LUKE IS BACK IS A SITE FOR ADULTS ONLY. All posts, stories, opinions, comments etc. on the LukeisBack (LIB for short) web site are not necessarily the views of those who run, advertise on or own Lukeisback.com. Likewise those that run or own Luke is Back will not be held liable for any content or comments contained on this site. Lukeisback.com believes in Freedom of Speech, and as such allows all opinions to be represented and posted by their authors autonomously. Comments are NOT moderated on a regular basis. We strongly discourage the use of racial slurs, accusations of criminal activity and/or use of legal names for those that use stage names. We reserve the right to edit or delete any post for any reason or terminate anyone's ability to post for any reason. After all, we do pay the bills around here. Long story short, you are adults, so act like it.





“The Devil & Shelley Lubben” Videos Are Out

NL-Michael Whiteacre & Lydia Lee (Julie Meadows)  in their new documentary "The Devil And Shelley Lubben, shows Shelley Lubben in the role of a fact juggling, misguided ex-porn star who twists her experience in the porn industry into a alcohol and drug filled ongoing "rape". The input from stars like Melissa Monet, Kayden Kross, Guy DeSilva and Nina Hartley, along with footage showing Shelley in action, is an interesting enlightening watch.

I’d love your opinion after seeing both parts.

Links to the vids are here-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol0IKeWPIvQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_r7NZsTH8U

 

The following two tabs change content below.
Lukeisback.com offers the latest and greatest in adult Industry news, porn star interviews and other related stories.

Latest posts by LUKE IS BACK (see all)

58 Responses to ““The Devil & Shelley Lubben” Videos Are Out”

  1. “The Devil & Shelley Lubben” Videos Are Out | The Adult News Wire Says:

    [...] “The Devil & Shelley Lubben” Videos Are Out Posted on February 16, 2011 by admin Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress PluginNL-Michael Whiteacre & Lydia Lee (Julie Meadows)  in their new documentary "The Devil And Shelley Lubben, shows Shelley Lubben in the role of a fact juggling, misguided ex-porn star who twists her experience in the porn industry into a alcohol and drug filled ongoing "rape". The input from stars like Melissa Monet, Kayden Kross, Guy [...] LUKE IS BACK [...]

  2. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Thank you, Cindi, but, for the record, these are only Episodes 1 & 2 — there are more to come. The finishing touches are being put on Episodes 3 & 4 now.

  3. Tweets that mention LUKE IS BACK » Blog Archive » “The Devil & Shelley Lubben” Videos Are Out -- Topsy.com Says:

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cindi Loftus and Gary Yap, ADULT PORN NEWS XXX. ADULT PORN NEWS XXX said: #ADULT #NEWS – “The Devil & Shelley Lubben” Videos Are Out: NL-Michael Whiteacre & Lydia Lee (Julie… http://bit.ly/h3CIjJ – #porn #sex [...]

  4. jeremysteele11 Says:

    I’ve only watched the first 3 minutes of this Shelley Lubben documentary. I’m not a Lubben supporter, but I’d like to ask who is this negative sounding female commentator? The way she sounds makes you turned off even if you’re against Shelley… Even when the narrarator said “Motherrrr”, as if there is something wrong with being a mother… Jeezus! I had to stop watching this, for the moment, after this Shelley Lubben life story began, telling us where she was born, blah blah. Who cares?

    Just being honest. This needs serious work.

  5. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    If you watched more than the first couple of minutes you would see why it’s structured the way it is. The narrator is Sam Phillips.

  6. jeremysteele11 Says:

    Yeah, but I lost interest, for now… Sam sounds really angry. Even if it’s accurate, it obviously doesn’t pretend to be unbiased. She might as well tell us all why from the beginning she’s so damn angry. Scream it out, its cathartic. Also, if you’re too biased its hard to buy your presentation as accurate, but- Hey, I know its your thing, not mine…

  7. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    I appreciate your comments, but it’s not like I make any secret that I am a critic of hers. I identify myself on-camera as “Filmmaker/Lubben Critic.” And that is why the most damning things in the piece come from Lubben’s own lips (and pen).

    As for the need to go into all those biographical details right up front — every portion of the opening section has a pay-off later in the documentary. It’s all in there for a reason.

    And Sam doesn’t sound “angry” to my ears; she’s a radio personality, and she speaks forcefully. But that’s your opinion, and I respect it. I’m always willing to hear informed criticism. Unlike Shelley, I don’t pretend to know everything.

  8. goatlord Says:

    Sam’s voice doesn’t sound angry to me, either. I remember her from 97.1 FM talk in LA. Her voice is raspy but doesn’t sound angry in the slightest to me.

    Due to time constraints, was only able to watch part one. I thought it was good that the movie showed Shelly’s roots and her up bringing. I always thought this freak was born and grew up in the midwest, not California.

    What a liar this woman is. First claiming she worked as a prostitute many times without condoms and horror stories of johns cumming on her face.
    Now she says a condom was used every time when she worked as a prostitute…therefore porn is to blame for all her ailments!

    Also, a racist piece of shit. “Ugly Asian Baby?”
    How fucking racist can you get? So I guess if your an Asian pornstar looking to get help from Shelley…dont bother…your ugly..go away..sorry Asia Carerra

    I think some of the editing could have been tightened up a bit. Overall, I really liked what I saw and will watch the rest on Monday.

    See ya

  9. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Thank you, goatlord. Speaking of racial insensitivity, Lubben’s book is rife with it.

    And yes, you’ll see later, everything we bring out in Episode 1 figures in later episodes — mainly from the upcoming Ep. 3 on.

    I hope you enjoy Episode 2, where the steam picks up. That’s the all-star episode — Nina Hartley, Kayden Kross, Julie Meadows, Melissa Monet, Danny Wylde, etc… Its title is “Raping Roxy” and it is a chugging choo-choo train.

  10. chichiladouche Says:

    Some thought provoking points brought up Michael. I do think there are some very serious issues in the industry that need to be addressed and eradicated, but Lubben is most definitely not the one to champion those issues. The performer formerly known as Penny Flame has articulated those points and issues w/out all of the religious judgment.

