Wednesday, April 26, 2000
Gossip
I hear that Extreme Associates' nonpayment to their duplicator LP [Louis Peraino Jr] Duplication has about bankrupted the company.
Extreme owes Jim South's World Modeling over $6000. The agency has a paper up in their office saying that they will no longer book talent for Extreme.
Matt Zane is thrilled that AVN has finally recognized him, putting him on its April, 2000 cover. He's received many lousy reviews from AVN but finally gets a few good ones. Matt has reinvigorated Zane Entertainment, which his dad Chuck has bankrupted twice. Supposedly Chuck was siphoning off money to his Germany holdings. Chuck owns a large duplicator there and has talked about abandoning Zane Entertainment in LA and moving to Germany with his wife.
XXX: Luke, you're an idiot for f--king with Larry Flynt. He could make one phone call and have you disappear.
YYY: Homosexual aliens have taken over Sin City owner David Sturman's brain and he's cancelling movies that he's previously decided to make.
John Copeland writes on YNOTnetwork.com about the porn net: I tend to think aggressive fraud control by processors and site owners are probably affecting signups more than anything else. I doubt it will get better. Mastercard and Visa control this industry. Unless they can find a better verification system, and better fraud protection our business is on thin ice. I think as many of the poorer quality paysites and sponsor programs fall for lack of cc processing, more and more freesite owners will find themselves promoting the same sites, who will be tightening their signup processes for their own survival. Fewer choices, fewer signups approved, equal less money. It might be the law of the jungle, where only the strong will survive. Alliances and mergers may be the answer... they say there is safety in numbers.
Gene Ross on Shmuley vs Flynt
has a good rundown on this debate. Here's an excerpt:
According to Boteach, there are six basic elements to pornography: 1) It's about sex, arousal and titillation; 2) It's aimed primarily at men, with Boteach claiming that only 3 percent of women watch porn; 3) It's a "passive... visual medium" that's "about converting people into voyeurs" (as if that's a bad thing); 4) It "utilizes" women to "obtain its objective" (dog bites man again!); 5) It's all over the place, including 40 percent of the Internet's bandwidth; and 6) It's immediate - "Pornography promises immediate sexual gratification" - and that biting dog's been pretty busy.
In explaining the above points, Boteach castigates porn as about "fundamental boredom" because "Once you've seen Miss January, you're about as interested in seeing her again as you are in lifting weights or exercising." Whoa; somebody call the collector's market in Playboys and tell them to sell, sell, sell! Not to mention all the retailers that write to AVN asking where they can get classic porn movies...
To his credit, Boteach comes out in favor of tease and foreplay, two subjects usually neglected in all but the better porn productions... and, all too often, in some relationships. However, he claims that the lack of a "real connection" between sex partners leads to sexual addiction, which, "because it's fundamentally empty, it becomes like a drug."
Kianna Bradley vs Earl Slate
Earl Slate and Kianna Bradley appeared in Culver City First District Court Tuesday morning.
Earl repeated his charges against Kianna that he made yesterday on my site. The judge replied: "I don't believe this case is about Kianna. It's about you."
Slate used a public defender who postponed the case until next Tuesday at 8:30 AM.
Kianna: "The DA has already contacted the place in Alabama that has his Mercedes. And they already told her that they've spoken with him... That he was the one who wanted it shipped to Alabama. And the DA talked to the towing company that shipped the Mercedes...
70K For Independent Thinker Marilyn Star
From the New York Daily News.com: Porn queen Marylin Star made $70,000 in stock profits because she was an "independent thinker," not because she got insider information from her investment banker boyfriend. That was the argument of fallen Wall Street hot shot James McDermott made yesterday during closing arguments of McDermott's insider trading trial in Manhattan Federal Court. "She's attractive, she's blonde, but. . . she thinks a little bit there," said McDermott's lawyer, Denis McInerney, tapping his temple. "It's just kind of insulting to say that just because she's a dancer, she can't think about things herself."
Analyzing Porn
Lynne L-patin writes: Funny how anal-yzing the current situation in porn requires a perspective born of years of participation.... Even though knowing how we got from A to Z, or rather to X, as it exists today, being that it's something I've observed first hand over the years, appears to be another strike against me insofar as my continued participation in your website as far as your loyal readers are concerned. Just when I have enough experience to make a valid point on something pertaining to porno, I'm too old to participate at all. I should be put out to pasture. "Oh, pppluh-eeeze, B'rer Fox, please don't throw me in the briar patch!"
As with any form of commercial entertainment, pornography has its high points, and its low points, its concept art and more than its share of garbage. "Adult entertainment" is just one euphemism for porn, a product which, on the whole propagates adolescent male views of sexuality by objectifying female performers into anonymous orifices and males into organs.
