Tuesday, June 27th, 2000

Porners Police Yourselves Or Big Brother Will

Curious clarifies: Concerning the on going censorship debate. The porners have yet to respond to the key part of my letter of June 26: "It seems logical that at some point the government will intervene and harshly if the porners do not show some self-restraint." Is that a reasonable assumption especially in an election year bereft of real hot button issues?

I understand the industry's opposition to censorship. Yes, it is a slippery slope, but I still say you will all hang together if you do not visibly and vocally distance yourself from the piss, spit and (gulp) s---. If porners do not wish to police the industry themselves then they leave only the government to do it for them. Do you really want that?

ps JD thanks for correcting my spelling AZZ WHOLE!

Fire In The Hole

Jay: Hey Luke, I just got through watching the new Amber Lynn flick, man I don't care what anybody says, she is the sexiest, hottest, and most incredible chick that has ever done porn, wouldn't you agree???

Hume writes on RAME: God, what a crappy video. Amber Lynn does one (and only one) scene. Her body looks okay if you can overlook the huge fake breasts, but her face looks hard and sculpted after what seems like too-much plastic surgery. The rest of the women in the women are the scariest looking skanks I've ever seen collected in one place. This video is a must-avoid.

Monica: Hard and sculpted? Considering the fact that Amber had one of the ugliest faces in the history of porn, I shudder to think of what she must look like now. She and her brother seem to share some genetic encoding with a Big Mouth Bass.

Silver Linings

Manager Lucky Smith (Adultdiary.com, risque.com) writes: Luke, I wanted to clear the air a bit about these delightful rumors. While I am not presently dating Cheyenne Silver, I want you to understand that I would certainly be willing to -- if you think it would help the article. What can I say? I'm a giver . . .

Luke: It would definitely help my article. Please do.

Whatever Happened To Leanna Hart?

PRR: I am wonedring if you ever ran a follow up story on Leanna Heart? The last I heard of this woman was a news update on your site, which told of possible abduction in Hawaii last summer.

Luke: She lived on a yacht in Southern California, as in a couple of months ago. She was out of the business, living off the generosity of a dentist.

SexTracker's Andy Edmond

XXX: "I'm friends with Andy Edmond. And I got this email from his secretary. 'Andy Edmond of Flying Crocodile Corporation wishes to speak to you. Please call me to arrange a time to speak with Mr Edmond.' What? This guy's ego..."

Size Does Matter

Lorenzo: Hey Luke I witnessed a not so natural act in porn recently. This guy Jack Napier is scary. I watched "There's something about Jack"#7 the other day and let me tell you this guy is not human! How can a woman take the size of this guy. I mean don't get me wrong every guy wants to be well endowed but this guy is ridiculous. It showed scenes from the previous videos in the series and I think this starlet's name is Shauna Edwards but this woman took him in her ass almost all the way! One actress Stryc-9 or Cherry couldn't take this guy at all at the end of this movie. I don't know if it was in the script for her to pretend like it wouldn't fit but man this guy is huge!!!If you decide to post my email I hope your readers will decide to see for themselves. I don't really want to watch anymore of this guy's movies because they look like they are really in pain. I would love to see this guy f--- Janine or Jenna Jameson or one of those untouchable porn starlets!!

RMH writes: Luke i've seen it on your site a million times that if an "A-list" star does interracial that her career would suffer! BIG TIME! please give me an example of this. Alisha Klass, Nina Hartley and many others seem to be doing fine to me!

Angry Dykes Demolish Luke F-rd

Luke: Dear readers, please visit the Is She Gay posting board and give these angry dykes some dick.

Lynne: Dear readers, if, after that, you have any dick left over, please bring it to Oregon. I'm not angry, definitely not a dyke, and Luke will be in Israel for three weeks.

152.163.194.188 writes on the Is She Gay posting board: I have been reading Luke F-rd's site and one of the things it said on there is that most lesbians look like s--- and they are only lesbians because they can't get men. Also the idea that lesbians are merely women who actually are waiting for dick and are with women until they find dick. Now this seems to be the prevailing attitude about lesbians by straight men and it really pisses me off. What is it about hetero men that makes them so insecure that they are unable to believe there are women out there that actually don't want them and are lesbians because they are actually attracted to women? And also what pisses me off is the idea that real lesbians can never be attractive.

