9 months ago, Bridgette filmed a movie titled "Unleashed" All five sex scenes are full on bondage and sex! Venus, Cytheria and whole lot of other hot girls are in the movie! There is bondage the entire time. It will be released in sept. 2005. I have been filming bondage and sex since april 2002. The majority of the time it was edited out, not anymore!!! I have been sneaking in bits and pieces of it the past year! The last 2 Teen Patrols I did, show a small amount of bondage and sex, not much however, they were fimed at the end of 2002. I know there are other directors who have some bondage and sex, hopefully somebody on the board will be able to give you some titles. My movie Spent has Melanie Jagger hogtied, then hands behind her back during blowjob! Skeeter Kerkove "King of Sodom" Porn producer, director, performer. I am a huge fan of hardcore porn
The remake of The Masseuse features, if I remember correctly, two scenes of a bound Jenna being penetrated. I wouldn't like to be any more specific without watching it again. There are reviews of it here, though.
It's not that cut and dry in the United States. It's POSSIBLY illegal. It's possible that such a thing could be prosecuted under United States obscenity laws, and it has been generally thought throughout the industry that bondage with penetration WOULD be prosecuted under U.S. obscenity laws.
It's all very fucked up and complicated, but the gist of it is that something like this won't be outright illegal until the court that hears the case decides that it is--and even then, that decision could be overturned. This puts all pornographers in the position of simply not knowing if they are breaking the law until they are brought before a court, and the judge (or jury, depending on the suituation) decide they are based on what ultimately amounts to their own personal opinion.
Bondage with penetration is therefore considered high risk in the United States, but it is not outright illegal.... yet.
If the current project is a success (a modest ROI), likely the next projects from Comstock Films will address the two big no-nos in in porn: bondage with anal and/or vaginal penetration, and vaginal and anal fisting.
If men being ripped apart by 20mm canon fire is ligitimate and legal subject matter for cinematic depiction, theres' no good reason that bondage and fisting should be off limits.
A friend of mine who does a lot of photographic work in the BDSM community brought a law suit against John Ashcroft and the DOJ. She's a published and gallery exhibited photographer, and the gist of her suit is that "community standards" prevents her from showing her work on the internet without fear of proscecution, and constitutes a violation of her rights to freedom of expression under the First Ammendment. Testimony concluded late last year. I don't know when a decission is expected.
I have my own, not well-founded opinion about the First Ammendment approach (asked and answered). But there's one thing she is doing right; her work is undeniably beautiful. Yes, that is a picture of a man, bound and gagged with a woman elbow deep in his ass. But it's also a lovely photograph, with rich blacks, clean highlights, a beautiful record of an intense human moment. Hers is the sort of work that can fight this battle and win. I'm not willing to say the same thing with Rob Black/Extreme Associates carrying the banner for freedom of sexual and artistic expression
It has to do with how these acts, and the attempt to legislate them, have ... evolved over the course of the history of pornography in the United States. There's nothing particularly rational about it. You can't just sit there and say, "why doesn't it make sense?" because it simply doesn't make sense.
Like I said, it's a complicated story, and ultimately, it's unlikely to satisfy anyone who's looking for a rational explanation. This is just the way it is. Why is Japanese pornography forbidden from showing genitals, and yet is perfectly safe showing extreme bukkake, scat and watersports of the most explicit variety? Damned if I can figure out how that makes sense. That's the way the US is about fisting and bondage with penetration. It comes down to this--would YOU stick your neck out there and be the test case? Risk going to jail for years and years for the sake of nothing more than depicting on video something that many many people already do in their private lives? I wouldn't. I greatly respect those who would, but I'd want them to do it because it MEANT something.
Tony's defense is the only viable one--create something that has MEANING. The only defense against prosecution for something like this, is to create something that clearly has some social or artistic merit--perhaps even a message or :shudder:: a theme! Sadly, most of today's pornography would have a hard time making this claim with a straight face, and I can't blame producers for playing it safe. I would. I'd hate it, but I would.
Kami, believe me--there's nothing I'd like more than to see you get fucked while hanging in handcuffs on a hook with your legs forced apart by a leg spreader.... ::shivers:: If you're into that kind of thing, of course...
OK. I know that laws aren't always rational. There seem to be a historical explanation. But i live in Europe. I don't know the history of american pornography.