    Michael I don’t know if you knew him that well but you worked with an old acquaintance of mine named Joe Souza on a few projects. He and his partner are super nice. I know he is still trying to make in mainstream entertainment with somewhat limited success.

    The discussions about patient zero and crossovers made me think about how softcore was before xxx talent started to dominate it. Quite a few gay actors worked in the genre and some (male and female talent) would change their name from project to project because they were still going out for mainstream work and wanted to stay a few steps ahead of IMDB.

  11. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Joe is an AWESOME guy and a terrific actor. He elevated every role for which I ever hired — or recommended — him. I directed him once, hired him for a movie I produced (that movie’s director had recommended him), tried to hire him for one (he was unavailable — doing a play, I believe) and recommended him for a couple of others.

    Yes, there is quite a bit of name switching because the world can be a cruel and ugly place. People like Shelley Lubben condemn others just because of their sexual orientation or choice of career. And then worthless, mean-spirited know-nothings like Darrah Ford have the gall to call these people — people who are just trying to make their way in life without being harassed — cowards for not using their real names.

    There’s a lot of work to be done in the adult industry — it’s a work in progress — but I think we need clear out the two-faced pieces of shit and Judas Goats among us. Their protestations notwithstanding, their efforts run counter to the progress of the industry and the people who inhabit it.

  12. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    I just received word from Anna Span in Cambridge — Shelley Lubben and Gail Dines were trounced in the Cambridge Union debate, roughly 250 to 150.

    Wisdom still flowers in Great Britain.

  13. frog Says:

    Whiteacre: “it’s not like I make any secret that I am a critic of hers. I identify myself on-camera as “Filmmaker/Lubben Critic.””

    You could be a critic without trying to do a hatchet job. Stuff like acting like it’s definitive when you ask one of the guys who’s been accused of raping her, “okay, did you rape her”? What do you think he’s going to say?

    I don’t even know a lot of the back story in the whole thing. But even without really knowing what’s going on, watching part 2 of the piece came off more as propaganda than an honest intellectual endeavor.

    The visuals and the tone of the movie came off really nicely. It’s just the editorial content of the film turned me off.

  14. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    You’re entitled to our opinion, but you must remember, this movie is a RESPONSE to Lubben’s years of attacks on members of a LEGAL INDUSTRY. Sttacks not only on the “Industry” but on the individuals who populate it.

    I take offense that it is somehow a hatchet job. Lydia and I have sought out people from all aspects of her life, from every era, in order to tell as complete a story as possible. More people turn up in other episodes to flesh out the narrative. As for part two being propaganda, which I do not think it is, it cannot in any case be any more propagandistic than the specific statements by Mrs. Lubben that it addresses. She makes claims, we rebut them. Propaganda is what Lubben does — she makes assertions and repeats them without any proof, and then cites HER OWN “studies” and alleged anecdotes as sources.

    And for the record, we did not simply ask, “Did you rape her?” We asked as many people who were on each set as possible (that we could locate) and asked them their version of events. They all, independently, told the same story. They didn’t consult with each other. These folks were scattered to the four winds. We had to track ‘em down. Some now live private lives and were not willing to be photographed. We respected that.

    And, by the way, how come you don’t ask, “Shelley Lubben got famous being a ‘victim’ of porn — what do you think she’s going to say?” Your premise, your start-off point, is that something happened on set. That has never been proven. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” Guy DiSiva and Farrell Timlake do not have the burden of defending themselves. Someone making the charge must PROVE it. That’s how it works.

    Are you seriously claiming, after watching the first two episodes, that there are no lies or half-truhs or distortions from Mrs. Lubben’s mouth? And if there are, hasn’t she damaged her credibility enough to at least cast doubt on her outrageous and unproven claims. That’s all they are — outrageous and unproven claims; claims which support the “position” she advances and from which she profits.

  15. GQtaste Says:

    RE: Jeremy: this is off topic.

    I just discovered this guy called Alex Jones. What are your thoughts on him? If you remember we had a talk about those guys i.e., Peter Levenda, Michael Ruppert, Jim Marrs et,al.

    Anyway, I don’t remember how I came across the dude, but and at first glance he seems to be speaking another fucking language altogether. Such as, Chemtrails, Martial Law ana FEMA Concentration Camps to name a few.

    this goes for Colonel too if he’s around.

  16. frog Says:

    Whiteacre: “Your premise, your start-off point, is that something happened on set. That has never been proven.”

    No, my personal premise is that no one is ever going to be able to prove what happened on that set 20 years ago either way. And your movie breaks into the middle of a Lubben speech at the point where’s she’s at her bitchiest complaining about the industry. There’s just Lubben breaking down and this staticy sound you guys have made sure is easy to hear on the soundtrack. It’s not a sympathetic cut. I heard Lubben on Howard Stern, she can come off better than that. Then you have diSilva talking and there’s actually soft classical violin music playing that sounds like the sun is coming up.

    Regardless of whomever you talked to and wouldn’t end up on camera, that’s what ended up in the movie. I find it hard to believe you don’t understand the movie is portraying the issue with a very pure bias.

    Whiteacre: “it cannot in any case be any more propagandistic than the specific statements by Mrs. Lubben that it addresses”

    Yeah, exactly. That’s what I came away from watching that thinking. They’re claiming Lubben does nothing but exaggerate and make blanket accusations but its exactly what they’re doing in response. They could do better.

    Your comment seems to imply I’m a Lubben fan. I’m not. I only know a few things about her either way. Watching the movie, I was entirely open to be swayed either way. Above is just an example of why I ended up not to take the movie more seriously. And it’s really a shame because the cinematography/visual work on the piece was really nice. I probably should go on about that part to be complimentary, but you’re already bragging about pay TV, etc.. So, it shouldn’t matter.

    And, from the sounds of it, there are already a lot of people in the industry who are fed up with her. Those people will probably get a kick out of your work.

  17. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    There was no static added to the soundtrack. Those sounds exist in the original source, and in fact I reduced the noise wherever and whenever possible. It was not professionally recorded, and that was the best available source. No video or audio was manipulated in anyway other than to clean up resolution and to zoom or crop it so that the subject was more dominant in the frame. If you’re referring to the music on the soundtrack beneath Lubben, then yes, it has a different texture than that of the people she is accusing of rape, or of being diseased perverts. She is making ugly accusations and the music fits that.