Lynne: Dear 152: There are no heterosexual men on Luke F-rd's site, only moronic losers who can't find their dicks unless they gotta wee-wee REAL bad. Seriously, why do men find it odd that women could be could be attracted to women? Because they, themselves, are not heterosexual, but closet faggots of the woman-hating kind? Who don't find women attractive and can't imagine how ANYONE could, let alone other women? Not only do these guys think that REAL lesbians can never be attractive, but these guys don't believe that REAL WOMEN could ever be attractive, to anyone.

63.178.68.94 writes: As one male fan of this board, I beg you not to judge my sex on the basis of ANYTHING Luke F-rd says-it's my informed opinion that the man is flat-out nuts...As for the hetero-male/lesbian take of Mr. Ford's, I highly disagree; and let me suggest that across this apparent gulf these women and men have much in common-whatever it is we all find attractive about those special women in our lives (and to let you in on a little secret-in my experience, despite conventional wisdom, smarts and personality count as much as T&A ever do-time and time again I've seen men ostensibly of Luke F-rd's mind-set happily end up with women they might label ugly [here I refer to those least savory forms of male bonding]).

Lastly, to get back to the theme of this board, if a female celebrity I'm attracted to is rumored or confirmed to be involved with another woman, I'm not threatened but on the contrary either turned-on (we all know the prevailing male fantasy) or relieved. Much better then to end up in the arms of some air-headed pretty boy who is the very definition of dubious celebrity, right? To carry the point a little further, I find Jodie Foster and Anne and Ellen all quite attractive; I don't conclude all they need is hetero-sex to fulfill themselves-that people are so bewildered by the spectrum of human desire is, well, bewildering to me. Oh, and if the Oregon Citizens Alliance (a group of right-wing lunatics who are a pox on my beloved home state) sponser another anti gay-rights bill this fall (as they are threatening to do), I'll vote "nay" as I've done (with glee) the previous half dozen times they've tried to sell their drivel. To conclude, remember, even when the whole (or at least close to half) world may seem united in contempt, you always have unexpected but loyal allies somewhere.

Dear 63: So discerning you are! Luke IS nuts, especially when it comes to women. His idea of good sex is to be rejected after the first date so he can run home, e-mail me and jack off. Seriously, you have made my day -- you have given me hope that some day, Luke and I may end up together, despite the fact that he will always have to be the Gorgeous Bitch in the relationship. On the other hand, I notice that you are from Oregon. As I mentioned above, Luke will be out of the country for a month, so perhaps we can arrange a threesome with one of those luscious female allies you surely have attracted with your safe and sane attitude.

Shane: To say that most lesbians are lesbians b/c they can't get any d*** is crazy. In my experience, most of the lesbians I know have been with men....and they just realized that was not for them. Besides no one is to ugly to get some.......there are some men out there that will f**k anything that walks by

Dear Shane: But did you get their phone numbers, and will you share? I am far too old & ugly, according to my fellow morons, to look forward to a life with live human sexual playmates in it. Amazing what twenty-five years of life will do to a 19-year-old Penthouse model....

Jane: You gave yourself the answer. Some men are terribly insecure. They spout off thinking it makes them sound macho when in fact it makes them sound like pathetic little boys with tiny dicks no woman would ever want.

Ben writes Luke: Hi Luke, I just read on your site about the lesbian PROBLEM! Im sure my input will help all the guys that read these sad stories from the lesbians that post on Luke F-rd. Now for the Bull Dykes,there is nothing we can do about that. Its a gene problem. But how ever! All us STUDS (like 99%) that read Lukes site. There is a very good reason WHY those nice looking chicks go running to those bull dykes. 1)- As men,we have to respect there LIMITS 2)- Fight the urge to put it in all the way. 3)- It may surpise you to know, most chicks do NOT like to have there cervix pounded. 4)- Go gentle on them, we have too many lesbians already. 5)- And guys,Its better to have a little less fun,than to turn out one more lesbian. They all tell you they are lesbians,but never the reason WHY? Now you know WHY?

Dear Ben: Glad to know you are a stud. Have you ever put it all the way in? Dave Hardman never has a problem pounding a chick's cervix! (He uses his fingers first, to ascertain the measurements of the cavity, and then "pulls" his thrusts to correspond to the excited, elasticized vagina.) Not only do I like it all the way in, and hard as possible, but I know all the positions which allow for deepest penetration. Too bad I have to resort to women.... Hell, too bad I have to resort to my hand and fantasies of Luke in shul reading porno while others pray.