An obscenity prosecution has to start with the prosecutor being able to point to black letter law that says something like "You can't show fisting" and then point to a video that violates whatever You Can't is applicable. These are state or local laws.
Once it's established that the video in question shows something the law says can't be shown, then it is up to a jury to apply the Miller Test.
Why are there laws against showing bondage but not against showing a dick that's just been up some woman's ass being fed to another woman? Because it was beyond the imagination of the person(s) who wrote the law that such an act would ever be performed, let alone photographed.
More likely there was a law prohibiting cocksucking or assfucking of any variety, and when that was removed from the books they forgot to go back in and put it in the obsenty statutes.
-T.C.
[Link]
nudity Deactivated User
168 Posts 9/02
Posted - Jan 15 2005 : 12:07AM
TonyC wrote: "More likely there was a law prohibiting cocksucking or assfucking of any variety, and when that was removed from the books they forgot to go back in and put it in the obscenity statutes."
This statement is incorrect. Just take a look at the State Obscenity Laws: link You will see that many of them explicitly mention oral and anal intercourse (among other acts) in their list of sexual acts that can constitute obscene material.
In addition to the potential variation of "community standards" from one juristiction to another, there is variations in the black letter law of what sex acts constitute obscenity. There's no way anyone can know the laws of every juristiction in which their work might be viewed.
While I'm certainly no legal scholar, I believe that the entire notion of obscenity is built on a shaky foundation. While the First Ammendment plays a part in this, I believe the constitution prohibtion on ex post facto laws and the Fourteenth Ammendments are far more germaine.
Whatever the case, as long as GirlsPooping.com and Extreme Associates are carrying the banner, I don't expect sexuality to be deemed worthy the sort of wide protections that subject matter such as violence or political descent enjoy.
They used to ban (and burn) books. Anthony Comstock was one of their great heros, destroy more material than even Hitler. Fortunately great authors like Joyce and Miller gave us great weapons in the fight for freedom of sexual expression. Is it asking too much for Chatsworth to do the same?
Ultimately I don't want a "jury of my peers" or even worse, the government deciding what has "social or artistic merit" (though I would consider a board staffed by members of the Berlin Sanitation Department) But as the law is written today, the only way to fight the idea that cinematic depictions of anal sex, or oral sex, or fisting or BDSM or whatever is inherrently obscene is to produce films that are manfestly beautiful and manfestly humane.
The feminist Charlotte Whitton wrote: "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."
The same might be said of the pornographer with respect to his "ligitmate" colleagues. Only in the pornographer's case being merely as good or even just half as good is tremendously difficult. The pornographer can't hope to bring the level of resources or skills to his work that his legitimate counterparts can.
What he does have at his disposal is the tremendously evocative nature of sexual imagery. Is this enough to balance the scales on its own? No. But it's a good start. Add passion, commitment to craft, and a little luck, and tremendously powerful and meaningful work is possible.
But in the absense of passion and commitment to craft, what is left is simply base and junvenille. Tee hee, she's a cum-pig. Tee hee, she can turn her asshole inside out. Tee hee, she's eating her own vomit. Small wonder the courts are indifferent.
First of all i don´t follow every article on that matter but i find it very disturbing to see that "everywhere" people seem to rely on laws and other regulations that are either outdated or simply do not reflect the current events. On the other hand i hardly see any actions being taken to update those regulations . It makes me feel like being left in the stoneage. While talking and talking politicians with narrowminded views tell us what to think and do. Wow, what a wonderul life this is :( Don´t get me wrong ... i don´t need to see everything one can think off but if a performer "wants" a certain fantays why not let them have it (ok within common sense) ? I can only say it over and over ... only because i´m past a certain age doesn´t make me able to cope with everything i´m allowed to watch. Therefore you will never see me watch a "chainsaw" movie.
Cubesnake wroteCan't imagine they'd be too many politicians willing to walk under a placard with "Yes, I'm For Fisting" in big red letters while they're out doing the handshake rounds...
Since September 2000 the application of candle wax, golden showers, bondage, spanking and fisting have been banned from X rated adult films sold in Australia. Seems like no politician could bring themselves to stand up for any of that.
Hi,... now that would be quite a placard would it not ? To be honest, it would be ok to have something like "I stand for sexual liberation " on it . But history shows that really important issues are being done behind closed doors ... so the general public is left in the unknow until it´s too late to intervein .