During the early nineties, even the term "adult video" was thought to be so inflammatory that the Adult Video Association was asked to remove the words "adult video" from its name, to be replaced by "Free Speech Coalition," an organization which thought to raise money "against censorship" without revealing its true identity as a shill for pornographers. Right wing critics got many a good chuckle out of the idea that smut was trying to hide behind semantics. We got fancy with language in the wake of the Meese Justice Department prosecutions, and found the language very pleasant. It gave us delusions of grandeur and legitimacy.
"Adult videos" were preceded by "adult films," adult films were shown in "adult theatres," and everyone was very clear about what was meant. "X" was a rating bestowed on mainstream videos by the MPAA; we were, at the very least, "XXX." Among ourselves, we could call the product whatever we wanted when we bought and sold it, but "garbage" and "junk" weren't commercially viable sales descriptions. A rose smells just as sweet by any other name. Pornography has had its share of real stinkers, regardless of the pretty words we put on the invoices.
Is Nina Hartley still our only representative to mainstream media. Mainstream media has kicked Nina Hartley around for years. She's one of the few entrusted to guarantee a sex-positive sound byte, and she's still pulling out the canned material she relied upon when she appeared on talk shows in the late 1980's. What about the proliferation of increasingly more crude product? The emphasis on anal sex? Do the commentators close their Nina Hartley segments with "Nina's sex-positive tapes represent only a droplet in the bucket of smut, with thousands more videos, with titles such as "cum-slurping anal f--- cunts" increasing every day."
Traci "crossed over" fifteen years ago, guys! Hers is not an industry success story -- it was a one-woman revival of "porn chic," and apparently a fluke (which rhymes with Luke...who wishes to embark on a similar journey through his exploitation of pornographers and their excesses).
Everyone is treated like s--- in the porn business -- there's no one gender that gets preferred treatment. Holding performers responsible for the policies of the manufacturers is like blaming the secretaries at Microsoft for Bill Gates' software monopoly. People at the bottom rung of any business are the exploited, not the exploiters.
I feel far less exploited when I receive $400 for a few hours' sex work, even when it involves having Dave Hardman's dick up my butt, than I do making $280 for forty hours' work at minimum wage, only to profit a guy who is just socially irresponsible as the average pornographer. Why is lousy fast food more socially acceptable than bad porn? It takes me months to create a good movie which I can sell for a profit of a couple of grand but, for the same money, I can do five bottom feeder f--- scenes in five days and take six weeks off.
Luke, you wanted to be an economist. How can we separate out the economics of one industry from those of the capitalistic market at large, especially since porn now plays by the same rules as the rest of American business?
Lynne L-patin writes AVN reporter Mark Kernes, and sends me a copy of the email: Thanks for your time on the phone. Good to talk with you. Please don't take offense to my cc Luke. We've just come to that place in our relationship where, if I feel the need to hide something, I probably shouldn't be doing it anyway.
I don't read RAME either, nor do I read geneross or avn, because I don't care, for one, and because I don't have the time, for another. For that matter, I've not read Luke's book because, as I told him last week, I'd be too busy picking out the errors and laughing.
Having had a ringside seat at the "truth" for years, as you know, makes the correspondence of the uninformed irrelevant to my opinions except when it comes to marketing, which is no longer my concern. Do I miss porno? Oh, yes! Would I be back in a heartbeat? Probably. Would I choose a fabulously successful career in porn over continuing my relationship, such as it is, with Luke? Hell, no! There actually is a "private" Luke, whether he knows it or not. I am fortunate -- I have access to both.
Does having a relationship with Luke invalidate me, my knowledge or experience? Hardly. No more so than my perceived unattractiveness or my current sabbatical from pornography or even my advanced age....(all l-keford threads).
Scanned the "update" material. FYI, Gene had a couple opportunities to investigate "the truth" regarding me (I can only speak for truth regards that which I actually know) and did not do so. Maintained party line. His "credibility" is only partially related to his actions. Gene may be "more credible" than Luke, but that doesn't mean he gets it right, or allows free expression. He's just as full of s--- about a lot of stuff, only it has a different odor about it. Again, based on personal experience only. Gene adheres to party line philosophy regardless of truth and Luke babbles every which way regardless of truth, then says he doesn't care or truth is irrelevant or whatever. AVN chooses to ignore my body of work for political (read "personal") reasons; Luke ignores my body of work for personal reasons, some of which he shares with me. And I'm not just talking about the sex scenes I've done.
So which is more evil? To ignore me professionally despite my best professional efforts, and to freeze me out of contributing to the dialogue or the business? Or to include me and respect me and let me speak for myself?