Curious: To be fair it must be said that a frequent contributor made those horrible comments and not Ford himself, nevertheless, he published them. I say we submit photos of ourselves just to prove how beautiful we are. Shall I pose in my red flannel shirt and overalls or my blue flannel shirt and overalls? I'm thinking the red shirt as it contrasts nicely with my forearm tattoo of Janet Reno. Agree?

Gina: You could get racy, and just go with the overalls!

194: In case you haven't figured it out yet dear, Luke F-rd puts up tons of troll articles and opinions on purpose just to get a rise out of people - that's the whole game of his site. And folks just walk into it... that's where the entertainment part begins :)

Chaim: Luke, be sure to call in to Bob Berkowitz and introduce yourself to Amy Sohn as the Jew with the Gentile Genes by way of Australia. Mention that you were a finalist groom for "Who wants to marry a multimillionaire." She may be dating a man, but then he is just a shagetz, and as per torah law, you have dibbs on her over him.

Then call in to that pisser of a jewess, Annie Sprinkle! Ya know, when she was young, she was enough woman to satisfy even the gentlemen of Mr. Marcus - and me! Someone here once called her a jewish sexual beast, and he was not off the mark. A quivering mass of fornicating flesh, and all real female. She is a very nice woman even today, but as she packed on the pounds and lost some of her looks, she went gay. A sad life trajectory, that many of the women on that dyke board should pay heed to. (Please do not print the above paragraph - it is lashon hora!)

Luke: I think Amy is naive and too liberal for me. I heard Chaim call in as "Shmuel from Brooklyn."

Marilyn Star No Show

Ben writes: Hi Luke, The courtroom was ready in Vancouver, Can. today. Marilyn Star as we know her best by, was a NO SHOW! She is on $50,000.00 bail, I can see her point why she did not show up. Who would go to some Wall Street PR -TRIAL,when the weather in Vancouver was sunny and in the low 80s. It was HO HUM,lets try it 2 weeks from now. I believe it to be July 12,when she has to show up again.

Tina Cheri Change?

John writes: Luke, a little help here, I met Tina Cheri a few weeks back dancing at a club and chatted with her about upcoming projects. She mentioned that she would be doing a scene with Lex Steele soon, now correct me if I am wrong Luke, did you or did you not do an interview with her or post one with her on your site a few months back? I remembered it and recall her saying she was not doing interracial, because she was not attracted to black guys, is my memory correct? She went on in the interview to say she has black friends back in Tennessee and that was that, when I asked her about the interview she acted as if it did not happen, asking me if I was sure, am I wrong or is she doing a quick change of lies?

Luke Gets Mail

John Arnold writes: Hey Laura, regarding your message on Sunday--you seem to be an authority on the 'sexual prowess" of black men. Are you a black dick sucker? You hate white males, that's obvious, especially white males who don't make enough money to be in your social class. You are such a racist yourself; you feel it's acceptable to hate any white guy, just because he is white and male. (If he's gay he's okay). You're a knee-jerk-liberal-type racist. You also are very sympathetic to lesbians. So are you a carpet muncher? You're the Jewish girl who works for a porn company doing their web site, who posted messages a couple of months ago on Luke F-rd, right? If you like black men so much, why don't you get yourself a black pimp and walk the streets for him? Or go kiss black ass in Macy's window. Would you stick up for the "physically superior" black man if you were the victim of a rape/beating by half a dozen black males?

Laura: IN response to John Arnold, no I don't hate white guys you worthless shmuck, only the typical, right wing degenerate, racist, misogynist filth that post on this site. Thank God most white guys aren't like you. And yes I am sypathetic to lesbians as well as gay men for that matter. And you obviously have me confused with another Laura because I am not in the porn business. And yes I am proudly a liberal.

John: Laura, I want to eat you out. I bet you have a nice, hairy bush and a juicy pussy. I want to eat it while you talk filthy to me, like you did in your post. I want to make you cum, baby. Just shoot your load all over my f---ing face. Then I'll scew you nice and hard until I get my rocks off. Yes, I bet you are good looking, and love to have that hot pussy of yours eaten. I'm sure it would be so hot having sex with you. Thanks for your response, darling, it gave me a hard-on!

