[Link]
Max Hardcore @ AEBN| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| likemyung Member 60 Posts 1/10 |  Posted - Feb 2 2010 : 1:03PMAre max hardcore dvds/scenes completely off the market?? Unavailable [Link] |
| posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Feb 2 2010 : 1:06PM [Link] |
| Shotgun84 Member A great philosopher once wrote naughty, naughty, very naughty. 167 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 2 2010 : 9:06PM [Link] |
| DK Member 107 Posts 6/09 | Posted - Feb 3 2010 : 2:15AM [Link] |
| taylor_swift_tasty_feet Member 367 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 3 2010 : 2:12PM [Link] |
| posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Feb 3 2010 : 2:17PM [Link] |
| likemyung Member 60 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 3 2010 : 5:08PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 9:28AM On the other hand, DK is right that Little's imprisonment IS an injustice in the sense that it, and the vagaries of anti porn laws are, in toto, patent violations of the HUMAN right to look at or consensually do what one pleases in private. However, Little, if not a misogynist himself, is a vile panderer to weak minded emotionally disturbed and sometimes criminal men who think of women as livestock to be kept, used and abused for their pleasure. No one who regards women with any amount of love or respect or appreciation of their beauty, could harbor such fantasies as Little portrays. Little's product serves to legitimize this truly perverse attitude, and I personally harbor no doubt that his product has inspired many acts of criminal abuse. Those who praise this man's work only associate themselves with the most reprehensible and truly savage members of our species. [Link] |
| Seijuro Senior Member 1389 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 8:19PM [Link] |
| Rosco Fuji Deactivated User On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09 | Posted - Feb 4 2010 : 9:43PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 8:14AM Edited by - duefuss on 2/5/2010 8:27:58 AM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 8:26AM ^^^ That's irrelevant. The issue, in my view, was never whether the performers were willing to take the abuse. On that score, certainly, some, at least must not have realized what they were getting into and reluctantly submitted to the abuse, having signed a release, or simply to get their money, but I don't know any of this for sure, of course. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that any of the girls enjoyed the experience. The point here, though, is that Little targeted an audience for his product of misogynists, atavists, molestors, abusers, rapists and rapist wannabes for whom sex is not a pleasure mutual to all participants, but a weapon of contempt and psychotic hatred for women as well as a pathetic prop for their own delusion of superiority. Little did not create these people, and his recognition that they were a largely untapped market in porn bespeaks his very canny business sense. But his willingness to incite these dangerous perversities, to inflame not sexual arousal, but the arousal of violence, hatred, and brutality, for his own profit, while not criminal, is contemptible, and it's an injustice that Little will never know, feel as responsible for as he should, nor be called to account for the actual abuse and pain and terror he has caused. One may trot out the usual arguments: if there was no Max Hardcore, there would be someone else. Little's product may just as well have provided release for some potential abuser that KEPT him from abusing, rather than inciting the abuse. Undoubtedly, both of these points are also true. However, the very nature of the emotional disturbance of the abuser is that inflicting abuse and hating women is not a FANTASY in the way that bondage play or urolagnia or other paraphilias are. Misogony, molestation and rape are NEEDS, compulsions of sick minds, sociopathies void of inhibition, remorse; sympathy of any kind, that MUST be DONE, not simply vicariously experienced. The depiction of these acts is far more likely to incite than to relieve these compulsions. The prohibition against child pornography, while largely to protect children from participating in it, is also to protect them from child molestors who are incited by kiddie porn and must release their urges the only way they CAN be released -- by actual sexual molestation. Misogony and sexual violence are often no less compulsory than pedophilia. They may be more so, since the abuse of women and rape are far more common crimes than chid abuse. As for there being other Max Hardcores, his imprisonment is likely for a while to restrain them, but, of course there ARE others and were others before him. But that fact does not exculpate Little, it only makes him less unique. For all of the wrong reasons, Paul Little is EXACTLY where he should be. Note: An apology to posthum for sustaining this thread after I said I agreed that it should die, but DK and likemyung (a disturbing handle, even if inadvertently) started this with their absurd paens to this despicable lowlife. Edited by - duefuss on 2/5/2010 8:28:41 AM [Link] |
| jizzyjay Member 914 Posts 10/07 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 12:11PM [Link] |
