I'm a bit surprised that no one has been posting about the recent obscenity conviction of Max Hardcore down in Florida. I read about it in AVN and didn't really know what to think. I'd never seen any of his movies nor did I know much of anything about him besides that he reportedly produced movies in the same extreme/gonzo vein as Evil Angel. So I did a bit of research: I went on his website, and what I found really surprised me. In his lengthy "About Max" section, he describes at length how he "would pick sluts young and old, and use their fuck-holes for his own pleasure, while degrading and humiliating them." Continuing by remarking that he "also developed new and unique methods of sexual mistreatment. Among other things, Max pioneered Throat Fucking, Splatter Cam, the Pile Diver, Anal Gaping, and the misuse of medical speculums!" OK, as disgusted as I was by what he was saying, I'm not that stupid. I got the humor. Besides, porn frequently plays off notions of degradation. It's not good, but that's what it is. So then I decided to look at the descriptions of some of his movies, including one where "Candi dumped a good man who put up with her periods & even bought her boobs! Then she'd go out clubbing to get attention - but soon ran out of money & had to start hooking. I show her the errors of her wicked ways, and after our 'date' she limped back home & begged for forgiveness." Bottom line: I still haven't seen any of his movies and now I never will. Do I think the guy deserves up to 25 years in prison for making this misogynistic shit? No of course not, especially when murderers are threatened with less. But I think that the bigger question is why does the porn world not make a point to speak out against obvious misogyny and movies where women are blatantly degraded both physically and verbally? (answers of "it sells" or "the girls signed release forms" are not good enough) ^Just my
The porn world might be ill-advised to speak out against Max Hardcore as long as the Federal Government is using the threatening power of criminal punishment against not just Max Hardcore, but John Stagliano and Evil Angel. I would speak out against Max Hardcore if the Feds weren't trying to throw him in a dungeon for producing material with consenting adults for a market of other consenting adults. As long as the basic injustice of incarcerating pornfolks continues, then even Max Hardcore deserves to be defended, because to do otherwide jeopardizes folks like John Stagliano and his family. I am totally disgusted that the Bush regime is persecuting the Staglianos, and that disgust requires me to support Max. Kinda like how the USA allied with the USSR in the wake of the Nazi invasion of Russia.
It could be that many of them simply don't really have an opinion about Max or his movies other than they don't like them. Most people who believe in free speech feel that consensual activity between adults is sacred, no matter what they think of it personally. I don't know why it should come as a surprise to anyone that there are many people working in the adult industry who believe in free speech. But since you asked, you don't have to look far to find criticism of Max amongst porn fans and some industry insiders. I personally haven't seen a complete Max Hardcore movie since somewhere around 1998. I have seen the Kelsey Michaels scene. I wanted to see what everyone was talking about what they said it was awful. It was bad but Max wasn't really any more rough with her than many other porners have been with other girls. I have a feeling people are upset more by the things he says than what he actually does. He's been known to smack women and (I think) spit on them but again. Many others have done the same. And I've seen other pornographers smack women in scenes much harder than I've seen Max smack anyone. Although as I said, I don't much much Max.They aren't good enough for people who don't believe in the First Amendment or freedom in general. Freedom to be your own person. For those people, what can I say? They wave the American flag around and wear it on their lapel but they shit all over one of America's most fundamental principles every chance they get. As for degradation? If you can't choose to subject yourself to degradation in America, then I guess all is lost. Max doesn't degrade women. He degrades individuals. Women as a whole are only as degraded by Max's products as they allow themselves to feel. What of women who like that kind of treatment? Don't tell me they're ill because that doesn't matter. If you're free to be treated well, why aren't you equally free to be treated poorly if you choose to do so? Edited by - randomprecision on 6/8/2008 12:59:18 AM