Luke: Chaim, What do I have to do to get you on my radio show Wednesday night?

Chaim: If you got that jewess cindy margolies to stop by and have hot monkey sex with me all day wednesday, I would do it. And if you ever get yourself a real radio show, I am willing to make an appearance of sorts.

Now Who's Being Pedantic?

Chaim Amalek writes: JDC isn't the only one who can play this game:

1. Someone writes that "Curious is right, it's all fun & games until someone 'cums' up with some new disease like "Eye Herpes" or "Nose Syphilis" (Forgive the spelling - but I really don't care if I ever learn to spell THAT word!)"

In fact, there is such a thing as eye herpes. It is called ocular herpes, and strikes when the virus becomes lodged in the optic nerve, which can happen by the transfer of suitably diseased fluid to the eye. (I am sure that you can all guess how that comes about.) This is a very serious condition.

Syphilis is very contagious, everywhere. Stick your nose, with its warm, moist mucus membranes, into some warm, dank place that it should not be (as because it is crawling with the spirochetes that cause the Great Pox) and you might pull out with more than some extra goo. Of course, this never happens in porn, as all who make porn are as free from disease as a cloned, test tube baby.

2. LF pedant and music critic J.D. Considine writes concerning that newly influential Jew Abe's suggestion of a Hayes Code for porn:

"No amount of rules, nor any form of government, has ever been able to make people behave, or guarantee justice, or turn this world into the orderly paradise control fans like Curious yearn for. Change of that sort occurs one person at a time, and cannot be imposed from without."

RUBBISH! JD first sets up a straw man, that the only laws worth imposing are those that are effective all of the time, with perfection and preferably instantaneously. Of course no such law has ever existed and likely none ever will. Nevertheless, the underlying point of all laws is to make people behave, not to create an earthly paradise. The sad fact that not everyone obeys the prohibition against rape does not mean that laws against rape are without social utility. And while federal laws have not rid the U.S. market of child pornography, there is a lot less of that than there would be if the stuff were legal. The sad fact is that the reason kiddie porn is not available at your local video wanker hut is not because there is no demand for it, but rather because the legal consequences to trafficking in it are rightly extreme.

As for change only occurring one person at a time, and never as a result of the imposition of force, I concede that the best change is that brought about at the individual level. But often that does not occur, or it occurs only on unacceptably long time scales. I ask JD to inquire as to what brought Jim Crow to an end in the South - the sudden mass conversion of all southern whites, or the arrival of federal troops to back up tough court decisions that were deeply unpopular in the south? The truth is that JD's arguments are intellectually dishonest because he knows better (I hope).

JD then argues that the hardest part about enforcing such a code would be the lack of a central authority to impose it. "How, exactly, would this be enforced? . . . . Nor is there the equivalent of a Blockbuster chain to enforce standards through ubiquity and market clout. No, porn is an industry of mavericks and independents"

Luke, you can speak to this. Who controls the distribution of porn in this country? What was that - did you say "La Cosa Nostra?" Do you think they have any say about what gets distributed? Yeah, there is also the internet, but a rejuvenated Tipper Gore influence Justice Department, with Clinton tool Janet Reno retired to pasture, surely would have lawyers smart enough to tackle that one.

Finally, I do not think JD is practicing moral relativism (another straw man). But clearly, he is guilty of anti-semi-ism towards me. My arguments are as real as words can make them, and more honestly heartfelt, for Chaim Amalek need not fear retribution from those whom he depends upon to earn a living. You, on the other hand, become more reliable - and thus more constrained - a tool of the cultural elites the higher you rise in their system. That is true of virtually everyone who works for the mainstream press. Your employers know who you are and the parameters within which you are likely to write; that was one of the necessary (though not sufficient) hurdles you had to pass before getting your current job. And a great job it is! You are not likely to risk losing it all by writing anything that would really piss off our cultural elites. As I am no hero, I suspect that I likely would not if I were lucky enough to be in your shoes! Peace.

Chaim Amalek - As real as words can make him

Playing The Game

JD Considine writes: Luke -- OK, Chaim. Want to mince words?