| likemyung Member 60 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 3:46PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 4:16PM And of what possible relevance to what I have said is it whether you know every girl that ever worked for MH and that they all absolutely adored the man? He still made a contemptible product fora contemptible audience. My opinion of his product is something I stand by, as is my assessment of anyone who agrees that this man is a great pornographer or that his product is erotically stimulating or anything but pandering to all that is worst in men. You are deprived of nothing by my opinion of you, and should not care. I, on the other hand, am greatly cheered that you seem to and by any hostility to me that my opinion generates from admirers of Little, You only verify for me all that I have said. Thank you. Edited by - duefuss on 2/5/2010 4:24:02 PM [Link] |
| likemyung Member 60 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 4:22PM [Link] |
| Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 6:20PM I'm a Libertarian. I don't like you pissing on willing girls, but I will defend to the death your right to do so. I think Max would be very vulnerable and maybe SHOULD be in jail if one of the actresses went after him for abuse or misrepresenting what they were getting into, or was underage, or permanently hurt, etc. But I don't believe any of them have. [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 7:26PM Again, his incarceration was without question morally and legally unjust, because it was predicated on his DISTRIBUTION of a product that the jury deemed obscene. His prosecution had nothing to do with his treatment of his actors or any distress that treatment did or did not cause them. In no way did he force anyone to look at this product. Nor did he send it to a single person who did not request and pay for it. He was not charged with exposing his products to minors, even inadvertently. Nor was it seen involuntarily by any member of any community who even MIGHT have thought it obscene and taken offense. He was therefore incarcerated for something that never even occured, for offending the sensibilities of a community that could not have been offended, because, except for the members of the jury that convicted him, no one in that community who didn't want to ever so much as heard of MH or saw one of his movies. His imprisonment was tantamount to being jailed for a crime that was never committed. The law he broke is predicated on the outrageous premise that someone has the right to tell you what you may not watch or do, without harming anyone and consensually in the absolute privacy of your own home. But none of this makes his product any less disgraceful in my opinion, which I hold for the reasons already stated. [Link] |
| realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 10:05PM -"Pornography incarnates male supremacy. It is the DNA of male dominance. Every rule of sexual abuse, every nuance of sexual sadism, every highway and byway of sexual exploitation, is encoded in it. It's what men want us to be, think we are, make us into; how men use us; not because biologically they are men but because this is how their social power is organized. From the perspective of the political activist, pornography is the blueprint of male supremacy; it shows how male supremacy is built... In cultural terms, pornography is the fundamentalism, of male dominance. Its absolutism on women and sexuality, its dogma, is merciless. Women are consigned to rape and prostitution; heretics are disappeared and destroyed. Pornography is the essential sexuality of male power: of hate, of ownership, of hierarchy; of sadism, of dominance. The premises of pornography are controlling in every rape and every rape case, whenever a woman is battered or prostituted, in incest, including in incest that occurs before a child can even speak, and in murder--murders of women by husbands, lovers, and serial killers." This criticism, and many others like it, is against all pornography. It is no different from your criticism against one niche of it. Edited by - realtip on 2/5/2010 10:06:37 PM [Link] |
| taylor_swift_tasty_feet Member 367 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 5 2010 : 10:06PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 1:01AM Please note: My use of caps is meant to be italics for emphasis, not yelling, because the ADT font's italics are barely detectable -- to me anyway. What you say about my criticism relative to Dworkin's statement is exactly right. And it is exactly my argument with critics of porn that oppose it on the grounds that all porn demeans women, endangers them, and fosters perverse and unrealistic expectations of sex. Certainly, there is much in pornography that can be construed to agree with all of the attitudes towards women and sex that Dworkin deplores. But not ALL pornography demeans women. Not ALL pornography is misogynist or male dominant. I leave it to the encyclopedic knowledge of ADTers to supply the exceptions far better than I could here, but what about lesbian porn for starters? Dworkin's conclusion suffers from the typical error of those who start with a premise and seek only what proves it. She ignores whatever doesn't prove her point or interprets that it does. But what of the stuff that DOES support her view of porn? Forget that. Let's assume she's right. All porn is misogynist, male dominant. It all fosters unrealistic expectations of sex. Now we are at the heart of what REALLY pisses me off about the anti-porn folks. Behind the argument that porn