Reviewers Recommend Big Wet Asses 34 - review by Captain Jack Director: Pat Myne Starring: Vince Karter, Zac Wild, Summer Vixen, Lilith Grace, River Lynn, Victor Ray, Tessa Thomas, Jay Romero. Read review
Not thoughtcrime, spendcrime. If you buy a diamond, knowing that the cartel selling it to you is a bunch of thugs, you bear a portion of the blame the next time some miner's daughter gets raped to death because her daddy tried to unionize the mine. If you KNEW that some porn producers were abducting girls off the street and forcing them to perform, then you would be partially culpable for their crimes if you watched their product. Luckily for us all, that's probably not the case. Edited by - chaotic_23 on 7/9/2010 2:59:44 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 9 2010 : 4:27AM
S/M sites like Kink go out of their way to establish that the sex is consensual, and for a masochist, mutually pleasurable. Max was accused on more than one occasion of ignoring the limits of his actresses, mistreating them, etc. None of this had to do with his obscenity conviction directly, but I think the clear tone of complete lack of pleasure in his porn, and overt emphasis on the possible reality of the nonconsent in the scene (which was quite purposeful by Max) was instrumental in his conviction. The idea that the jury were a bunch of anti-porn nazis who would have convicted any pornographer is not backed up by the history of major modern obscenity cases. Pornlaw would be the expert in this area obviously, but from what I've read, in general, if it's between consenting adults, the vast majority of Americans on a jury won't convict in a pornography case. I've mentioned it here before, but there was one case in a conservative state in the 70s or 80s I read about where the jurors, who were mostly Church-goers, sat through a Vanessa Del Rio gang bang and still didn't convict (this may have been the infamous Adam & Eve case).
I didn't know you could know without thinking. But maybe I just wasn't thinking right. By the way, if you're American, are you going to stop paying your taxes because you KNOW innocent people are dying on the other end of them? Edited by - randomprecision on 7/9/2010 4:39:20 AM
RP, she is a female and to the feminine mind a man who spends money differently that a female would have it spent is ipso facto a criminal.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 9 2010 : 10:17AM
Accusations are not always automatically true. This forum abounds with unsubstantiated rumors about almost everyone in the industry. As always, the more controversial the personality, the more rumors people will spread about him. It is foolish to believe everything you read and hear without sufficient proof. Also, the statement that some sites "go out of their way to establish that the sex is consensual" is irrelevant. As Pornlaw confirmed, and I agree, all the scenes are consensual, with or not the hour long interviews which, by the way, could still easily be faked if the sites chose to do so. Do you really think they're going to show a girl saying that she hated it? It would be edited right out of the scene. I also disagree with your statement that "the vast majority of Americans on a jury won't convict in a pornography case." I used to believe that to be true. But I was obviously too optimistic. Now, I'm not so sure. Case in point, here we are on a porn forum, where one would easily expect it to be filled with defenders of pornography and free expression. Yet, here we are on a porn forum with people who watch porn advocating censorship and actually proposing that limits be placed on the application of the First Amendment, all while admitting that they would happily send a pornographer to jail just for not liking his product. If we have people right here on ADT who feel that way, then how can we reasonably say that the vast majority of the rest of Americans would be any more rational? If the same people who should be the most outraged by all of this are always the first ones to jump on the bandwagon to go along with this type of mindless retrogression, then how can we expect any different from the rest of Americans who just don't give a damn? It just doesn't make sense.
A stupid newbie-question: what is a model release and what information does it contain?
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 9 2010 : 5:08PM
^It's simply a contract that all models/performers must sign giving the production company the right to own and use any content (videos, photos, interviews, etc.) in which they perform for that company.