Let's start with the overstatement of your initial thrust: "JD first sets up a straw man, that the only laws worth imposing are those that are effective all of the time, with perfection and preferably instantaneously." Um, no. What I said was that imposing laws would not make people behave, the point being that no amount of legislation will rid the world of the sort of (at the moment entirely legal) behavior Curious objects to. All that laws do is draw a line in the sand, and suggest specific punishment for stepping over that line. As for the efficacy of such an approach, would Chaim be fool enough to argue that imposing the death penalty in Texas has produced reduction in the murder rate proportionate to less blood-thirsty states? I'd be greatly amused to see the statistical wiggling necessary to support *that* argument.

Then, this: "The sad fact that not everyone obeys the prohibition against rape does not mean that laws against rape are without social utility." What was that about straw men, Chaim? I never said or suggested that laws were without social utility. But there's a difference between establishing prohibitions and punishments for non-consensual acts like rape, and wanting to prohibit young women from accepting money for letting desperate guys ejaculate onto their faces.

In what appears to pass for a mortal blow, Chaim writes: "My arguments are as real as words can make them, and more honestly heartfelt, for Chaim Amalek need not fear retribution from those whom he depends upon to earn a living." Chaim, what makes you think my bosses waste their time reading l-keford.com? Aren't you grossly overestimating the importance of this tiny corner of the web? And wouldn't you think that the fact that I'm included in Luke's "Stars" index would have already "silenced" me, were my bosses so concerned?

(Personally, I'm disappointed that being listed among porn stars hasn't directed a stream of young nubiles toward me, but that's another issue entirely...)

As for Marc Putative's dismissive comments about "teenage music," it seems to me that anyone who would lump together Elvis Presley, Mick Jagger and Bruce Springsteen as being exemplars of "deviant behavior" has wound up on the fringes of popular culture reporting for a reason.

Now stop boring your regular readers with this mock-intellectual pissing match, OK?

Luke: JD, are you implying that l-keford.com readers are more interested in pussy than intellectual discussions?

Putative Jew Putative Takes Bait

Marc Putative writes: for once, chaim has baited me. i thought nothing of j.d.'s retort to curious, since it's coming from a rock critic, something that i once branded myself but only sporadically practice these days, and remain quite resentful that i never scaled the respectability level of mr. considine. but consider that he is a grown man who writes about teenage music, where aberrant behavior is considered artful, rage against the machine are spoken about in hushed reverent tones, and the deviant behavior and diabolical messages of everyone from elvis to jagger to springsteen is absorbed as gospel. i know that j.d. is capable of cutting much deeper, but the knee-jerk liberalism of his comments ain't gonna sit well with the cynically fundamentalist jews who hang around here. in a village voice pazz & jop poll a few years back, i think it was greil marcus who was foreboding about rupert murdoch employing a right-wing rock critic for one of his papers, as if that'd be doomsday. well, i've been waiting ever since to come across such a job posting.

how dare the great j.d "sht" considine accuse me of being on the fringes of popular cultural reporting ... for i am unable to appear on the l-keford radio hour Wednesday night as i have to write a story about the poison/dokken/cinderella/slaughter concert. what draws the masses to care for this music, the aural equivalent of pornographic cinema, is much more intriguing to me than whatever mythical free speech battles all of those deviant aging intellectuals out there are indulging in.

More Worms and Flies for JD to Munch

Baltimore Sun Columnist JD writes: "What I said was that imposing laws would not make people behave . . . . All that laws do is draw a line in the sand, and suggest specific punishment for stepping over that line."

Chaim Amalek writes: Laws do more than suggest how people ought to behave. Taken together with the punishments that they are always bundled with, they make most people behave most of the time, and better than they otherwise would in their absence. That's why we have laws.

"As for the efficacy of such an approach, would Chaim be fool enough to argue that imposing the death penalty in Texas has produced reduction in the murder rate proportionate to less blood-thirsty states?"

Were say, the state of Maryland foolish enough to do away with laws against murder on the theory that imposing such laws "would not make people behave", then Texas with its capital punishment would indeed be a safer place Maryland. JD, I was not touting capital punishment; you were suggesting in another context that laws do not affect human behavior. Not a straw man on my part - bad reasoning on yours.

Where JD really gets interesting and shows us that he is, after all, just another journeyman goy who works in a jewish-controlled media world, is where he addresses the importance of your little corner of the internet. He notes that it is unlikely that his bosses read l-keford.com, and that even if they did, they would not care less what he posts here. He points to the presence of his bio on your site and his continued employment as proof. And aren't they?

