Stripers has been released on DVD. The original version contained two scenes that featured fisting. Subsequently, these scenes were edited out of the video. Well, while the DVD contains the edited version, there is an Easter Egg on this DVD that shows both of the fisting scenes that were edited out.
After the Arrow trailers, the following message is shown: "Easter Egg! To find the deleted scenes, start at the Main Menu, and from 'Play Movie', click a combination of four arrow buttons to access this Easter Egg. Need a hint? Go to www.arrowmovies.com/hints.htm".
If you go to that web site you get an HTTP 404 - File not found error.
However, the correct combination of buttons once you are highlighted on "Play Movie" are: Right Down Right Left Enter
You can also just find Title 2 using your DVD Players naviation buttons.
The second title containing a fisting scene is "Flaunt It!" with Tiffany Mynx. On the video tape, the footage explicitly showing the fisting was edited out. However it is prominently shown on the DVD.
I have no problem with fisting scenes (I really don't know what the big deal is all about, either way). However, like in the case of Tampa Tushy Fest, I think that it is awfully presumptuous of the manufacturers to release these titles without letting the retailers know that they contain the fisting scenes.
The manufacturers have every right in the world to expose themselves to prosecution (as silly as that may be). However, they have no right to expose the retailers to that same prosecution.
Gee, I heard about the "fisting extra' on Cnady Stripers on RAME last week. As to "Flaunt It", this was news to me.
Any retailer who cares can find this info out, but most prefer not to know (just buy and sell & make a profit).
Personally, I would have felt that a release of "Candy Stripers" without the previously deleted material would be a major rip-off. now lets hope for a restored "Taboo".
I don't know how much I agree with this. Yes, if they scour RAME and ADT, they might find this information out. But they shouldn't have to do that.
My local store is owned by an adult video distributor in the New York area. He is (or was) selling the Candy Stripers DVD. He had no idea that this disc had the fisting in it until I told him about it. He's not sure if he is going to pull it from his shelves or not. However, my point is that his salesmen are the people that the stores deal with. If they don't know that the product contains a fisting scenes, how should the store owners know.
Distributors rely on the manufacturer keeping them informed of this kind of thing, and the stores rely on the distributor. If the information is not getting to the distributor, how can it be expected to reach the retailer?
This thread raises again questions to which I've been seeking answers: What, exactly, is strictly forbidden in porn? And what limits do the studios impose upon themselves?
Where are the lines drawn, and by whom?
What were the charges against Seymour Butts, may I ask?
Also, if the community-standards edict of 1973 is still in place, are certain titles illegal for sale in certain areas of the country?
Finally, what is so damn wrong about fisting? How is inserting a fist into someone's vagina "wrong" when other objects are "acceptable"?
I think that the only thing strictly forbidden is child pornography (maybe bestiality as well, probably under cruelty to animals laws.Local prosecutors and eventually a juryObscenity, I believe.Because of "community standards", there are places in the US where ALL pornography might be ruled obscene. This is why there are some states (and areas of other states) where many of the ADT affiliates will not ship to.Really theres nothing wrong about fisting. However, it's my understanding that at some time in the past, a video (or movie) containing fisting was ruled obscene in some community within the US. It seems that once a precedent is set based on a given sex act (I guess golden showers should be included here), the adult companies have historically just eliminated that act from future releases and (in many cases) edit out that act from future shipments of previous releases.Just like the answer to your earlier question, local prosecutors make the decision to prosecute (persecute?) local stores and/or manufacturers and the juries decision to convict or not.
As I've pointed out in previous threads on this topic, in the US, Obscenity is the only "crime" where a crime hasn't been committed until a jury determines that is has.
With all other "crimes", the law specifically spells out what is and isn't a crime. Obscenity laws just basically say that something is obscene if a prosecutor can convince 12 people who weren't smart enough to be excused from a jury that something doesn't "meet community standards".
From the point of view of a local video store, I have to believe that the risk of selling "questionable" videos greatly outweighs the potential reward,
You mis-understand my point. Drug laws specifically state what substances are illegal to sell and use. Obscenity laws do no such thing. When you sell a joint, you have committed a crime. Whether it SHOULD be a crime is a different story. When someone releases or sells a porn video there is no defined crime that has been committed.
If a prosecutor decides to take them to court, and a jury decides to convict, THAT is when selling that particular video is defined as a crime.
If a prosecutor charged a convenience store with drug charges for selling cigarettes because the do just as much harm as any other "illegal" drug, then THAT would be analgous to obscenity prosecutions.
My reference was not specific enough, for which I apologize: I speak of the asset-forfeiture laws, which deem a piece of property "guilty" of facilitating a drug crime. A car may be seized if it is seized during a drug arrest, and it is up to the owner to prove that it wasn't a "party" in the commission of the "drug crime."
Again, sorry for my lack of specificity.
The mind still boggles, however, over the arbitrariness of "fisting" being illegal. It defies logic.
Saw Flaunt It recently, and I give it a thumbs (and four fingers) down. Reason is just that the lead actress is one of those brunettes with the fake blond hair, press-on nails (ok, they may be real, but who the heck wears nails like that today?), and too much makeup - kind of a late seventies/early eighties throwback kind of look, I guess. Oh, and implants. All this effort to look "pretty" is just so artificial. On the plus side, there's no New Jersey accent or anything.
But the overall artificiality killed it for me. (And yet, a sci-fi story like Virtualia can work, because spacesuits are so obviously unreal that they become mythic. Whereas makeup and fake hair and nails is just too true to life).
Aside from that the production value is pretty good, the video quality good, and all in all a fine effort production wise. The fisting scene takes place in the opening scene - a wedding photographer looks on as the bride and a bridesmaid gets it on with the groom. The bridesmaid does the act on the bride from behind while the bride is on her knees.
There is an outtake at the end credits where it is revealed that it was done as a suprise ("He told me to do it!" the other actress says, pointing off camera). As such, there is little build up to it, no playing it up as something erotic. Actually that is probably why it is in this film - because it does not draw attention to itself.
I hope that you're using 'released' in the loosest possible sense....Nova and I have been trying to get this title from Max's distributor (Elite) for about 6 weeks now with no results. The conversations are very strange, and I'm developing the suspicion that they just don't have the tape. (Maybe there's some other underlying problem....)
If anyone has actually had this tape in their hot little hands, I'd love to know about it. (Heck, I'd love to know how they got it...and, no, jaded doesn't actually have it, it's listed as an upcoming release.)
Scott Kinney Diversified Video Associates www.xxx-imports.com