I am not a fan of Max's work (and was actually a bit offended by something I saw of his), but that is neither here nor there. This is a travesty and I wish him the best. What he did was shoot a video of consenting adults and it was sold to what should be a consenting adult and therefore he should, imho, he should not have been convicted. I think he can win this on appeal and I hope he does, because he deserves to be able to shoot what he wants. IMHO, as long as you don't involve children or animals, it all cool. This verdict sets a very bad precedent and I hope he can come back from it. I had a long conversation with Jake Malone about this today and needless to say, we both feel no good can come from this. Edited by - jrsl76 on 6/8/2008 2:06:58 AM
Wow! This is total crap! I guess I'll depart fro a lot of other who say that despite their support of what he does., they're offended by it. Well since I can separate reality from produced acting (good or otherwise) I'm not offended by it in the least. Is this a "niche"? Sure it is and not everyone is into the same fetishes or turn-on's but those who are not shouldn't decide what others should have available to them. That's a no-brainer I hope. These are actors and actresses who have agreed to do play a part with all of the associated acts for the entertainment of others. This is FICTION! Was "Saving Private Ryan" graphic? Sure but it was meant to represent something to those of us who watched it. I'm not trying to equate the artistry of the two but there is a parallel. As far as being enjoying it goes...Yeh I do! How's that? I like seeing a mainstream HC actress like Brianna Banks, someone who usually plays the role of the one with the upper hand, as the submissive. After having watched her in her other roles seeing her thrown over the arm of the sofa and watching her get throat-fucked is sort of cool! Once again, I know that she agreed to this and was compensated for it.
Max, through his videos, wants to offend "civilians" (and abuse his female performers, too, IMO). So now he has to pay the price. Had he not been convicted, he would have bragged loudly about how stupid the government/local community is because they didn't convict him. IMO Max represents the worst of the porn industry--hateful sex! And, I don't believe that his conviction takes away anyone's rights of Free Speech. That's just the line that hater/abusers like Max use, to hide behind the many porners who don't use the industry as a means to play out their own, personal sick hang-ups. There are people in the industry who don't like the type of material Max produces, and are (privately in some cases) happy to see him convicted. Because Max's extremely offensive product LOSES support for the industry from the "Average Joe," he does more harm than good. So, his conviction is, when all is said and done, a Good Thing for the porn industry as a whole. Time will tell. Also: check out the other thread on Max for a sample of the heated pro/con feelings about him. I bet you can guess which group I'm in. Edited by - Derek117 on 6/8/2008 11:58:23 AM Edited by - Derek117 on 6/8/2008 11:59:59 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 8 2008 : 2:15PM
I agree that women (and men) have the freedom to be degraded if they choose to be or enjoy it, but let's be clear that the treatment is degrading, that is the whole attraction for the performers and viewers. If it wasn't degrading and taboo what would be the point?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 8 2008 : 2:18PM
I notice many like to insist on this, and no doubt it is true in a lot of cases, but don't the stories of Roxy Jezel, Rebecca Linares and more than a few other performers who say Max has behaved inappropriately towards them, over-stepped their bounds, etc, cause you to reconsider this at all?
You have probably not seen his 'worst' yet... or more likely, you enjoy those scenes the most, just like Max himself... a girl that has never done porn before being totally fucked up... pissed on, slapped and crying for real (sure, if you want to believe that it's NEVER real... go ahead...) Most of it is acting, but it doesn't make up for these notorious scenes everyone mention when they explain why they hate the guy. Do you see something we don't, or is it the other way around? And do you think those hating Max Hardcore, other porn fans, are just into cuddly intimate stuff? Think again... I love rough stuff, but not when the male performer seems to enjoy it a bit too much... that's just creepy as hell...
Ok I'll defer to you and from what you describe give you the benefit of the doubt. I probably haven't seen his "Worst then. I have seen actors like Queeny Love who get some pretty rough treatment and ask for more! Then come back to re-appear in several subsequent features. That's what I was basing my response on.
I wouldn't consider him a victim, he must've seen it coming... like a fire closing in on his house. He could've moved to Europe or something, raping and filming russian teens for a living... ;)
If Max overstepped bounds, and purposely hurt anyone then the performers should've filed a criminal complaint against him long ago. I read the clip from Roxy that you posted in the other thread(*), and while I won't question her absolute disgust for the experience, I notice she didn't file a police complaint. All she did was take another $1,000 from him. Tell me, how should that be interpreted?