Well JD, no. First of all, nothing in your bio on the site, and nothing that you have ever said here, is troubling to the people who control the Sun or Rolling Stone or any other gig you have going. Professionally, you write about popular music, which most of the alte kockers who control media do not regard as having much potential for threatening their position in America. (The ONLY exception to this is the sort of music the racist hater Pierce's label puts out. Music that denigrates black women as ho's and bitches is distasteful to them but still fundamentally acceptable, if only on commercial grounds. After all, a shvartze is just a shvartze. So what if the colored want to talk about their mothers and sisters that way? Music that attacks the sensibilities of Jews is so forbidden that the issue of potential lost profits in ignoring it never comes up.)

JD, are you asserting that you are free to say whatever you want here, since this is an unimportant place on the net, and that there can be no repercussions that adversely impact your ability to earn a living? Let's put this to the test - two propositions:

1. no one you answer to will ever learn of anything that you post here; and

2. even if they did learn of it, so long as you continue to do a good job of writing about pop tunes, you will continue to be able to write for establishment publications.

A perfectly testable set of assertions. Here is what I propose. First, you post to this web site, under your name, something that is likely to offend your bosses, but that has nothing to do with your work as a a pop-tune critic. (But remember, your bosses are not just your editors and publisher, but also the advertisers they must answer to.) For example, you could review the movie about Frank Luechter ("Dr. Death") and state that he and David Irving have convinced you that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Or, if that is too extreme, you could read "The Bell Curve" and write that it seems to you that black people really are not as smart as white folks, and that this is the result of genetic differences between the respective populations. Not that you would really hold such views - I propose that you do this only as a test of the consequences to your income stream of announcing such views to LukeLand. Anyone want to bet against me by asserting that the Baltimore Sun does not find out about this in 48 hours, or that even if they were to find out, JD would get to keep his job, or that even if he lost his job that he would be able to obtain comparable employment elsewhere?

Luke, JD has a great gig going writing for the Baltimore Sun and various establishment papers, the kind that garner advertising revenues from Fortune 500 companies and local supermarkets. I have never read his work there, because I do not live in Baltimore and am not interested in what anybody has to write about pop tunes as music, but I am sure that he does at least as credible a job of it as anyone else. And I really enjoy reading his contributions to your web site. The guy really can write and edit just like a professional writer. (You would do well to study his stuff, Luke, especially the ed it ing part). I respect the position that he is in, and do not expect him to flush it all down the toilet by ever publicly taking positions on issues that would render him both unemployed and unemployable. I know that I too, would be very circumspect, were I in his shoes. Thinking back to your earlier proposal for a book on Hollywood, I just wish that he would stop trying to tell you to stop writing or publishing material about those things that he does not have the freedom to honestly address himself.

Peace to one and all.

PS If this sort of discussion bores anyone, he might prefer MrMarcus.com.

Music critic J.D. Considine writes: OK, let's take this point-by point. First, I am not a Baltimore Sun columnist. My title is music critic.

Second, the reason we have laws is not to make people behave, but to provide a template for social order. What's the difference? Consider traffic. There's no moral issue involved in which side of the road one drives on, nor is there any particular practical advantage to driving on the right over driving on the left. But to ensure that traffic flows smoothly and orderly, some consensus is needed. Hence traffic laws, which provide rules and penalties to keep traffic moving in an orderly fashion.

As for criminal and civil law, I would argue that these exist not to prevent people from robbing and killing, but to provide redress for the victims. Criminals don't worry about the legality of what they do, they worry about getting caught. And it hardly matters, from a thief's standpoint, whether he or she is caught by a property owner or a policeman -- caught is caught.

I won't even address the ludicrous bit suggesting that were Maryland to do away with laws against murder, except to point out that doesn't answer my original question.

This brings us to the bit where Chaim asks me to make some outrageous, inflammatory comment to see if posting it would affect my employment at the Sun. This is stupid beyond words. To begin with, I would never -- even in jest -- voice opinions such as those suggested by Amalek. They are vile, hateful and opposed to what I value in humanity. There is no way I would have my name attached to such sentiments. This is not being "circumspect." Amalek asks "are you asserting that you are free to say whatever you want here," and my answer is "yes." But there are some things I simply do not want to say. Ever.