+1 I haven't read a lot of what Woody has written simply because it takes too long to make sense of that dash mess. I just move onto the next post. It's easier to properly quote. Here's the tags: [.quote] and [./unquote] just remove the periods.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 10 2010 : 3:25AM
As we know from your previous posts realtip, you don't actually give a shit if a scene was consensual or not, so please don't pretend that you do. I don't think Pornlaw was saying that he knew by some mystical ability that every scene shot was completely consensual, I believe he was saying that legally because the women sign the waiver that it would be impossible to prove a scene was not consensual, and of course he was distinguishing S/M scenes with masochistic women from abuse.Believe what you want but case after case since the 70s most juries, even in conservative areas like Utah, have refused to convict on obscenity cases that didn't involve bestiality or pedophilia. The Feds finally got the porn-king Sturman on a tax charge after losing several obscenity cases, they failed to get Adam & Eve. Poor Harry Reems was the only case I can think of that they won, but that was overturned on appeal because of the much hated Miller decision, which ended up saving Mr. Reems from jail so at least it has that in its favour. Most of the Feds successes have been achieved by driving their targets into bankruptcy or getting them to plead before it ever reached a jury. Max is the exception, not the rule, I knew he was doomed from the start because he had pushed things to a point where a lot of people weren't going to be able to tell the difference between the fantasy or the reality.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 10 2010 : 5:35AM
^Great ad hominem attack. Are you now implying that I condone rape? When you can manage to find a porn scene that you can prove was not consensual- i.e., not just one that you think is "abusive" because the girl, in your opinion, didn't quite look happy enough to you- then I'll feel the need to reply to your senseless accusation. It is true that not every pornographer charged with obscenity has been, or will be, convicted. But prosecutors aren't taking these cases to court just for the fun of it. They may not win all of the cases, but they win enough to keep prosecuting them. Having no full knowledge on the prosecution-conviction ratio for obscenity, I decided to do an Internet search on the subject. I was unable to find relevant data on the subject regarding recent prosecutions. Since things are not the same now as they were in the 1970s and 1980s, I was looking for data more recent than that. If you have any such data, then please feel free to provide it. I did, however, find this article from 2004 which states, "In 2003, there were 83 obscenity convictions nationwide," not including convictions for child porn. That's a lot. This was only seven years ago. While I was doing my search, I also came across news stories of other lesser-known obscenity convictions which occurred recently, such as one case where a woman was convicted because she was selling videos of herself having sex. It reminded me of a comment that Pornlaw once posted in another thread stating that there are often obscenity cases that we never heard about in addition to all the major cases we do hear about, and many of those do end in convictions. You also mentioned, "Most of the Feds successes have been achieved by driving their targets into bankruptcy or getting them to plead before it ever reached a jury." Even if this is the case, what difference does it make? All it means is that the Feds still win, just with less work. Conviction or no conviction, what difference does it make if the outcome is still the same? Either way, porn still loses. Also, anyone who can't distinguish between fantasy and reality is just too stupid for his own good.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 10 2010 : 6:04AM
It's a 'senseless' ad hominem attack to quote yourself back to you? Here is a reminder, in case you forgot what you actually let slip previously. We know from your previous posts you don't care actually if Max lied and mistreated any performers as long as you can jerk off in peace. Once again, in this thread, as in many previous threads, you act as if there have been no accusations by performers against Max, even after being presented with stories from performers. Either you have short term memory issues or you just like repeating yourself ad nauseam. If I offended your delicate sensibilities, why don't you go argue with the November 2009 version of realtip? Edited by - BlackSix on 7/10/2010 6:11:43 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 10 2010 : 6:16AM
From what I've read, most of the obscenity convictions you never hear about have to do with bestiality, scat and child porn. Not a major concern to most adults in the US or elsewhere (although I find the taboo against scat pointless), although we can probably find some zoophilia fans on the board here who will pop of the woodwork to defend raping a dog or getting fucked by a horse. Edited to add: here's a link from 2003 from CWA on 21 obscenity convictions. Obviously a very anti-porn source but they're pretty much just repeating the DOJ report and while there are a handful of convictions for rape and scat porn most of it is bestiality and child porn. Edited by - BlackSix on 7/10/2010 7:44:36 AM
Yikes. I'd forgotten about that "conversation." **deleted my rant. It's too early in the morning for this. In a word: puke.** Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 7/10/2010 9:41:51 AM Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 7/10/2010 9:42:15 AM
I don't think he said there were no accusations. He just asked you to prove they were true. Which as I'm sure you know, is damn near impossible without an official trial. It would be easy if that was what he was actually charged with instead of being offensive. Anyone can accuse someone of anything. And I'm sorry but just because the accusation comes from the lips of a beautiful woman doesn't make it the indisputable truth in an objective mind. I've known people who have been accused of things they didn't do and I knew them well enough to know it was bullshit. Isn't the point of having trials so that we don't sit around endlessly debating rumors and basically unproven allegations amongst ourselves with no way of proving anything one way or another?
Edited by - randomprecision on 7/10/2010 10:41:09 AM
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 10 2010 : 11:18AM
^+1Regrettably, there were parts of that conversation did get very ugly. Personally, I don't like it when a conversation goes in that direction. But when comments start going to a personal level, it sometimes becomes hard to avoid. Having said that, it's really stupid to hold grudges over some frivolous disagreements in an Internet forum. Geez!You're right that I don't always remember everything I've ever written here. But I'm pretty sure that I never said that I don't care if someone lied about mistreating someone. From what I know of myself, that doesn't sound like me. But just to make sure, I skimmed over the thread you linked. Contrary to what you wrote, you didn't quote me, and I know now why you couldn't. I was correct that I never wrote that. What I did write was a defense of another controversial pornographer who produces consensual scenes that some people still find offensive. In other words, the same thing I've written here and on every thread where I've posted about the subject. I don't need to argue with old myself. We're still in full agreement. You've gone from ad hominem to confusing the issues. And No, I don't necessarily enjoy repeating myself ad nauseam. But around here with the number of identical threads that keep popping often, a person can't help but to have to repeat himself often. I don't mind though. It gives us something to talk about.I also saw this when I conducting my search. But I didn't use it because I was looking for something that also mentioned the total number of prosecutions that took place. I couldn't find anything with all the information I was looking for though. Edited by - realtip on 7/10/2010 11:21:00 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 10 2010 : 9:47PM
Well, we can at least agree to not get personal in these discussions realtip. I would also like to find some more detailed stats on obscenity prosecutions. I would guess that most of the smaller cases have a high rate of successful convictions, that why the majority end with the defendant pleading out. If one is caught producing and distributing bestiality and child porn there's not much in the way of legal avenues for defence, I would guess. Has anyone heard what has happened with the case that started around the same time as Stagliano, with the artiste who shot bestiality and scat videos? Looked like he was actually going to try and take it to trial. Edited to add: found this article from 2008 (with yet another anti-porn slant) that says: And according to the U.S. District Court in ACLU v. Gonzales, there have been less than 10 prosecutions for obscenity since 2005. Edited by - BlackSix on 7/10/2010 10:00:45 PM
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Jul 11 2010 : 12:14PM
Going back to how I don't always remember everything I've posted here, I finally remembered that I had previously posted some DOJ obscenity statistics in this thread, which is now locked. As I posted there: According to information from the Dept. of Justice, of the 317 federal obscenity prosecutions occurring between 1992 and 2000, 187 of them (59%) ended in guilty pleas, not guilty verdicts. Of the remaining cases, only one-tenth of them resulted in convictions. The rest were either acquittals or dismissals.