    Similarly, that was not Lubben at her bitchiest as much as it was bitchy Lubben talking about the subject at hand. There’s a big difference.

    Finally, while I respect your opinion, if you think that having someone who has been in the adult industry for 6 years or 16 years or 24 years relate their personal experiences constitutes per se exaggerated “blanket accusations” then there is no talking to you.

    Did it ever occur to you that Lubben is the one lying and they’re all telling the truth? If that were indeed the case, for the sake of argument, wouldn’t what these people would say sound an awful like what is represented in the movie?

  18. jeremysteele11 Says:

    GQTaste,

    I think Alex Jones is definitely worth checking out. He’s done some excellent work on aspects of the 9/11 inside job and many other events. I attended his symposium in L.A. in 2006 where Charlie Sheen was a guest speaker. That was when and where he debuted his “Terrorstorm” which is worth watching as well. One of his greatest contributions is sneaking into and filming Bohemian Grove, where the Bilderbergers/elite meet. Look it up on video google dot com or you tube. David Gergen, who talks a lot on CNN freaked out on Alex Jones for asking questions about his participation in Bohemian Grove. It’s a satanic fraternity which has a mock human sacrifice before Molech, the owl (all seeing predator). Stranger than fiction but it’s all on video.

  19. jeremysteele11 Says:

    Honestly, I think getting into Shelley’s life story from birth on is ridiculous. Take issue with her actions and stances as an adult. That’s more than enough to deal with. I have yet to watch it beyond 3 and a half minutes.

  20. frog Says:

    Whiteacre: “If you’re referring to the music on the soundtrack beneath Lubben, then yes, it has a different texture than that of the people she is accusing of rape, or of being diseased perverts. She is making ugly accusations and the music fits that.”

    Wow…

    So, okay. You are aware one of the things with the film is that Lubben is portrayed differently than diSilva via the “textures” of the music… The thing is, there’s no natural law that says someone who’s making claims about abuses they’ve suffered is necessarily ugly. It could be considered brave. I know when people suffer traumas, there are situations where therapists recommend giving public talks about it. Making the claims Lubben makes could be considered part of a healing process. That you’ve chosen to portray it as simply ugly is itself a strikingly strong bias.

    Whiteacre: “if you think that having someone who has been in the adult industry for 6 years or 16 years or 24 years relate their personal experiences constitutes per se exaggerated “blanket accusations” then there is no talking to you.”

    Watching the film, it just became more and more clear you can’t use it for a reference for understanding what Shelley is about because you’re so determined to discredit her. This, much the same way the movie tries to make the point you can’t use Shelley as a refernce to understand what the industry is about.

    Like You’ve got people in there like Nina Hartley talking about how few bad experiences she’s had. She’s Nina Hartley for crying out loud. Most sick fucks who are willing to abuse women are going to have enough sense to keep it away from one of the most famous women ever to do porn. Amongst other things, there’s a damn good chance she knows somebody who can fuck you over. Nina Hartley never would have got to the point she got if she didn’t know how to handle herself better than the average girl. If your looking for the dark side of pornography, you’re not going to find much of it in the experiences of Nina Hartley. To use her as an example in a film about this just seems silly.

    It’s not Nina herself talking about what she’s seen. it’s how the film weaves it together.

  21. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    I’m glad you enjoyed the visuals.

    Cheers,

    MW

  22. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @jeremy – With respect, Lubben’s “issues” didn’t begin during her short time in porn; they didn’t even begin in adulthood. That’s the point. Even Shelley makes a similar point (although she has a different construction of her life now that she looks back on it with “Christian” perspectives). When both the subject AND the documentarian agree on something so fundamental — the significance of her early life — how is it “ridiculous” to consider and explore it?

    Her “stances as an adult” were informed by her young life. She didn’t just land on a Rodney Moore set like The Man Who Fell To Earth at age 25. That’s the reason biographies generally don’t begin when the subject hits the public stage.

    @frog — I did not claim that PEOPLE who make such accusations are “ugly” as a matter of “natural law.” I stated that her accusations against people in the adult industry (and others) are themselves ugly. Why, you ask? Because she is making blanket charges about people — most of whom she does not know and has never met. She has no logical — or personal — basis to claim that everyone in porn is mentally ill, diseased and drug-infested, and that men in the industry, AS A RULE are predatory abusers who force-feed women drugs, and threaten and beat them as a matter of course. Those are sick, ugly charges to make against an entire class of people. Ugly is, in fact, a very mild word to use for it.

  23. BlasianBytch Says:

    Shelly Lubben needs to apologize to the Asian American Community. The racist rant she spews at around 11:40 is a clear racist fantasy and slight against Asian men.

    Maybe this is why she was all talk and no action when it came to helping Kimora Klein? She’d rather burn a pink cross on her lawn than help out a mixed race Asian.

    and you call yourself a Christian , Shelly? God doesn’t like ugly.

    I also remember the commandment “Thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor” saying that your costars raped you 10 years after the fact for attention would fall into that category. Rape is a serious accusation and should not be thrown around lightly.

  24. jeremysteele11 Says:

    Ok, I’m watching it again from the beginning. She grew up in Temple City with a heavy religious upbringing, heard “voices” (which one can also interpret as intuition or the subconscious). According to who did Shelley “make up wild stories about men trying to kidnap her”? At what age was she? What is the source of her parents saying she was “peculiar”? She admits she has some problems in High School….

    Time out. I’ve made it to 6 1/2 minutes.

    There’s only 24 hours in a day. My mind is screaming to me “Why am I watching this?”

    Her parents said “You’re dead to me” and kicked her out. She’s admitting she did bad things… and that she’s lied, etc.

    Ok, finally it gets interesting to me at 7:28 where Michael argues, to quote Shelley’s earlier statement, that she’s after money and the limelight. You should’ve made this point earlier, in my opinion. Ok, good point around 9 minutes showing her contradiction about men jacking off and bleeding on her face while she later claims
    she had safe sex as a prostitute therefore she must have got hpv/herpes from porn. She also says tricks knocked her up three times… “and how many times did clients break condoms on me?… too many times”. Excellent case against mandatory condom use and the claim that it makes porn “safe”. Why the gay industry relies or has relied on just rubbers and not testing (since it is believed that HIV=AIDS and that HIV tests detect HIV) is mind-blowing.