So, let me get this straight..what turns YOU on is EROTIC. What turns Max on is OBSCENE? Freedom is NEVER free my friend. The price we pay is TOLERANCE! Someone said once, " I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend TO THE DEATH your right to say it". More sanctimonious, "holier than thou" finger pointing from the peanut gallery! You live in America. This is OUR country. The first amendment applies to EVERYBODY. Unless weak-minded pukes let the weak-minded pukes in Washington take it from us. And if we let that happen, we don't DESERVE to have it.
If you piss people off, expect them to want to kick your ass. Max is a coward, who didn't expect the people he made his product to offend to say "fuck you, asshole." Max got what he deserves. He's hiding behind the First Amendment in order to play out his hatred of women--and to get other people who believe in sexual freedom to erroneously believe they have something in common. They don't. And, regarding the "defend to the death" statement, porn industry people/fans, will someday learn what (using random examples) Italians learned about the Mafia, Blacks learned about drug dealers, and Latinos learned about street gangs. Namely, you don't have to defend the scum among you in order to be loyal to your heritage or principals. Think it through, my friend. You DON'T need to defend Max. Max's shit product LOSES support for the porn industry with the Average Joe on the street. And it was these Average Joe's who convicted Max in Florida last week. You can support Stagliano but NOT Max. There is a difference. And that's freedom, too.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 8 2008 : 9:25PM
As Roxy says in the same post, a lot of the performers are (sadly) use to abuse and just move on, if they filed charges their careers in porn would be over. If one rapes a prostitute and then pays her, does that render the rape null and void?
Max doesn't make movies for the people who are offended by them. Clearly they are not the ones who buy his movies and support his livelihood. I don't understand how you can think otherwise.Do you mean, "It is possible to support Stagliano without supporting Max?" I believe that Max should not be prevented from making his movies on the grounds of obscenity. I believe this regardless of whether his movies are perceived as being good or bad for the industry, or for society. Even if his movies were terrible for society (and I don't believe that they are), the fact that he is protected by the first amendment is good for society. The only meaningful way that I can interpret the legal concept of obscenity is as material that I do not believe that consenting adults should be allowed to watch in the privacy of their homes. Using this interpretation, I can't think of anything that I would classify as obscene that is not already illegal for another reason.
If you're being abused in the workplace, why the hell would you want this career? Seriously, if Max (or any director) was that bad I can't condone simply taking more of his money then walking away. If you do that you're letting the next woman walk into danger. Let go the bottom line and put a stop to the problem - file a criminal complaint.Prostitutes, and other sex-industry workers, are going to find themselves in situations that you are I will never encounter. If I worked at the local McD's and my supervisor accidently felt up my breasts, he'd be heading for the fry-vat, balls first. A sex worker on the other hand would likely inform her partner, "that's not allowed," and move on. Now, if a sex-worker tells the other person, "don't do that, stop," or something along those lines, and their partner continues anyway, I definitely think they should file a complaint. Porn stars are lucky in that they can. Prostitutes have a catch-22 in that they are committing an illegal act, and face the possibility of prosecution themselves. Money does not make rape null and void, but where there is confusion and disagreement, accepting money seems to legitimize any action that took place. edited to add I think Noam Chomsky sums it up well: "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. ...If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."Sex = legal; gambling, drugs, and attempted homicide = not legal. Apples and oranges. FYI, none of the activities you named above is restricted to any single ethnic group. You have your scum and your saviors among them all.Um, who are you to decide whom it is acceptable to support? Freedom is being able to support Stagliano OR Max OR neither OR both. Edited by - ohri on 6/8/2008 11:05:03 PM
[Link]
Hypermastia Deactivated User
These R The Buttocks Of Ryan Star: No Butt Can Compare 248 Posts 6/07
Posted - Jun 8 2008 : 11:26PM
I doubt the convictions will stick. Jurors later said they felt as though the judge backed them into a corner after they informed the court they were deadlocked. Some on the jury went so far as to apologize in person to Hardcore, for not holding outfor a mistrial. Also, does anyone remember reading about the Max Hardcore/Pamala Lee (not That Pamala Lee) incident? According to Lee, Mad Max thought it would be fun to sneak up on her and ram his fist inside her vagina; he did. Lee had to be hospitalized for severe trauma to her Vagina. She said the injuries severely fucked her up for long time. More recently, a British film crew shooting a documentary on sex Films actually videotaped Hardcore refusing a model's requests for air, as he continued violently ramming her mouth over his cock. The sex model was not just upset; she was screaming and crying. Still, I don't want to seem too critical of Mr Little, as I'm a huge fan of facials and anal; occasionally, ones that may feature the Sex Models less than thrilled.