corrupts us-- the only thing that makes the argument work at all, is the prejudiced generalization that people can be easily corrupted. Behind it is a fundamental disrespect for other people and a belief that other people are weak and stupid and basically not able to function properly without some superior being the anti porners in this case, telling them what to do, how to behave, what is safe to watch, what they should think about--in short, everything they should be and do. Dworkin is saying – probably without even realizing it – that everybody who watches a tape of a man pissing on a woman will thereafter insist on pissing on women during sex. Now, of course, some men who see a portrayal or urolagnia WILL want to pee on their SOs. Many more may be turned on by watching it. But the guy who wants to do it wants to because he ALREADY demeans women. He ALREADY thinks he is dominant. He is already potentially what I condemned about the worst of Max Hardcore’s target audience: a dangerous sociopathic compulsive abuser, who is not relieved by what MH shows him, but inspired to DO it. Psychiatrists since Freud have been insisting that our minds regarding just about everything that informs our conduct are pretty much made up by age twelve. Jean Piaget presented compelling observational evidence and recent technology confirms that brain development ceases about then in most healthy individuals Misogyny is there at twelve. Homosexuality is there, at twelve. Having to pee on women to get off is there, at twelve. Liking big tits is there at twelve. Jeffery Daumer was an aspiring homosexual cannibal, at twelve. It may be discouraging, but it’s true. Pornography at its worst, like Max Hardcore’s, inflames, aggravates, inspires; but it does not cause. Even the guy who is, briefly or ever afterward, aroused by urolagnia FANTASIZES about it, he IMAGINES doing it and that arouses him. Watching it only helps his imagination with visual stimulation. He would cut his dick off before he would actually pee on the woman he loves. He’s no more a misogynist for being turned on by urolagnia than he is an adulterer for imagining during sex that he is fucking another woman or an exhibitionist for imagining that he is getting a blow job on a park bench. Fantasy is what GOOD sex is all about. It’s all that makes sex different from going to the bathroom; different from a necessary and basically silly looking act of procreation or arousal relief, and THE greatest human physical pleasure. Ask Dr. Ruth or read Masters and Johnson or talk to ANY sex therapist in the fucking universe. They’ll tell you. But the anti porn crowd wants you to believe that any perversion you see makes you perverse. How many of you guys have looked at a bondage movie? Okay, now, how many of you routinely tie up your girlfriends or wives? Next, how many of you HAVE TO tie them up to cum? That’s right. The number got smaller with each question, didn’t it? Ms Dworkin wants you to think that number stayed pretty much the same. Now, how many of you think LESS of your wife or girlfriend because you’ve seen a bondage movie? See how ridiculous it gets? I’m going to wave the flag now, so you may want to leave the room. In 1690, a doctor named John Locke had the audacity to suggest that sane human beings were able to pretty much get along on their own – not only feed and clothe themselves, which they’d been doing for a million or so years already, but make their own laws, behave themselves fairly well, and get along with each other WITHOUT some king or some Pope telling them how to act or talk or think or what was good for them or what was bad. Locke thought they could figure all that out for themselves if they wanted to. And, if they DIDN’T want to, that was okay too. They could let whoever they wanted to do their thinking for them, as long as they didn’t make others do what they did. Eighty six years later, a bunch of guys thought Locke might be on to something, so they decided to have a whack at this self governance thing. Well, they screwed it up pretty badly in a lot of respects, to be honest, but they didn’t give up the idea that a man is strong enough to see for himself what is best for himself, sympathetic enough to let others decide what is best for themselves, and smart enough not to get in each other’s way. Four score and seven years later, a tall guy called all of that “government of the people, by the people, for the people” and opined that it wasn’t going to go away. It didn’t, except in the minds of Ms Dworkin and her ilk. To them, we are still what King George hoped we were: weak little sheep who could be told what to do and think; poor impressionable creatures who think women are meat if we see a DVD in which they are treated like meat; brutal stupid animals who will stop treasuring and adoring the beautiful women we love because we see one or ten thousand or ten million Max Hardcore videos. And that is why the late Ms. Dworkin was full of shit, because The United States of America is still here, still working – not as well as it could, but still trying: and why not only it is still around, but why it’s ideals are the ideals now of nearly every man woman and child on the planet. We’re stronger than you thought we were, Ms. Dworkin, and your touching concern for our morals is pure nonsense. [Link] |