Have you ever heard of Timor Kuran's political theory of "preference falsification"? It goes something like this: Because everyone is afraid of what would happen to them should they always tell the truth about their opinions on all matters, they falsify their preferences in the direction of political correctness - sometimes even to the point of overshooting the PC and becoming conservative. Everyone, or at least nearly everyone, does this, at least in many aspects of their life. Therefore, one could expect, the actual public opinion is quite a bit different from the apparent public opinion...
And here comes all that talk about comunity standards. What opinion can we expect people to publicly express, when the topic is one so 'disturbing' as sexual preferences? Will Elisabeth, a 52 year old texan mother of four and a well-liked member of her church, be prepared to defend those pictures on trial where a tied-up man is fisted by a woman in leather? Even though she might actually find the images rather exciting herself, having done the same thing to her husband on numerous occasions, she is likely to falsify her preferences because she is afraid of the consequences should she be honest. This is why 'community standards' are not likely to truthfully represent the actual standards of the community!
There is some hope, however. We all have different tresholds where we feel that the personal satisfaction of telling the truth about our preferences outweighs the fear of repercussions. Someone like Hugh Heffner, for example, might be prepared to stand alone among thousands of people who are against him, and defend his position. Someone else might need a 'minority support' of like ten percent of all people sharing his position in order to be prepared to declare his personal truth. Someone else might need twenty or fourty percent backup... One might actually conceive of a domino-effect of social change, where first one, then the second, then the third etc... Is that not what happened in the old communist empire? Might not something similar happen in the entire "christian" community, where sexuality is so repressed by moral standards 2.000 years old?
Mrs.C has reminded me on more than one occasion that in test where women were shown explicit erotic images and asked to report their level of sexual arrousal, those who thought they were hooked up to a lie-detector reported a higher level of arrousal than the control group. I do not know if the possible effect of interigation fantasy were factored in.
At any rate, the fact that folks lie about what they like is well documented. I've recently read about marketeers using MR brain scans to try and determine whether or not an iPod is really juicing the I-want-it circuitry in people's brains.
More interesting to me is what happens at the other end, in a place like Cambodia for example. At a certain point the repercusions for truth-telling become so high that the only safe thing to do is turn in your mother as a traitor. After all, surely someone who would denounce their own mother is beyond reproach, right? The next thing you know a million people are dead and your society/country is set back 50+ years.
The question is a little passe, but up until the fall of the Soviet Empire what was worse, being called a faggot or a commie? Considering the well-documented squanding of human potential by the Soviet Union, and the frequently brutal nature of communist China, the fact that the question is debatable is chillling.
-T.C.
[Link]
nudity Deactivated User
168 Posts 9/02
Posted - Jan 15 2005 : 1:24PM
TonyC wrote: "In addition to the potential variation of community standards from one juristiction to another, there is variations in the black letter law of what sex acts constitute obscenity."
Well, yes, in theory. But in fact there is very little variation in the definition of obscenity as used in all the State Obscenity Laws.
TonyC wrote: "There's no way anyone can know the laws of every juristiction in which their work might be viewed."
All the State Obscenity Laws are on-line available. It is straightforward to study them. It costs you just a few hours.
IIRC, obscenity laws are also written and enforced at the local level.
Whatever the case, in light of the Fourteenth Amendment, the notion that the same film that can be legally produced, bought, sold, and viewed in California cannot legally be sold (but can legally be bought or viewed) in Texas is absurd on the face. The notion that a woman who wants to purchase gay sex videos can do so if she lives in New York, but cannot do so if she lives in Nashville TN is absurd on the face.
In light of the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws, the notion that a filmmaker must research local obscenity laws (state or otherwise) and factor these in when decide what she will or will not create, and even then still have no guarentee that her work is not obscene is absurd on the face. The notion that a legally produced artwork could become illegal and the creator or distributor could face legal sanction is absurd on the face. The notion that no determination of obscenity can be made without a jury trial is absurd on the face, and ceeds individual freedoms to the state without any meaningful benefit to society.
Since the notary was posted late in 2003, I've added about 40-50 new scenes to the database. Look for that update soon.
I look forward to Skeeter's contributions! In the interim, my #1 track of the moment is Vanessa Blue's scene in "Top Guns." She tied to a chair and ballgagged while penetrated, and it's every bit as hot as it sounds. Happy New Year!