    My apologies, Michael, it does get more interesting as it goes on. I’ve watched just over 10 minutes so far but I’ve got things to do and will watch more later.

  25. jeremysteele11 Says:

    Most of the beginning stuff should go to the cutting room floor. Tighten it up where you contrast things, statements, this vs. that,, etc.; boom, boom. Capiche? Be concise, to the point, sculpt it, cut out the 50s montage, geesh! Trust me. I’ve brainstormed on a doc for years which had too much priceless shit to fit in to but a 90 minute to 2 hour frame.

    Let me commend you, at least, for getting something done, and getting it out. Still, I think you should make it better then re-release it.

  26. jeremysteele11 Says:

    the whole shit’s gotta flow, ya know? some parts should just play out, but those have to be really special, if you really want to aim high with this project it needs to be much more kick ass and professional, imho

  27. origen Says:

    Michael, I couldn’t bear watching your expose on Shelly Lubben. I don’t give a fuck about her but I now see the reason why you made it. You want to vilify Shelly to the maximum degree possible so you could present a counterargument–an alternate reality–that presents the adult industry as this benevolent vehicle with a few minor hiccups.

    There are MAJOR problems with the adult industry.

    Number one, its business model is crashing to the ground

    Number two, because the adult industry is crashing, a significant portion of performers are unable to make a career of being a pornstar–and they escort to support themselves.

    Number 3, because the Industry is crashing and performers are not getting booked as often as they’d like, several talent agencies are facilitating escorting (or privates, if you will). Escorting is not a legal industry.

    Number 4: Using anecdotes and thick description, many (not even close to all, but MANY) performers suffer from significant mental illnesses and drug addictions. The adult industry obstinately WISHES to do nothing to discourage their self-destructive behaviour. From a liberal economic standpoint, they do not have to but one has to question the ethics of a porn product when a significant amount of talent are suffering in their personal lives.

    Many people are turned off by commercial porn because of a perceived level of ruthlessness. Consumers also might be motivated to protest porn practices through piracy…

    Number 5–the most serious problem: Using anecdotes and thick-description, the STD level is TOO FUCKING HIGH. I love how you somewhat stated in part 1 “Yeah, Shelly may have contracted HPV and even if we don’t know how she got it, it doesn’t matter because its common and 50% of the population have it anyway”.

    Just because a disease is common, doesn’t make it ok to contract it. To say otherwise would be in line with what bareback gay porn did in the 80s–and that was some devious shit. One case of STD transmission through porn is too many.

    **************************************************

    I honestly think your vengeance against Shelly is mean-spirited. Not because she’s such a great person–she really isn’t–but because your expose really seems to attack everyone who criticises the adult industry. The best attack on Shelly Lubben would have been a REAL documentary that focuses on the people she attacks and how THEY live their lives.

    I definitely support porn. I think erotica can be a great tool for enhancing people’s level of sexual education and satisfaction. But I’m sick of you not giving a shit about your talent’s health.

    And organise your industry, damnit! Set up some barriers to entry. Can you believe some people are still fighting 2257? Government is your friend in that regard…

  28. origen Says:

    And dude, you should shave and texturize your hair OR keep it and go for the Sean Connery short hairstyle. Just my two cents…

  29. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @origen – thank you for commenting. Whilst we certainly disagree on many things (and agree to some extent on others), after reading your comment I realize there is one thing we can agree on unreservedly — that “a REAL documentary that focuses on the people she attacks and how THEY live their lives” needs to me made.

    In fact, “The Devil And Shelley Lubben” is but one half of the message that Lydia and I are trying to convey. TDSL is essentially the “Why We Fight” half. The other half is the documentary that you suggest — and principal photography is nearly complete on it. Lydia began shooting it over a year ago with a producer who, sadly, is no longer with us, and it was after seeing the raw footage that I realized that the two projects would be sister films.

    One final note, to view TDSL as an “attack [on] everyone who criticises the adult industry” is to distort (or at least to miss) one very important point: people like Lubben and Dines are in fact ATTACKING the adult industry. Their “critiques” are actually calls for its destruction on various spurious grounds (it’s the Devil’s playground; the destructive pornification of our culture, etc.). TDSL is not an attack, origen – – it’s a defense; a defense of all the decent, hard-working “real people” who are being vilified by this lot. It’s a defense of people who sell a product to people who want to buy it against people who are offering lies and half-truths in order to sell books.

  30. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @origen – LOL re: my hair. I don’t have the most manageable hair, it’s true, but it is all mine. I regret I was not “camera-ready” in the above photo (a screen shot from my encounter with Mrs. Lubben at The Rainbow) and I needed a haircut (I also hadn’t shaved and had enjoyed three margaritas) — but I had no idea I was going to be filmed that night. If you’d like a short video of Kayden Kross (or Sam Phillips for that matter) running her fingers through my freshly-styled hair to satisfy your curiosity, that can probably be arranged.

  31. origen Says:

    lol, I know you’re a freaking stud. I made the hair comment because I actually saw a photo of you with texturized hair and it was a good image for all the aspiring lawyers out there who study and intern 40 hours a week.

    Sure, I understand you need to defend yourself but to say everything is all right in porn is just falsehood. Like I said, I don’t care about her or the people who want to outlaw porn but I feel as if there needs to be real action to change the Industry. Every time someone sounds the alarm, they get discredited and/or abandon the Industry (Rayveness). FSC should really stick up for POSITIVE sexual expression–that is, expression that isn’t contingent upon a person’s self-destruction.

  32. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @origen – LOL. Yes, I do try to be an inspiration to all those suffering lawyers! G-d help them.

    I would never say that everything is all right in porn. There’s always room for improvement in any business sector, and in any structure or system. I support more thorough universal STD testing and some other things we’ve discussed here. I support the industry for many reasons, but none more important to me than the fact that I love and support my friends (and I know a lot more performers than I do company owners). I make the projects I do for the same reason that I started getting tested at AIM many years ago — solidarity with the performers as an act of personal conscience. I would love to see “real action” — and I hope that through exchanges like this one, and by defending ourselves against lies, we may encourage people enough to actually inspire some.