I doubt that constitutes a mistrial. More recently, a British film crew shooting a documentary on sex Films actually videotaped Hardcore refusing a model's requests for air, as he continued violently ramming her mouth over his cock. The sex model was not just upset; she was screaming and crying. This might be sufficient reason to prosecute Paul Little for assault but it's a poor excuse for charging him with transportation of obscene material.
I guess people can be offended by the precedent the kind of stuff he does sets.Plus I guess they're offended by the very fact that this material which is well, let's face it, as misogynistic as one can find is available to men everywhere if they so wish. The thing is though that the benchmark of obscenity is always changing. At one point, only Max really did the whole 'anal gaping' thing. Now almost every anal features some of that. I personally find him really bloody weird and I don't dig his stuff at all. Seeing a girl suck her own vomit through a straw aint exactly gonna elicit an orgasm in me, but hey ho.
You couldn't pay me to watch a Max Hardcore movie, but that's the point. I can chose to watch his stuff... or NOT. As long as nobody's being hurt, as long as no children or animals are harmed and as long as the material isn't being made available to minors, who the fuck am I to tell you or anyone else what you can or cannot watch in the privacy of your own home? When Miller was decided, brick & mortar stores were the norm and the "community standards" test made at least some sense, inasmuch as there was an actual, physical presence in said community. Now they're the exception (certainly in the places that tend to get pissed off at such things)and that standard has been rendered obsolete. Unfortunately, it will take years of appeals before the law catches up with reality.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 10 2008 : 12:43AM
I think the hope that somehow the internet will somehow eliminate the community standards section of the Miller test is over-stretching and wishful thinking. The internet is simply another method of distribution, the material is still distributed to a community where the standards can be applied. I understand why so many dislike obscenity laws but do you honestly think they will be overturned anytime in the forseeable future? Especially with the likes of Scalia and Alito on the court? Being 'originalists' they would argue that there is no way the founding fathers intended 'freedom of speech' to include Max's material, and they would be right. Of course by that same logic blacks and women shouldn't have the vote either, but that just shows you why those two are fools.
I agree, the problem is that somebody has been hurt by Max... intentionally no less... Maybe it's hard to understand unless you've seen at least one of his most notorius scenes. If I hadn't, I would probably think 'It can't be that bad... they're just overreacting...'. You can pick any of his scenes and show it to a jury, they will probably find even the tamer ones with obvious acting obscene. But I find it very weird that not even some porn fans who otherwise like rough stuff is willing to accept his work.