| DK Member 107 Posts 6/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 10:58AM I gather from this thread that some of the posters are very informed about Little's work and about the case against him. Was it ever established at trial that the actresses did not consent to whatever they did or had done to them? Apart from the trial, did any actresses take legal action against Little at any juncture on any grounds at all? Did any actresses ever request that criminal charges be filed against Little? As to the question of the possible impact of Little's porn on viewers' behavior, has it been established in any court anywhere that someone watched some of Little's porn and was incited by it to commit some criminal act? [Link] |
| posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 11:08AM Edited by - posthum on 2/6/2010 11:14:45 AM [Link] |
| taylor_swift_tasty_feet Member 367 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 1:12PM [Link] |
| Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 1:16PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 1:19PM As to Little's prosecution, as I said, it was NOT technically related to his product's sociological effect. The prosecuting contention was simply that his stuff was obscene. No claim was made or supported that a MH video directly caused a rape or something. But if you are implying that Little is innocent of pandering to and inflaming misogynist acts of abuse because no specific DVD of his has been shown to have set off a rape, etc. you are trying to excuse Little by requiring proof of his deeds beyond what is possible, and far beyond any rational understanding of guilt. It is like claiming that Ted Bundy should have been acquitted because there was no video of him actually raping and murdering any girls. Little's target audience is clearly stated by his videos, even by their titles and covers. Do I have to say it? Videos of girls doing anal target people who get off on anal sex. Videos of girls being treated like worthless beasts target people who get off on misogyny. Among that audience are those for whom misogny and abuse are harmless fantasies never indulged in reality. But also in that audience is every rapist and woman hating thug and killer in the world. If you want to excuse Little's work because there's no documented event of a rapist watching a MH video, putting on his coat, going out into the night, and raping the first girl he finds, then clearly you've already made up your mind that Little's work is just fine. But you've already made that very clear. Enjoy your own fantasies. That's what they are for and you need not defend them to me or anybody here. Indeed I would defend them for you, and have (see above). I don't have those fantasies. They sicken me, and as a porn lover of half a century's standing I am NOT easily sickened. Not my place to say, but if I were you, I'd drop this whole thing. It sounds to me like you're a whisper away from defending the abuse of women itself, which is the implication of your clearly rhetorical question whether Little's actresses ever sued him or complained: the old classic defense that women reallly LIKE that sort of thing, which is bullshit. [Link] |
| realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 1:34PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 1:57PM No, I did NOT just compare {I think you mean 'equate' by the way)a pornographer to a serial killer. I drew an analogy to DK's implication of the level of proof that should be required to contend that Little incited the abuse of women. The analogy was to show that Bundy would never have been convicted by that absurd standard. But that was plain to you wasn't it? I know by your posts that you understand language perfectly well, mine included, even at its most obtuse. You're just playing a favorite game at ADT: nitpicking to keep an argument going. And playing dumb? You're better than that, Realtip. Anyway, congratulations! Here's your response: What I said, again and again, is that Little's product is clearly aimed at misogynists whose attitude to women makes sex not a mutual pleasure, but a weapon of abuse, that misogyny, LIKE pedophilia is far more likely to be inflamed to action by pornographic arousal, not just to masturbatory relief as is the case with paraphilias and fetishes(i.e. turn ons). This understanding is not my invention. It is established by long clinical evidence and experience, as well as by the high icidence of wife and girlfriend abuse. The EXTREME example of misogyny is the serial rapist, who frequently seeks to escape punishment for his crime and exposure of his sickness by murdering his victims, making him a serial killer, like Ted Bundy was. If you get an equating of a pornographer with a serial killer out of all that, good for you. I've always admired hard work! If you wanna play 'gotcha!' with my posts, fine. Have at it. But have the decency to read the damn things in their entireity(I know that's asking a lot. I do go on a bit). Edited by - duefuss on 2/6/2010 2:40:28 PM [Link] |