  33. origen Says:

    Talk is good but talk is cheap. No offense, Mike, but you are not a kingmaker. I appreciate you seeing the need to reduce STDs but the majority of major porn producers do not feel the same way. They simply don’t care.

    And the sad thing is, performers don’t care either. As long as they get their check no one wants to organize anything.

    Apathy is what will force the government to act. Something you and I don’t want.

  34. frog Says:

    Whiteacre: “I’m glad you enjoyed the visuals.”

    Yeah, I’m not trying to besmirch your name or anything because I know you gotta work with some of the people who read this blog. You obviously have valuable skills when it comes to making movies. I just hate seeing smear jobs like I see this film as doing.

    Whiteacre: “Because she is making blanket charges about people — most of whom she does not know and has never met. She has no logical — or personal — basis to claim that everyone in porn is mentally ill, diseased and drug-infested, and that men in the industry,”

    When you read the quotes from her in the movie, you did get a “wow, that’s out there” reaction from me watching it. But, the thing is, you’re movie is so dead-set on discrediting her, I look at those quotes you give and I just think, “yeah, but what are they taking out of context”. What are they misrepresenting?

    Forget all this English composition stuff where I’m trying to point out specific things. Just look at the title. If someone made a movie and called it, “Raping Michael Whiteacre”, what would you think? I’m sure you’d be like, “okay, here are some reasonable people I can listen to and learn some stuff about myself…”

    If Shelley has any intelligence at all, she’s praying you print DVD’s so that she has nice jewel cases with art work when she hands out copies to her bigger donors. She’s just gonna say, “look how pissed I’ve got these people! We can’t stop now! It’ll just make it look like their smear campaign was more powerful than our message!”

    origen: “You want to vilify Shelly to the maximum degree possible so you could present a counterargument”

    See, I’m not the only one who identifies a serious bias with this film. origen, just doesn’t have a problem with it whereas I do.

    The thing is, I’m sick of the Bill O’Reilly’s of the world who just go on the air and shout people down. (actually I’ve caught his show a few times in the last few months, I think he’s keen on this criticism and is doing gay stuff like trivia quizzes to lighten his show up…) It does more harm than good. People don’t know what’s going on watching O’Reilly. They just know a few things to shout at people about. And, the thing is, I’m a fiscal conservative (Libertarian) who agrees with Bill O’Reilly most of the time. I just can’t stand listening to him.

    I saw an interview with the film-maker of that documentary that came out recently called “Reagan”. The stupid FOX News analyst was trying to talk him down for being one-sided. The guy was just like, “no, that’s the advantage of taking the time and making a documentary. You get to show multiple arguments, what many people think. That’s an advantage over the talk show format where what you do is stake out a position and just go for the win”. The stupid FOX reporter, lowered his shoulders, tucked his head down, and said “okay, thank you for coming in today”. He ended the interview and went to commercial because he knew where that was going.

    Whiteacre: “after reading your comment I realize there is one thing we can agree on unreservedly — that “a REAL documentary that focuses on the people she attacks and how THEY live their lives” needs to me made. ”

    I think you nailed it here. That current film you’re doing isn’t even about Lubben. It’s entirely too a one-dimensional representation of her. It’s just about you being pissed off at her.

    If you change the subject of the DVD to the people she’s pissing off, you can entirely leave her voice as this one-dimensional maniac in the background without the entire film just being a single-minded rant. You hate Lubben, you’ve got no interest in learning anything from her. So, I have no idea why your going through the trouble of making a movie about her.

    I’m typing way too much.. Stop here.

  35. Fartz Says:

    When girls are being “abused” or are uncomfortable during a scene,regardless of how good of an actress they are, it’s noticable. There’s little tells like shifting eyes, using physical responses instead of audio responses (“do you like sucking my cock?” She nods instead of verbally worshipping the appendage).

    I’ve seen plenty of scenes, mostly 2000-2005 RedLight, PlatX, Ana/Dia gonzo stuff, where the actress was clearly out of her league and wasn’t quite comfortable with the situation. Now, go out and find a ShellRoxy scene. I’ve seen a couple, and this chick fucking LOVED the cock. In fact she was so into it, I knocked one out to a Lubben scene once. The funny thing is, in one of the scenes, she’s getting fucked by some dude that makes Jonathan Morgan look like Max Hardcore in terms of intensity. He’s just kind of ho-hum pumping it in and out, and here’s Shelly screaming, panting, licking her arms and begging for more. Wanna’ de-bunk shelley? Just seek out one of her rare scenes. She’s got me much more convinced of her love for cock when she’s banging on film than s than she does with her love for God when she’s babbling on.

  36. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @origen – You are correct when you suggest that apathy is a huge problem Apathy has always been the biggest single problem among members of the adult industry. In no way do I see myself as king-maker — otherwise I would have named a potential king, and I did not — but I HAVE seen through my attempts at activism that people can be moved to act when the message inspires them.

    @Fartz – It also appears clear to me that Shelley/Roxy was not hating every minute the way she claims, and in fact I have lots more stuff to use on that subject. It’s hard, however, to get wide distribution for something that includes hardcore action — even edited hardcore action. Still, you’re right that I probably should revisit the issue. You know what Shelley’s response will be, however: “I was a really good actress. I just bit down on an invisible bullet and acted like I loved it so that it would be over sooner.” That is, basically, what she has said in the past about her performances. That self-serving BS may not fool porn fans (who can tell the difference), but I don’t think she’s fooling that many of US anyway.

    As for your criticisms of the doc, once again I do not pretend to be unbiased. This is not an attempt at an unofficial biography, this is an exposé. This is more in the vein of Fahrenheit 911 or another favorite of mine (and no doubt of Jeremy’s too) Loose Change. Not to say that it carries any such weight or social significance — I do not compare myself to Michael Moore — I’m writing of the similarities in their perspectives.

    Yes I am dead set on discrediting her, absolutely. I think TDSL succeeds in doing that, frankly. But it is LUBBEN HERSELF who does the work for me. I could have made a five hour version of episodes 1 & 2 and used mostly Lubben quotes and, following your analysis, you STILL would have come away thinking it was a “smear job.” She contradicts herself in every speech. She uses logical fallacies in every speech. When asked direct questions about CERTAIN matters, she gives shocking answers every time. I’d be amazed if you could find enough non-damning quotes on the matters addressed in episodes 1 & 2 to fill 3 minutes — I really would be shocked. I have transcriptions of EVERY available video and TV appearance, as well as every known published interview. Plus I interviewed her face to face. I am not distorting her position on anything. If one concedes that point to me– as I believe one must — then there is no way I can be seen as doing a biased “smear job.” It’s her words, her positions, her attitudes. Things she has said and written for years are PROVABLY FALSE. Throw in the FACT that she has offered NO PROOF for anything she claims, and what have you got? I’m sorry, I simply cannot agree with you on this issue. I respect your opinion — there can really be no arguments about taste anyway — but I think you are holding TDSL to an inapplicable standard.

  37. origen Says:

    *sigh* It’s just, I don’t get it. I don’t see why Shelly Lubben matters. She doesn’t even fill the shoes of Andrea Dworkin and NOBODY remembers her.

    What about a documentary that exposes the adult industry’s decline and the need for Industry action? I’m really worried about dudes like Fartz. Are there even going to be porn stores in the next 10 years?

  38. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @origen – I agree, Lubben HERSELF does not matter. Her only standing and gravitas has been lent her by the anti-pronograhy anti-free expression forces who use her as AN EXAMPLE. They cite her approvingly and trot her out like the prize pig at the county fair. I am doing my damnedest to remove as many weapons from THEIR arsenal as possible.

    Right now the flaming train wreck that is post-Cambridge Shelley Lubben is like a burning tire around the necks of Michael Weinstein and Paula Tavrow and Peter Kerndt and Patrick Trueman and Gail Dines and others. These people vouched for her!

    I just interviewed Anna Span via Skype. The story of the Cambridge debate is unreal! You will be able to read a summary — along with quotes from Anna’s speech — at Julie Meadows’ blog today. After reading that tell me — do you think Gail Dines will accept another appearance with Shelley Lubben? She told the audience (Anna paraphrased it) that she has “favor” with G-d and is a chosen one by Jesus. Lubben has NO business addressing the halls of academia ever again. That’s the point, origen — to curtail Lubben’s ability to spread her venomous lies and warped reality to anyone else in a position of power or influence.

    In the wake of Lydia’s and my documentary, there is genuine outrage from several different quarters. Check out BlasianBytch’s website, for instance. Wait until the gay media get a hold of the extended version of the “Saints and Sinners” video teaser we put out before Christmas.

    Yes, I’d love to see a thoughtful documentary on the industry’s decline and the issues that coalesced to make it happen. But I can only do so much! I’m financing this work myself, and I am not doing it for profit. There’s a portion of TDSL that deals with the industry’s decline, from the point of view of how the stage was set for Lubben’s return from exile. Part of that was, of course, the constant attacks on the industry from anti-porn forces. Her Locust Years had ended. Time for the Rebel Prophet to return to her Promise Land.

    Ad as for Andrea Dworkin’s shoes — can you even imagine what they must have smelled like? WOW!

  39. Fartz Says:

    @Origen

    Why are you worried about me? Because I work in a dying facet of the industry, or because I’ve jacked it to a Lubben scene? Don’t worry about the former, I just work here because it’s the easiest, laziest gig I’ve ever managed to score, definitely worry about the latter, however, because, hey, I like porn, almost to a fault.

  40. Fartz Says:

    Also, I think Shelley’s a big deal because she makes herself a big deal. Unless your name is George S. Patton, the best way to wage a war is silently, and there’s plenty of people out there that are doing just that in their battle against porn. Thank God for people like Shelley who battle with a soapbox instead of a pen. It’s not like whitacre can tackle capital hill. Well, actually he can, but that’s opening up a much larger, more dangerous can of worms.

  41. frog Says:

    Whiteacre: “As for your criticisms of the doc, once again I do not pretend to be unbiased. This is not an attempt at an unofficial biography, this is an exposé.”

    Well, that sounds a little different than what you were saying before. But, it’s not like it matters.

    If you’re ever confronted in a serious, critical environment about movie-making, I’d just make it clear the movie is intended for people already familiar with Lubben, where you’re shedding more light on her. You’re not expecting the viewer to trust you for the definitive Shelley Lubben, only adding more facts… That explanation reduces your potential audience size, but fulfills some typical requirements more academic people are going to have for films they watch.

    That’s just an extension of what you’re already saying now anyway.

    I don’t even know why I went off on that movie. It just struck a nerve cause I don’t like the one-sided O’Reilly stuff… But, if she were someone I were already familiar with…

  42. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    Thank you for the comments, all — I find them all very helpful and enlightening, because the cause — the effort — is not to support the videos, but rather the videos are to support the cause.

  43. Fartz Says:

    I’m with ya’ Mike. You’re defending porn (my most favorist thing in teh world)and trying to bring down someone using the ole’ false prophet flim-flam. It’s like when James Randi debunked Peter Popov. It would be great if you could take it to that level of humiliation.

  44. Fartz Says:

    Sorry, that’s Popoff, not Popov. Sometimes, I think in Russian.

  45. jeremysteele11 Says:

    The bottom line to all of this is he/she who judges will be judged, and that for something to be properly judged more than one side must be heard.

    Examples:

    1. AHF. These money/ power-seeking exortionists who have sought to disrupt and control the porn industry for their own benefit have had the spot-light turned on them. As Clark Baker has pointed out they receieved 174 million dollars just last year alone from the legalized (big pharm) drug cartel.

    2. Shelley Lubben has made some serious claims about the porn industry and her experiences with it that Michael’s documentary has addressed. I wonder if Shelley is going to respond.

    3. If someone made a slanted and hostile documentary about me I would do all I could to make sure the documentarian became no less famous and I would present my own myriad detailed documentary of sorts, to re-represent the representation.

    Turn the cameras back on the camera-people. Fight fire with fire!

  46. Gomer Says:

    Back at Comment #14 (February 17th, 2011 at 4:49 pm) Michael Whiteacre remarked:

    “You’re entitled to our opinion, but you must remember, this movie is a RESPONSE to Lubben’s years of attacks on members of a LEGAL INDUSTRY.”