I've got an interesting question. How many women have been charged with obscenity since the 70s? Edited by - randomprecision on 7/12/2010 10:31:26 PM
[Link]
TheDreamPolice Deactivated User
170 Posts 2/10
Posted - Jul 12 2010 : 10:02PM
Do any of you watch Euro, Jap(AV), or Russian pron? I'm not talking about Private - I mean Marc Dorcel and some of the lessar known companies. Rape..and incest, is a pretty common theme in alot these flicks (if you don't speak the native language of the flicks, you would never know). flicks that are legally allowed to be sold in the us. i don't know the laws, but I don't think "implied rape" or "implied incest" are illegal in the us - i just think us pron producers stay away from it, so they don't attract to much attention to themselves.
Edited by - thedreampolice on 7/12/2010 10:05:00 PM
^ It does, but 'speech' to the court means public discourse, which is generally defined as speech that is religious or political in nature. Despite Rob Black's assertions, no jury has bought into the notion that porn is either religiously or politically motivated.
^ And of course you have the little matter that the first amendment doesn't say that protected speech has to be political or religious. Someone made that up later on and called it interpretation. I call it changing the rules but that's just me.
Yeah, that's one of the more despicable sites out there. I think it's ran by the same people who run "facebashed" and few other similar low-budget sites. They seem to exclusively hunt girls down who can't handle the mistreatment, and usually end up breaking down before the scene is over and even say "no" when asked "if they like it", and IIRC, "no" when being asked "do you want to puke", followed by the guy forcing her to puke... Wouldn't doubt some are being forced against their will. Edited by - echoplex on 7/22/2010 9:25:55 PM
@ ekarth Is your distinction between Karina's clip and others on the site simply the presence of the alleged madam and the off-camera negotiations? Or is it the case that the other girls appear to be willing participants, whereas Karina is not? I ask as all but one of the first page samples indicate to me that reluctance/non-consent was a prominent feature throughout. Karina certainly appeared from the sample clip to be tearful, but other girls available for preview were also in varying degrees of distress. I recognize that am playing devil's advocate. However, you clearly became a member of the site in question. Given - to me - the relative proximity between the available preview clips (Karina's included) and the notion of non-consent, I am having difficulty determining where in this discussion the boundaries of acceptable content are supposed to fall.
The two obvious examples are Janet Romano and Karen Fletcher. We can add sex discrimination to the long list of reasons obscenity laws are stupid and unjust. How many women have been charged with rape since the 70? Some obscenity case facts would be interesting. I would like to know what the government spends pursuing these unjust cases.
Death is caused by swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time. George Carlin 1567 Posts 2/07
Posted - Jul 30 2010 : 8:00PM
[ invalid url ] actually quite a few.
[Link]
john_qyoo_public Deactivated User
265 Posts 7/05
Posted - Jul 30 2010 : 10:05PM
Er, no. What gave you that idea? Freedom of speech is interpreted so broadly that "speech" tends to be taken as a metaphor for expression in general. Political expression (including religious) is held sacrosanct relative to other forms, though. Edited by - john_qyoo_public on 7/30/2010 10:06:28 PM
[Link]
john_qyoo_public Deactivated User
265 Posts 7/05
Posted - Jul 30 2010 : 10:14PM
The interesting thing about the Miller Test, to me, is this: Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. IMO, given a producer who keeps this in mind during production, a competent and motivated lawyer, and a competent judge and jury, the Miller Test is no obstacle at all. Obviously those givens aren't givens in real life, and it's the fear of court costs, not fear of losing, that really keeps producers in line.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jul 31 2010 : 3:50AM
Are you both implying that somehow women are responsible for obscenity prosecutions? That seems ill-founded. It was (the first) female Attorney General, Janet Reno, who decided under Clinton to abandon prosecuting adult pornography for obscenity and put the resources and effort into child pornography. Something she was criticised by the (mostly male) anti-porn right-wing. Also, the only dissenting voices on the Meese Commission were the two women who were on the commission. Despite a lot of women's distaste for pornography, obscenity is a law written and enforced overwhelmingly by men.
Big Wet Asses 34 - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Jul 9 2010 : 2:55AM