| DK Member 107 Posts 6/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 4:18PM A poster in this thread, referring to a cast of characters ranging from John Locke to Ted Bundy, has attempted a psychological interpretation of Litle's porn and its audience. I know that the humor is not intentional, but this person's commentary is some of the funniest writing that I've seen in a very long time. When offering a psychological interpretation of others' preferences, it is reasonable to apply the same categories of analysis to one's own. That is why the reference to Andrea Dworkin's comment on porn is so apposite in this thread. Our amateur psychologist didn't like that Dworkin quote at all, of course, for obvious reasons. In various threads here on Little, there have been references to ex post facto comments by actresses who appeared in his porn about their experiences with him. I've often wondered if that was all part of the show, that they were encouraged to say and to post those things to enhance a particular image that Little was cultivating. I don't know; I'm just wondering. As to the amateur psychologist's suggestion that I stop posting on this topic: how dare you try to suppress a discussion about porn depicting consenting adults? The most amazing aspect of this forum, to me, is how intolerant so many supposed porn consumers are to porn preferences other than their own. If I were an amateur psychologist, I might have an opinion about that. But, then, I'm not. My view: whatever porn depicting consenting adults that someone likes is fine for them. Free Paul Little!!! [Link] |
| Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 5:10PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 5:22PM I'm delighted to bring some humor into your life, though if mine is some of the funniest stuff you ever read, you need to get out more. If my opinions are so erroneous, why don't you challenge them instead of ridiculing me and trying to belittle my intelligence? Am I to understand that you agree with Dworkin's excerpt above? Finally, why do you give a shit WHAT I think of Little? If you like him so much, I'm sure he would be cheered to hear from you. That'll do more for your hero than anything you say here. Anything you or I or anybody says on here has basically zero effect on anything. If I was trying to suppress your freedoms, I'd be writing the fucking Congress, which I'm not or the New York Times or some such, which I am also not. If you don't like that I think getting off on watching pretty girls getting slapped around and pissed on is sick and repulsive , you're just going to have to live with it, because that's what I think. You can go ahead and ridicule that all you care to, it won't change a thing. [Link] |
| Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 6:08PM [Link] |
| DK Member 107 Posts 6/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 7:51PM Whatever sorts of porn, if any, depicting consenting adults that duefuss (or any other person) likes, I hope that it is available in abundance, whether it is porn that I like or not. [Link] |
| Mr Creosote Member 46 Posts 3/08 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 8:12PM [Link] |
| DK Member 107 Posts 6/09 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 9:13PM [Link] |
 | |
| Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Feb 6 2010 : 11:24PM [Link] |
BlackSix  All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Feb 7 2010 : 2:35AM Can we retire the endless repetitive Max Hardcore conversations (which I've contributed my fair share to) at least until the old pervert gets out of jail in 4 years time? [Link] |
| taylor_swift_tasty_feet Member 367 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 7 2010 : 8:19AM [Link] |
| realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04 | Posted - Feb 7 2010 : 12:47PM [Link] |
| likemyung Member 60 Posts 1/10 | Posted - Feb 7 2010 : 4:00PM [Link] |
| Mr Creosote Member 46 Posts 3/08 | Posted - Feb 7 2010 : 5:43PM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 8 2010 : 10:26AM Guns are dangerous, too, in the wrong hands, and matches, and Tylenol (500 tablets will destroy the human liver). I have heard that "The Turner Diaries" inspired Tim McVeigh to avenge Waco. I would not stop the sale of guns or Tylenol or "The Turner Diaries". And I deplore the jailing of Paul Little on any account. A responsible gun owner learns to use his weapon safely, and, in his hands, it becomes as dangerous as a bed pillow. Knowing that Tylenol is toxic in large doses, one takes care to use the dose that lightens his pain and no more. "The Turner Diaries" can be read and re-read by most of us and seen for what it is: a poorly written, rather silly imagining of the future aimed at the wallets of the choir it preaches to, survivalists and government haters. I deplore MH's stuff, as I said, because it presents sex as mean, an act of violence, not love. Some have fantasies of that, but they would hurt THEMSELVES before hurting or humiliating a woman. I would not deprive them of their right to their fantasies. There are others, though,who are not content with fantasy, they see sex as an act of dominance a weapon of control over women, a verification of their superiority that they must have. For the fantasy, MH is no different than any other porn maker. He provides a means of vicarious mastubatory pleasure and, as such, is no less a useful 'culture worker'(though he's useless to me) than any other in the business. For the need, for the abuser, MH is like a gun in the hands of a street thug. What is harmless in the right hands is now potentially deadly because it's in the wrong hands, an inspiration to batter and abuse a woman and the assurance that it's okay, hell they even like it that way. The answer is not to stifle Little, though I am personally glad he's not thriving. Fact is, that, to the sick individuals whose view of women and sex MH agrees with, ANY sexual arousal has the potential to result in violence. It's just that MH does