    Two points:

    1) What relevance does the LEGALITY or otherwise of the porn industry have to Lubben’s (or anyone else’s for that matter) criticism? Just because something is “legal” does not mean it is good for individuals or society or that it should be immune from criticism — or indeed that people in a democratic society shouldn’t have the right to attempt to make it illegal.

    (Tobacco) smoking is legal but many people think that it is a harmful activity. Do I favour making smoking illegal? No. Should people in a free society where smoking is LEGAL be allowed to point out what they perceive to be the harms of smoking and seek to persuade people not to smoke or have anything to do with the tobacco industry? Of course. Should people in a free society where smoking is LEGAL be allowed to shun smokers such that there is social stigma attached to the practice of smoking or being associated with the tobacco industry? Yes, they should have that right.

    Exactly the same should apply in the case of LEGAL porn. (Of course in saying that I express no opinion here whether or not porn is in fact harmful; that’s got nothing to do with the point I’m making.)

    2) The “legality” of the porn industry is itself a complex question and far from settled. And even if something is not illegal per se there can still be illegality in, say, the manner of its production. In the case of California-produced porn this is very much a live issue (although again I express no opinion on whether or not California porn producers are breaching the state’s workplace safety laws).

  47. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @Gomer – I’m glad you brought that up. The fact that the adult film business constitutes a legal industry is an essential point, and here’s why:

    Lubben regularly conflates all manner of illegal (and other) activity with the “porn industry.” When she cites the story of a sex criminal somewhere on the east coast who lured a woman to fly to him under the pretext of doing an adult “shoot” and then raped/killed her, that does NOT constitute a proper argument against the adult entertainment industry. That’s like blaming the police department after someone impersonating a police officer robs a store. Yet she does it anyway. She regularly conflates on-line predators, pedophiles and sex offenders with legitimate adult film producers. She talks of how the porn industry “recruits” lonely teens off of chat rooms. She’s playing to this warped, fundamentalist, alarmist view of porn (and of sex itself).

    That is the reason I make the distinction between the legitimate adult film business and other kinds of activities which do not properly fit under the same umbrella.

    Also, Lubben is not simply “criticizing” the adult industry, rather she speaks openly of her wild-eyed desire to END its existence.

    She too is entitled to her opinion, but she is not entitled to her own facts. She predicates her “criticisms” upon outrageously false or unprovable statements, and her insistence on universalizing her own alleged experiences in the adult business from SEVENTEEN years ago.

    @jeremy – what in G-d’s name are you talking about? Lubben has websites which tell her side. She gives speeches which tell her side. She posts videos which tell her side. She wrote a book which tells her side. My videos constitute THE RESPONSE. They are a DEFENSE to her repeated attacks. Are you honestly trying to assert that her side hasn’t been heard?

  48. origen Says:

    I’m not gonna lie–porn DOES recruit lonely teens. Ever hear of Sasha Grey? These girls are willing and eager but, still, they are just kids.

    I’m just sayin’…

  49. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @origen – One needs to define terms here. By “porn” you presumably mean the professional/mainstream “porn industry” — not some guy with a camera in his basement.

    “Kids” is also a REALLY loaded word. They’re old enough to have sex, enter into contracts, vote or get abortions. I wouldn’t call them “kids.”

    What do you mean by “recruit”?

    Sasha Grey SOUGHT OUT a career in porn. Her first agent, Mark Spiegler, does not recruit anyone to the best of my knowledge. She contacted him. She has said that in interviews and she told me that personally.

    And, just to play devil’s advocate, perhaps these “lonely” “kids” should go join the armed forces — now there’s an occupation that DOES recruit lonely misfit (often troubled) teens.

    What else should lonely teenage girls with no family fortune, no skills and no education do? Would you recommend they become hookers like Shelley Lubben did? Porn is not for everyone, but, inarguably, it provides opportunities for people who would otherwise be considered under-credentialed in the straight world.

  50. Darrah Ford Says:

    Would you recommend they become hookers like Shelley Lubben did?

    Hooker? And what exactly are the rest of the women in that documentary? Didn’t Julie admit she was a prostitute for over a year? Or is the proper term these days “escort”? Monica Foster also admitted to being hooker. Oh wait, she’s an “escort.”

    What about the rest of the women in the documentary. How many of them are also hookers? Don’t come into this industry calling a woman a hooker without looking at which industry you’re talking about. Many of the women & men in porn are escorting today. Many look down at it though secretly those same people are also escorting too.

    Step outside of California to shoot porn and see what might happen. You’ll get arrested. So this has nothing to do with what’s legal or not. You’re all in the sex trade with the only difference being that camera in the room.

    There are also criminals in your documentary that plead guilty to a mortgage scam that left a disabled war veteran, his wife, and their four children homeless. Let’s turn the cameras on all of you and start stalking all of you if you think you’re all so fucking perfect.

  51. origen Says:

    Mike, I like porn so I don’t like arguing with you. You’re a good guy so you’ll agree that a performer’s physical health is the MOST important pillar of the Industry. I’m just fleshing out some criticism.

    I suspect Sasha Grey WILL condemn ASPECTS of the adult industry in her upcoming book. Porn is not supposed to be perfect, but, again, there are major problems. These problems–mostly related to STDs–are what make porn harmful for the body. Sasha Grey has already admitted that she caught at least one STD during her career.

    Also, some extreme acts, that segments of the Industry endorse, can physically decimate the body. I’m not vanilla but performers need to be careful–even if another performer is up for “anything”. Its NOT okay to beat a willing performer until she has longstanding bruises for several days after-wards. How do you ethically justify that? It is also NOT okay for agencies to allow performers to do extreme acts so frequently and intensely that it poses a clear and serious injury risk. If a performer gets injured as a result of an action on set, a settlement should be paid out or performers should file a worker’s comp claim. All performers should be aware of their legal rights when it comes to worker’s comp and there should be no obfuscation in the vein of arguments such as “independent contractors vs employees”.

    Anyway, you know my main beef–STDs. Porn would never be a benevolent place for adults of any age so long as the STD rate affects as many performers as it does now.

    What do I mean by porn recruiting “kids”? I mean porn producers and agents discussing future adult career plans with minors–as was the case with Sasha Grey. Hey, I’m not EXPLICITLY saying its prevalent or its wrong but it is what it is. Just because the military recruits minors for combat doesn’t mean their actions are right but neither does it validate those in the adult industry.

    And who said anything about becoming hookers? Seems like a non-sequitur suggestion if you ask me….

  52. jeremysteele11 Says:

    Michael W. said “@jeremy – what in G-d’s name are you talking about? Lubben has websites which tell her side. She gives speeches which tell her side. She posts videos which tell her side. She wrote a book which tells her side. My videos constitute THE RESPONSE. They are a DEFENSE to her repeated attacks. Are you honestly trying to assert that her side hasn’t been heard?”

    You’re totally misunderstanding me. I simply was saying I’m curious to know what Shelley’s reponse to your video would be. You say your video was a response to her attacks. Well, in the court of law, or public opinion, one responds to the response. Has she responded to your video yet? Sorry if I’m not as well versed on the subject of Shelley Lubben as you are.

  53. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    @Jeremy – sorry, my fault — I misunderstood. Here’s a sampling of responses.

    Lubben herself has said that people should pray for me (that I be delivered from, and stop serving, Satan), and has snidely referred to me as a Jewish “treasure.” No one from their camp has responded directly to the doc yet, however Lubben and the Pink Cross sheeple often speak through surrogates (or use phony names and dummy accounts), so, first, here’s a sample of the comments and emails I’ve received (I don’t claim to know that ANY of these are Lubben or her inner circle, but this has been the consistent theme):

    “Shelley did not choose to go into porn. She was young, screwed up, and desperate for money . . . like so many in the industry. If you hate her, then hate all the ex-porn stars she’s saved. They have stories. Are you going to start knocking them down too?”

    “The Jews run the porn industry, that is why they are gunning at this White woman. They were also targeting the Russians and Ukrainians, back in 1917 to 1939.”

    “many porn stars either die of an STD, sucide, drug overdose, or another medical malady. Name at least five porn stars you know of that have lived to 80.”

    “this guy [Whiteacre] is a dirty jew that jerks off to swirly scenes.”

    “It’s obvious that Shelley’s good work is making waves now…PRAISE GOD! Stay strong Shelley!”

    “Hitler warned us about jews like yourself. THere is good reason why he expelled the kikes from europe with all of your money robbing, pornography, theft and lies. i wish i could rivive hitler so he can finish the job.”

    Here’s some of the latest from Facebook, posted in Lubben’s name:

    “Please have a heart and donate anything you can to Pink Cross Foundation. We have sacrified so much to continue this work and we truly need financial help to keep going.” (This after Pink Cross footed the bill for a vey expensive multi-day (Tuesday-Friday) trip to Great Britain for Lubben and her entourage.)

    “Help me to repent Lord. Clean me, my family, my home and Pink Cross from evil in Jesus name!”

    “Faith and Repentance. That’s it. Pray for Pink Cross!”

    April Garris on FaceBook: “Thank you for your prayers everyone. Shelley made a fantastic speech and the people who needed to hear it responded. The truth about pornography and Jesus Christ were boldly proclaimed.”

  54. Michael Whiteacre Says:

    origen – Thank you for the response. Your discussion of rough and “extreme” scenes and such is very interesting. Obviously there is performer choice involved, and you are arguing, it would appear, for the conscience of another — an outside person like an agent or producer — to play a part. While I agree wholeheartedly that an external mechanism would limit, in many cases, some degree of “wear and tear” – physically, emotionally, etc. — that’s a very tricky and rather sticky wicket. If we are to consider both consensual sex and power of consenting parties to enter into contracts to be RIGHTS, then you can see the problem. Whose right is it to tell a performer who needs some money for whatever purpose, “You can’t do that scene because you already did one triple penetration in the last ten days”, or whatever? If self-determination is a right — and it IS — then, to quote Martin Luther King, Jr. let me ask: Isn’t a right delayed a right denied?

    As for your example of bruises — as a young man in the Bronx, I worked a couple of summers (a few weeks each) doing construction work. If you want to talk about physical strain and bruises, porn pales in comparison. Different jobs entail different risks. BUT, I’d say that anyone who presents a physically demanding, possibly physically damaging job (including violent or high-impact sex) as anything but what it is, should have their heads handed to them. Lying to the performers in order to get them to agree is wrong. Period. It also constitutes a false inducement (for the pecuniary gan of the inducer, presumably the producer, or done on his/her behalf). I believe in arming people with information which is made readily available, not lying to them, and letting them choose.

    That said, I think the industry would be a much better place if there were more producers who viewed the talent as a human resource to be protected, cherished and developed. As we’ve discussed before, I FULLY support broader use of testing to include other types of STDs and some program to sharply curtail the spread of “the clap.” I have been assured that a through, independent evaluation of the raw STD testing data from AIM is near completion — I would suggest utilizing that set of figures as the basis for a new strategy to address the issue. Things can always be improved, in any system. I am for progress. But I am against driving a tank through this industry in the name of “caring” for the workers’ well-being.

  55. origen Says:

    Mike, I could care less what two consenting people do in their personal lives. If one partner likes getting beat to a fucking pulp, that’s great for her.

    However, porn is a business. Employer liability in the case of workplace injury is unavoidable and producers should behave accordingly. Likewise, the ethical obligations of agency apply–so, yes, if there is an evident risk of severe injury performers should be refused booking by their agents.

  56. origen Says:

    I like AIM, but that’s not the organization I had in mind when you said “independent”. AIM is not independent. There are several financial linkages between AIM, production studios, adult agencies, and porn advocacy groups. AIM is not even non-profit.

    I hope you take this seriously. If the adult industry doesn’t take REAL steps to combat STDs soon, the government would step up enforcement measures.

  57. origen Says:

    @ Mike’s emails,

    So The Colonel was right about Shelly’s connections to white supremacists. She should really apologize for the racist comments she made and those of her supporters.

  58. origen Says:

    …And Mike, I just re-read your above comment. I was wrong. Data coming from AIM is fine by me as long as the independent survey group asks for COMPREHENSIVE testing for a wide range of STDs…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

© 2014 LUKE IS BACK | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Design by Web4. This site is powered by Wordpress