I believe JM Productions does Euro and US versions, because I've heard that a couple of the Violation of... DVDs contained edited fisting scenes from US version.

Zane, I believe, released Euro and US versions of some of their movies.

Max Hardcore is probably the most known American director to constantly release Euro versions (containing pissing, rough sex, and fisting) and weak ass US versions (heavy editing). To watch a US version of one his movies sucks, but to buy the fucking Euro version at 60 bucks also sucks.

- -B -I -G -m -i -k -e, here and there, over and out! - -

[Link]

i don´t like it at all but they don´t have problem introducing fist or baseball bats

[Link]

Rocco I know has Euro and US versions. I ordered a few from Italy years back. Great service from them too. I was impressed.

and yeah, Max is the most notorious for his Euro/US versions. and I agree with Big Mike that the heavily edited US versions pale in comparison to the Euro version. Once you've seen a Euro version, you wont waste your time on the domestic release. But yes, they are pricey, and Ive plunked down the loot on more than one occasion. Nobody romances a girl like Max does!

[Link]

I saw a couple of Violation of... but I don't know of any of them with fisting even here in Europe may I ask exactly what titles are supposed to have been edited?

IN Violation of Aurora Snow here there's a scene with Aurora Double penetrated with Tennis rackets and before the double she was long penetrated with the both of them vaginally and anally is that scene in USA version either?.

[Link]

A continuous threaten I guess, something like a gun constantly pointed toward a head.

It's not good , I mean not only for porm but for freedom itself , this put people's life and liberty in the hands of a prosecutor will , in the hand of a Judge's moral (or political ) beliefs , in the hand of your bigot neighborhood if he decides to file a claim on you for whatever he think is obscene.
The need of written laws was born to avoid this kind of things the judge can only prosecute because of a crime committed not for something that someone considers a crime but the laws didn't.

Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 5/21/2006 2:46:56 AM

[Link]

The way I see it, if the DOJ is not bringing obscenity charges against people like Springer, Povich, Stern, Lykis, etc., for all the trash they broadcast which I find to be much more offensive than any type of porn, then I can't see why porn is always deemed such an easy target. If these trash-peddling morons can all hide behind the First Amendment, then so can pornographers. Besides, who are these people who are so offended by these "taboo acts" in porn, yet watch them?

Actually, to be quite honest, I think it all has to do more with just a perceived threat of prosecution than any actual threat. Although we hear about these cases where pornographers are dragged into court on obscenity charges, these cases actually seem rather rare on the scale of all the porn that's being produced. It's just all the hype that surrounds these cases that makes them seem more of a threat than what they really are. Personally, I think it just has more to do with pornographers being more willing to walk on eggshells than to take any actual risks of filming anything more hardcore than what is already available. As much as gonzo porn likes to advertise itself as "pushing the envelope," it really plays it safe more than anything else.

Besides, if you look at everything that is available in gonzo porn now, somebody had to be the first to do it. I'm sure whoever it was that first popularized gagging, or ATM, or ATP, or gaping, or bukkake, etc., probably knew that he would face the risk of running into some type of obscenity problem since these acts, at one time, were never even heard of in porn. Now, everyone is doing them. What if whoever popularized these acts was also afraid of some perceived threat of prosecution? These acts still wouldn't be in porn now. It always has to take somebody who is willing to take the risk and really push the envelope. Once one person does it and everyone finally realizes that most Americans really have more important shit to worry about than what type of porn people are watching, then everyone else will jump on the bandwagon and start to do the same.

As for pissing, I am confused as to how it is acceptable for American porn to show women pissing (a.k.a. sqirting, a niche that I completely avoid), but not OK to show men pissing. For example, in "50 to 1 #2," there is a scene where Brandon is using the urinal and a girl is in there with him waiting to perform a BJ on him. He uses the urinal, but there is a cut before the BJ, indicating that he probably cleaned up inbetween taking a piss and getting the BJ. The perverted part of me really wanted to see the girl go straight to sucking without the cut inbetween, but it would have probably been considered one of those "taboo acts" that we're talking about.

[Link]

Any "threat" is reason to panic, because if rights aren't FOUGHT for, they're lost.

Lastly, IMHO, it's not so much about the "type of porn people are watching" that is the concern. It's the fact at all that "people are watching it (porn)" at all, rather than to church 4-6 days/week or some other holyer-art-thou activity. They take away a bottom card in the card pyramid, and the entire son'va'bitch falls.

~E

[Link]

Section 8. Whoever sells to a person any candy enclosing or containing liquid or syrup having more than one per cent of alcohol shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.

[Link]

For some reason I do get an extra little thrill when I see a woman fist herself or another woman. It is a circus act but can be hot at times. I've got a backlog of all-girl DVDs that I have yet to view so there may be more examples of fisting in my latest acquisitions (here's hoping!).

[Link]

~E

[Link]

And Marbury vs Madison confirms that any bill repugnant to the Constitution is void; therefore, any obscenity bill would be void and not a law; therefore, nothing is obscene.

Edited by - AnalLove on 6/29/2006 1:38:55 AM

[Link]

If the Supreme Court tomorrow says the Constitution means the USA is a Christian nation, subject to Biblical law, will you accept that too?

[Link]

If the Supreme Court tomorrow says the Constitution means the USA is a Christian nation, subject to Biblical law, will you accept that too?

The SC doesn't have that authority and everybody knows it, so that question is moot, too.

[Link]

The Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to mean that we're a Christian nation would seem hardly more absurd to me than they're interpreting it to mean that freedom-of-the-press may in fact be abridged (by obscenity laws), while the Constitution so literally prohibits such abridgement.

Edited by - AnalLove on 6/30/2006 2:13:46 AM

[Link]

Similarly, Congress could pass a Bill establishing Christianity as a national religion, and the Court could uphold the Bill. As Americans have submitted to the Court's disobeying the Consitution in the obscenity case, so could we expect Americans to submit to the Court's dictation if Christianity were legislated a national religion.

Edited by - AnalLove on 6/30/2006 3:49:52 AM

[Link]

People get offended over shit almost daily these days, but if something which they are morality offended by rears it's ugly head, they scream "obscene", which draws the attraction of the law(makers). Of course, you have enough of these whacka-loons, and they make throw that offense into the book of "obscene", which isn't protected by the 1st Amendment from what I understand.

[Link]