a better job of it. Certainly, putting Little in jail has not ended abuse. The answer is -- no one knows the answer. Right now, these sicko woman haters are as difficlt to cure of their violence as pedophiles of their disturbance, and for the same reason, that sexual urges are so very powerful. If I thought removing all porn from existence would do the trick, I might be Ms. Dworkin's champuon, but that wouldn't get rid of molestors or rapists any more than it would put an end to the blowjob or anal sex. I still abhor Paul Little, if for no other reason than that he has given Dworkin and her ilk easy examples of what THEY say ALL porn is. But prosecuting him, even getting rid of every last Max Hardcore DVD, though it might well prevent many acts of future abuse, will solve nothing. Off topic a little, but I can see this question coming: No one here would, I know, but some might wonder, as I have, if getting rid of Max Hardcore's work, if getting rid of ALL porn would even REDUCE rape, abuse, and the subjugation of women, isn't that worth it? I have to say that, if it did, I might be in favor of criminalizing porn. But I guess I read too much History and see too well(so far anyway) to think for a second that a pornless world would be far WORSE for women than one in which erotic media thrives. Where are women treated worst in the world today? For the most part in fundamentalist theocracies like Iran, where wife abuse is not only ignored by the authorities but prescribed by them, where women are mutilated to prevent sexual pleasure of any kind, and beheaded for not wearing the Burkha in public. There's no porn in Iran, at least none that the owners can't be imprisoned or even executed for having. When were women treated the worst? From the ascendance of Christianity in the 5th Century A.D. until perhaps the end of the 19th Century, in the Western World, at least, women were second class citizens with rarely any political power, when wife abuse was a private matter not even recognized in law, rape, though a crime was only a crime if the rapist was a stranger, and a successful defense against it in court was that the woman asked for it by enticing the male with her beauty! There was porn during this time, of course, but it was a felony to make it, sometimes a felony to have it, that carried a penalty sometimes as severe or even worse than the penalties for rape. That's all behind us, now. Women have stepped up to their rightful place as equals in law and esteem for the most part, though there is still much to do. The woman's movement that started all this began with the 20th century, but didn't really begin to address the issue of full political, job, and social equality until the siixties, and really took off in the seventies. Hey! Wait! Wasn't there something else that kinda really got going then, too? Didn't Playboy and Penthouse and Hustler and Gerard Damiano and The Block in Baltimore and Dirty Irv's on Arch Street in Philly all show up about this time. Yep. The same time porn got its start as socially accepted entertainment, women got THEIR start as rightful equals, wife abuse became a felony, rape, even by a friend or husband, became a serious crime, people started talking about child abuse and prosecuting abusers. Now, I'm not suggesting porn actually HELPED the Woman's Movement. I could, but this fucking screed is too long already. But I am saying that it didn't hurt it any. Porn didn't start abuse of women, and since abuse was far more prevalent when porn was illegal, it at least hasn't statistically increased abuse, even if there are incidents of abuse that are incited by porn. In the end, a man is responsible for his own behavior, no one and nothing else. If porn, even Max Hardcore, inflames him to violence, it is because he, himself, set out to be inflamed. Little made the DVD, but he didn't tie the guy in a chair and make him watch it. Little is STILL a lowlife panderer to sexual criminals, still a conspirator, in my view, in countless acts of cruelty to women, but he's not a criminal and should not be in prison. [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 8 2010 : 10:30AM Thank you for your very kind compliments. I am very pleased and flattered that you took the trouble to make them. [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 8 2010 : 10:36AM No, we aren't. I'm afraid I'm not nearly that clever, nor do I see the point in paying myself a compliment. If it bothers you, I would suggest that winning, or putting me down has become more important to you at this point than anything about Max Hardcore [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 8 2010 : 10:38AM [Link] |
| duefuss Member Not a shred of evidence exists in favor of the idea that life is serious - Brendan Gill 723 Posts 4/09 | Posted - Feb 8 2010 : 12:55PM Tsk, tsk. Your homophobia is showing. I'm really sorry. I thought we were talking about Max Hardcore, here, not swapping put downs. I must have the wrong thread! [Link] |
| DK Member 107 Posts 6/09 | Posted - Feb 8 2010 : 11:42PM [Link] |
| DK Member 107 Posts 6/09 | Posted - Feb 9 2010 : 12:00AM [Link] |
| charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09 | Posted - Feb 9 2010 : 2:53AM [Link] |
| RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06 | Posted - Feb 9 2010 : 3:11AM [Link] |
| BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07 | Posted - Feb 9 2010 : 5:47AM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |