From what I can tell these vids were effectively censored post release, and pulled from all distributor shelves.
Too much suggestion of rape / violence against women.
Of course I think this is absolutely ridiculous. Men, women, children can be graphically murdered in cold blood in any number of ways on film, from guns to knives to bombs, and body parts multiated, but American feminist women cannot be graphically raped without it being "unacceptable under [LA or NY} community standards"?
Pure femipuritan crap.
No of course I'm not for rape or true violence against women (as opposed to consensual rough sex play sometimes). I'm also not for murder.
There was no suggestion of violence, there was violence.There is a difference between Stallone pulling a punch and a sound effects editor putting in a slap noise vs. Mickey G. hauling off and hitting some chick.
One is pretend, the other isn't.
And the market forces -- not anyone else -- made it clear to Anabolic that they'd prefer not to buy this type of entertainment, so Anabolic made a business decision to stop seling the tapes -- but they were never recalled... they just stopped making them... like a limited edition.
One of the first AVN mags I ever read (back in December '00/January '01) contained a letter. It was the first, most prominent letter printed in the letters section. Next to it was the cover scan for Rough Sex #1. The letter was written by a woman in Long Beach, California, who had performed in Rough Sex #1. She said the treatment during shooting of the movie was beyond what she expected and that she was both emotionally and physically scarred, and she urged readers of the letter to not buy the video. Can't say as I don't blame her.. I wouldn't want people hitting me when I'm trying to have sex.. but I guess it goes to show that it's all fun and games till someone loses an eye.
I do agree rough sex is a bit rough, but violence??? I don't think so. There're more films which have more inclination towards rough treatment to their lady performers, such as Rocco's Animal Trainers Series. I suppose Animal Trainer 3 has the forceful gagging sequences.
I don't think there's indication of rape in rough sex. There's a huge difference between rough and rape. But then in films such scenes are hardly differ anymore. It's all up to viewers' opinion. Some viewers would refer slapping or gagging as kinky. Some would refer those acts as rape. Others who would not tolerate porn at all, advocate for prohibition of porn (John Ashford).
I'm not sure why these videos have been pulled from the shelves, either. I have always wondered what this hype was all about, so I looked for it and had the opportunity to watch most of the scenes of #1. In my opinion there was nothing spectacular in it. Many European videos have scenes in them which are more rough without anybody complaining. As Jiggy pointed out there's more rough sex contained in the Animal Trainer series, so I wonder why so many people on the forum are complaining about Anabolic's Rough Sex to be politically correct while they admit that they love the Animal Trainer videos. Of course it's not only the Animal Trainer series. How about other films like "The humiliation of Heidi" or stuff like that ? How about the many people here who love and defend the GGG films although these can also be considered rough and humiliating ? In these films girls also get slapped and even pissed on.
After what I've seen the Rough Sex series doesn't seem to be more rough or humiliating than other films which are available at the moment without any problems. And although there are a few actresses saying they have been treated badly, there are at least as many interviews available of other actresses participating in the rough sex series saying the opposite. Some actresses who participated in Max Hardcore films also said they were treated badly, but the films are still available and haven't been pulled from the shelves. So why did this happen to the Anabolic films ?
After having watched most of Rough Sex #1 and comparing it to other videos I know, I can't find a reason for the Anabolic films not being available anymore.
@Adult Movie FAQ: It certainly wasn't the market-forces who stopped Anabolic from producing these films. The demand was high and is even growing after all this hype. They didn't stop selling these tapes because nobody wanted to watch them. I'm sure if they decided to republish them, they'd sell so many copies they would never have to work again. I also think that they indeed were stopped by someone else. They'd certainly have loved to keep selling these tapes but were obviously threatened by people who wanted to take them to court. Nobody would stop such a successful series which even got an AVN award.
Maybe the guys at Anabolic will rethink their attitude and decide to make the films available on DVD some time in the future.
You're right ... and wrong ... about why Anabolic decided to stop producing Rough Sex (and it was a decision -- Anabolic's owner was in favor of continuing but an informal vote of the management team decided the matter).
Yes, it was "stopped by someone else," but not in the way you think. No one was saying "we're going to prosecute you if you continue to produce this content." It was the sales distribution channel, rather, that said, "we're the ones who are going to be hauled off to jail and driven out of business by carrying this line." So they decided that it was probably not in their best business interests to do so. In that sense, AMFAQ is dead on: it was market forces in distribution that swayed the outcome.
The bottom line is that it comes down to either principles or economics. Either you are willing to defend your works regardless of the cost (such as Bob Guccione or Larry Flint egging on obscenity indictments to defend free speech) or the financial payoff outweighs the risk. In this case, neither principles nor payoffs seemed to win the day for Rough Sex.
The fact that others produce similar content isn't really a valid argument. Every business has to make a call about what acceptable risks are. Just because there is a demand, or just because others are doing it, doesn't mean that everyone could or should. Sure, there's a demand for this type of pornography. But there's also a demand for beastiality, child porn, and other things that make no financial sense for any business to pursue.
So let's drop this pretense that "someone" forced Anabolic to do anything. It wasn't feminists, the government, the industry, or the public pressure. It was a business decision, and one that they could reverse if they wanted to. But apparently, they've decided to move on by letting the titles go out of print.
I think you're contradicting yourself here. If they weren't forced to do so by the public pressure or the industry, but it was their own free decision, then they weren't forced by the market forces. It also depends on how you define force. You really don't need to be obviously threatened in order to be forced to do something. Threatening and forcing can be quite subtle, and some critics or customers who say something like "They should be put in jail for this!" can be enough for a company to feel threatened if they don't stand behind what they're doing as much as your great example Larry Flint (who I appreciate very much for his attitude and persistence).
So I still think they were forced to remove this series, but what I critizise most is the fact that in my opinion there are much harder films out there without anybody seeming to take notice. And I indeed think it's quite a good argument to ask "Why shouldn't Anabolic do it when everybody else does ?". I've got the impression that certain companies get threatened more than others do which is an impossible situation. I'm sure someone would sue Anabolic at once when they republished this series. Another company always likely to get sued for nothing is Extreme Associates. on the other hand nobody seems to want to sue Evil Angel, JM Productions, Noose Productions, GGG or any other company who constantly publishes films in which women get treated roughly.
To me this is a democratic catastrophe, seeing that not everybody gets treated the same.
You're right that not any demand like child porn must be satisfied. But your comparison doesn't quite fit here. Although there might be a demand for child porn, none of the companies we know produces something like that, and no retailer we know sells this. So we have equality. Now if 5 companies would start producing and selling child porn officially, and 2 companies were sued or somehow forced to the decision to remove their products from the market while the others could keep selling them without any problems, we'd have this democratic catastrophe I was talking about.
They were definitely influenced by market forces and made a free decision to take the action they did. There was absolutely no one stopping them from continuing to produce the series. As with any business, adult or not, you make strategic decisions based on a lot of factors, including risk versus return. And aside from some praise from a certain group of people, taking the risk doesn't mean you'll get a return. There have been untold numbers of businesses that have failed over less. And a few that have succeeded over more. But that's up to each and every company to decide on their own basis.
About the only "force" that could be exerted that would give the company no choice in the matter would be if the government proved that Anabolic was breaking the law. Any other factor is a function of economics.
This is a fact of life. The world is not a fair place. There are people, businesses, and governments that do equal or worse things and manage to avoid condemnation than those who are demonized. Not fair, but that's the way it goes. It's like getting pulled over by a cop--"But there murderers and rapists loose on the streets -- why are you going after me instead of them?" The fact is that Anabolic decided to obey the speed limit, and if the other companies continue to make similar content in today's legal and political climate (and aren't very lucky), then they'll get pulled over one of these days.
To put it simply, Anabolic does not have the guts to go all the way like Larry Flint does. I don't think there's another Larry Flint in the porn industry anymore. Nobody really stands for what they're doing. Truth is perhaps they're doing porn purely for money.
I wonder how many of us, if it were our company and our freedom at risk, would be willing to throw it all away, just to satisfy some pornhounds desire to see this stuff. I think that would be foolish. I certainly wouldn't, nor would I criticize anyone else for doing what's in the best interests of their company, to keep it viable and employees jobs intact. I too think Larry Flynt is exceptional, but let's face it - this IS a business, first and foremost. I think Saki put it much better and right on the money. DB
" Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive." William F. Buckley
Regarding all of the "Larry Flint went all the way" stuff, you are right that he stood up the government, spent a ton of money on his defense and even went to jail way back when. But don't forget only a year or two ago, he took a plea bargain in Cinci so he would not go to jail for selling porn at the Hustler store he opened there. It took a courageous woman (for the life of me, I can't remember her name) who sold a porno tape to a cop (in Cinci) that stood up to the law recently, went to court and beat the rap. The very same charge, I believe, that Flint pleaded to and avoided jail just a year or two ago. So don't go heaping all this praise on Larry when he too did the same thing a lot of other pornographers decided to do, take the deal and avoid jail, admit guilt when you know you are in the right just to avoid jail. At one time, Larry Flint was a revolutionary. Nowadays he's just a big corporation just trying to play it safe (when it really gets down to the nitty gritty).