Besides which, what would be the point of making such statement simply to prove I have nerve? What Amalek urges is the intellectual equivalent of one six-year old boy daring another to eat his boogers. "If you don't think you'll get in trouble, then go ahead and do it. What are you, a sissy?" Thanks, but second grade was way too long ago for me to fall for that sort of thing.

Still, if it's proof I'm not afraid to speak out against my "corporate masters," perhaps the following will prove informative. The Sun is a union shop, and when the contract before the current one was being finished, we had a meeting to vote on what management was offering. None of us expected a generous deal, so when a reporter from the local alternative weekly covering the event asked me what I thought, I jokingly answered, "Well, I came here expecting to be butt-f---ed. My only concern is whether there'll be rectal bleeding." Naturally, I never imagined such a profane comment to see print, but print it they did. Now, keep in mind that the Sun itself not only doesn't print profanity, but won't allow even mildly coarse language (e.g., "that sucks," "old fart," etc.). Even so, I not disciplined for the remark. In fact, management said nothing to me at all about my language -- because the remark was in another paper, not the Sun.

Chaim: "As for criminal and civil law, I would argue that these exist not to prevent people from robbing and killing, but to provide redress for the victims."

Does JD really believe that criminal penalties against say, tax fraud, exist for any reason other than to deter Americans from cheating on their taxes? Again, JD seems to be taking the position that laws and their associated penalties have no deterent value. Does JD believe that eliminating criminal penalties for tax fraud would have no effect on compliance?

To the extent that he is merely defending a mistakenly assumed position that he knows is wrong but that he is not mature enough to acknowledge he should not have taken, JD does well to keep his work centered on the merits of various pop tunes.

JD: Bleats Amalek: "Does JD really believe that criminal penalties against say, tax fraud, exist for any reason other than to deter Americans from cheating on their taxes?"

Yeah, I do. I believe they exist to provide the government with an enforceable means of obtaining the money tax cheats are trying to withold. In other words, "to provide redress for the victims" -- the victim in this case being the government.

Manager Editor Ken Wood Leaves AVN

Bighorn writes: "Luke , just wondering if you've heard about Mike Gogow (aka Ken Wood) getting fired from AVN. Rumor is that he and Gene Ross were getting ready to start a net magazine to compete with AVN, and when Fishbine got word of it, her fired Gogow. I called AVN today, and when I asked for Ken Wood, they transfered me to some woman, so I think he's really gone. If the rumors are true, Ross must be next on the list to get the axe."

Luke: I talked to Gene Ross and he is very much ensconced at AVN. He's got a job for life according to publisher Paul Fishbein, a loyal employer. Gene says that Ken Wood resigned from AVN last Tuesday to pursue his mainstream interests. Meantime, Gene and Rebecca Grey will take over his position.

Gene Ross interview

Gene: "Ken resigned last Tuesday."

Luke: "I heard you were going to start a net magazine to compete with AVN?"

Gene laughs. "There have been all kinds of rumors but no rumors [are true]. Nothing to do with me and Ken. From what I gather, he was ready to go back to mainstream. He was just in for a short period of time. His feeling was, I don't have my roots in the industry. Personally I don't think he felt that comfortable."

Luke: "I can relate."

Gene: "Let's establish a fact - he got along very well with everybody in the industry. He was a valuable asset to AVN. He had an amazing rapport with all the video companies. Everybody liked him and he was very effective in the short time he was there. I just got the impression that at the age of 23 he had his sights set elsewhere..."

Luke: "Who will replace him?"

Gene: "In the interim, Rebecca Gray and myself... She's handling the internal structure of the whole editing process and I'm dealing with the public relations aspect of dealing with the companies."

Luke: "So you're not off to start your own internet magazine?"

Gene: "Christ, I don't even know anything about the internet. Everything I know about the internet, Luke, I learned from you."

Luke: "I'm off to Israel in a few days."

Gene: "That's that singles thing?"

Luke: "Yeah. Thirty four women and fourteen guys."

Gene: "The odds are definitely in your favor this time. If you carry your gun with you, the odds will be even better in your favor. You will eliminate the other 13."

Luke: "I was getting scared last night, so I pulled it out and was fondling it until I went to sleep. I've got it right by my pillow. But I have all my marbles."