No apologies for Luke's bad behavior but just to point out that if AVN weren't so wrapped up in itself as the sole arbiter of truth and good taste that it doesn't present an objective view of its purported subject matter, Luke wouldn't be perceived as a legitimate alternative, but just another jealous, ignorant outsider. I'll address Luke directly re the "good gossip/bad gossip issue." I don't think Gene would understand.
Lynne writes Luke directly:
From what you described, the entire [Laurie Holmes] suit will be thrown out. It's called the First Amendment, I think. Amerson (old friend of Bruce's, of course), especially in his current incarnation, should be able to depose as to his personal knowledge that Laurie turned tricks. You and Russ are media.
Rabbi Boteach from your site: For starters, couples should not rush into sex before marriage. They don't need to test sexual compatibility: If they care deeply enough, the sex will be great. And women shouldn't indulge the "male fantasy" that he's "not ready" for marriage.
"If a man is ready to have sex, to allow a woman to become emotionally dependent on him, and if he is financially stable and not criminally insane, then he is ready to get married."
You don't appear to be criminally insane to anyone but XXX; you are NOT financially stable (especially with pending lawsuits. You may never be "financially stable," but I seem to remember "for richer or poorer" as one of the traditional marriage vows); you have definitely allowed me to become emotionally dependent on you and seem to be encouraging me to continue to be so; and I have no idea if you are "ready" to have sex, with or without marriage.
The Rabbi missed "and in turn, to become emotionally dependent on that woman." And didn't mention anything about being ready to parent children which may result from that marriage. (I don't know if planning to postpone children until later or not at all is "wrong" under Jewish tradition, or if parenting adopted children is less "sacred" than propagating one's own).
Am I fantasizing that you are not ready for marriage or, in your case, is that a realistic position?
Are you telling me that for, yourself, you want to have sex only within the context of marriage (religious, civil or both)?
Luke: I'm not sure how many of my dating peers, male or female, would take that advice to heart.
Whether or not marriage is the goal, I think you need to continue dating because you need to practice your social skills and have contact with women outside porn, if only for a breath of fresh air now and then. I don't "date," but having sex with XXX proved to me that, without an emotional context such as you and I have developed with each other, it isn't worth it.
The sex will always be great for me, because I orchestrate it and ask for what I want, but the aftermath will never be any good at all unless the relationship has already been right for some time.
Could your position be restated: "I don't want to have sex until I'm married, and I'm not ready to be married until I'm sure about myself and that I'm capable of making a good choice, because marriage is supposed to be for life and there's not a lot of room for mistakes."
I would redefine "life" not as chronological physical existence, but as a spark within the relationship that is either nurtured or that is allowed to go out. Once it's out, the marriage is "dead" and divorce becomes the emotionally mature reaction. Mistakes are allowable. Divorce, when there are children involved, is not a happy situation. It always shakes their world.
Bruce and I were married for life, and for death. Never thought I'd be a widow. Always thought we'd bump along and eventually end up angry, bored and divorced. The cancer changed that. All we had was love. There was plenty. Got us through. Physically separated by death.
I only hope that as wrong as Bruce was about Dave Hardman, he was equally wrong about you.
Luke, I am so very happy with our relationship right now that I can't imagine looking for something else. I'm happy with me and happy with my life. That's what I saw at CES, when there were literally thousands of men around and I didn't see anything of them as having the potential to offer me what you and I already had. Maybe it takes having had a whole lot of sexual experience to realize that ultimately it isn't all that important? Or is that just an expression of my anarchistic need to learn everything first hand for myself, after having learned how just how fallacious and hypocritical institutions and the people who participate in them are?
I think this ramble is leading somewhere...don't take offense...like as to whether our current relationship is a prelude to "marriage?" Or whether maintaining our relationship is a deterrent, to keep us from finding "suitable" marriage partners while we enjoy something we don't expect to find elsewhere?
Just for the sake of discussion, and putting aside my looks, age, etc. (all of which seem to be important in the context of our relationship to everyone but me), nothing in MY life would change if we were "married," other than spending a little more money on travel expenses which I don't have right now. And that would be just for the counseling, ceremonies and occasional sex.
I would, of course, consent only to an EXTREMELY ascetic ceremony, especially in Jewish terms, because I believe that marriage is a commitment between two people and, as necessary, with their god(s). No capitalistic circus of displayed discretionary spending to impress the rabble with the "depth of commitment." (Just kidding...I would never get married without a $20,000 dress and a $10,000 ring and a $10,000 luxury honeymoon and a whole lot of baked whitefish...)
Russ would have to approve.