Great post (as usual), but I have just two observations: 1)You're right, the Supreme Court will in no way rule those obscenity laws from the 1930s unconstitutional, at least not for a long time. So the only hope is to get lawmakers to change them. There is virtually no chance, but it's worth a try, right? So write to your representatives! 2)Actually, when the founding fathers talk about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, I am at least 90% sure that they meant to include what we would today consider to be "obscene" and "pornography" as well. Those guys probably had copies of Fanny Hill tucked away in their libraries, for one. And they certainly knew about all the "pornography" that had been produced in France during the eighteenth century. Sexually explicit works were banned by the French government, along with anything else that posed a threat to the State, the Church, or morality. It was all lumped together and called "philosophy." What's great about America is that it was founded with the very notion that even those texts would be allowed to circulate freely. (Those men were big readers of Enlightenment philosophy, after all.) Freedom of the press means freedom of the printing press, period. There are no exceptions in the Bill of Rights. They certainly could have put them in: "Congress shall make no law [. . .] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press (except with regards to obscene books like those found in France)." But they didn't. So the right to produce and possess that kind of book is guaranteed by the Constitution. Today, visual media has replaced the printing press as the primary vehicle for expression. So Max Hardcore's films are in fact protected by the First Ammendment.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jun 10 2008 : 12:26PM
I have spoken out, and get bashed for it. We, the companies I represent have never done degradation of woman type movies. What offends me about Max is that some of these girls have really got hurt physically. It puts the entire industry in a very bad light. Big difference between Max and John Stagliano. I hate to say it, but Max made his bed... Should he go to jail for 25 years? In my opinion no, but he knew what the law is, and he knew what the penalties could be. He rolled the dice, and took a chance. It seems to be a big risk in light of the outcome.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jun 10 2008 : 12:31PM
It is a well know fact that several of the girls Max has "worked" with have ended up in the emergency room with riped or ruptured anus. I don't have names because I can't remember them, but they are out there and I'm sure somebody knows who they are. This is not a urban myth about Max, it is a fact.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jun 10 2008 : 12:43PM
I was at a show one year and someone brought this girl who liked to get punched, drowned, and choked. Several guys joined in on the "fun". I saw her lying on the curb the next morning, holding her stomach, crying, and i asked if she needed help. I asked what happened, she said she got punched really hard a bunch of times and she didn't feel to good. We took her to the hospital. She had a ruptured spline. She could have died. I asked these guys, whom I have known for a long time, wtf, and they said , we were going to throw her off the roof, but we didn't. Things get out of hand, people get hurt. No matter how fucked up this girl was, she didn't deserve to be treated that way. She needed help. You can call it acting, but there are no stunt doubles in a Max movie. It is real. Just because someone constents to abuse, doesn't make it right.
Uh-HUH. Well, I took the time to look into the matter, since I found it highly unlikely that the Baywatch Bimbette was ever in a Max Hardcore movie. First of all, it seems to be Pamela "Dee," not Pamela Lee. Secondly, all I can find on the subject is a third-hand reference to the story (via the old lukeford.com and Icon magazine) that is no longer available in the original. The story, if true, allegedly took place in 1992, but wasn't reported until six years later. And, of course, there's no indication that Ms. Dee ever reported the matter to the Police or sued him for damages. Kinda diminishes her credibility, don't you think? Again, the alleged incident was in 1992. In all this time, there's only been one complaint against the guy? This is what you call "facts?" Dude, I find nothing erotic or arousing about Max's product. But before you go around claiming something as "fact," you've gotta do better than a misspelled unsourced report on a message board that can't be traced further back than a third-hand excerpt from an article that no longer exists from a single complainant whose credibility is suspect at best.
Also, don't forget that by the time a case actually reaches the court it's entirely possible that there will be a different line-up.Well, considering that, as enforced, most of the sodomy statutes were intended to be used against Homosexuals, I'm not convinced that the guys in Philidelphia had that in mind. Miscegenation was illegal, at the time, too, and how many of those guys were getting it on with their slaves? Or had family who did?
Ummm... what does that poor girl's experience have to do with Max? Was he involved? I'm guessing not, since, if he was, you would have stated so from the get-go. Please post some relevant evidence to back up your claim. Thank You.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jun 10 2008 : 2:11PM
The point was, just because someone is asking forit, consents to it, doesn't make it right. I have known Paul Little for 20 years, he is actually a pretty nice guy, his persona of Max hardcore is just that, a persona. He found a way to make money that was a different niche than the rest of us. It paid off in spades, but somewhere along the line, he knew, there could be trouble. Well trouble is now here. He will have to deal with it.
Max Hardcore @ AEBN
Posted - Jun 7 2008 : 9:28PM