Lynne writes: Please make sure you do not get your gun confused with your dick and pawn the wrong one, or haul the wrong one out at some scary robber-type guy. That could be extremely dangerous. Especially in West Hollywood. It is your dick you should be fondling at night. Of course, that might be scary, too. For that matter, hauling out your gun on a date with a nice Jewish professional type could be equally dangerous. Have you noticed that they don't think it's "cool" to have guns?

Jas: lol luke if mangr. editor ken wood was well liked it wasnt' from his coworkers at avn! not from everything i've herd!

Bighorn: Luke, Gene Ross is full of s---. For one thing, a friend of mine at Wicked says that Gogow was down there the day he left AVN looking for a job, and Wicked said no. Also, Gogow has spreading all kinds of s--- about what he's doing now. He told one guy he was going to work for VCA, and then told somebody at VCA that he was going to work for Hustler. Supposedly, he also has been spreading the rumor that was spying for the FBI. Also he told somebody else that he has a bunch of s--- on Paul Fishbine, and he tried to blackmail him. Doesn't sound like the guy wants to go "back to mainstream" at all.

K-Man Runs For Mayor Of Ormond Beach, FL

Keith Gatehouse aka K-Man (from rawpussy.com and nichebucks.com) says: "I'm running for mayor of my city next year of Ormond Beach, next to Daytona Beach, in Florida. I should get free publicity. It will be funny to have a 24-year old pornographer with four earings and fake blond hair running for mayor.

"I'm forming an exploratory committee...which is me going down to the local college to talk to a political scientist... When I should submit my press release. How I should react when people ask about pornography. I'm not going to tell them I am a local pornographer but it will come up. I'm going to tell them that I don't own the websites but that I work for the company that owns them. Technically I do work for a corporation. I'm hoping to get the endorsement of Governor Jesse Ventura. He does have liberal views... He's for prostitution and all that good stuff."

Luke: "Stephanie Swift's boyfriend graduated from high school last Thursday."

K-Man: "My God, what a waste of a woman. She needs a real man. K-man offers himself (webmaster@surfmafia.com). I'll send her a first class ticket out here to Florida and I will put her up with the new Ormond Beach mayor. I'm actually a pretty damn good looking guy."

Luke: "Maybe she will help your political campaign."

K-Man: "That's a good idea. Damn, Luke, you've got to set this up. It would be good publicity for her too. I'm doing this as a publicity stunt. Me and Stephanie Swift on the podium doing a press release. I am officially running for mayor. Umm, your girlfriend is Stephanie Swift. Yes. Porn star. Yes, well, some might view it as that. God, it would go national."

It Tastes Like Chicken, But Is It Legal?

IT TASTES LIKE CHICKEN, BUT IS IT LEGAL? Luke, I will love you forever, but I must confess -- you are indeed way too old for me, now that I've discovered the joy of JAIL BAIT!

When I enrolled in algebra class this summer, part of my program for success was to find a bright young man who could tutor me in subjects mathematical. An alpha male, who wasn't afraid to speak out, and who had a basic grasp of the subject, who could coach me through the anxieties resulting from almost thirty years of math avoidance. After all, when I last took algebra, calculators hadn't been invented and square roots were inaccessible to anyone other than those few geeks who actually knew how to work a slide rule.

I thought I had found my Algebra Boy. Smart, outspoken, asking intelligent questions. I don't know whether I prefer taking a class in which I know more than the teacher, which leads to constant fighting but at least I know whether I am learning or not, to a class wherein I know nothing. The problem is that if I know nothing, I can't evaluate what I am being taught, and I don't know the questions to ask which would help me learn... Algebra Boy seemed to know his stuff. Hmmm....

"Smart," to me at least, is a real turn-on. I remember a few weeks back when Luke posted an essay by someone with a name straight out of H.P. Lovecraft, who bemoaned the fact that there were so few women with IQ's of 120 plus. He reminded us that, even if we went trolling for partners among the relatively intelligent, we were likely to find ourselves dissuaded from pursuing those relationships by other factors (which went unnamed, but are probably just the usual "and she has to look like a supermodel and have zero body fat and be a professional and make lots of money and....")

I don't know why Yggdrasil set his IQ threshold so low, but I concur -- just because someone is capable of keeping up with me intellectually doesn't mean they'll be good relationship material (Luke being a PRIME example). It is difficult to remain modestly feminine while watching a moron fumble about attempting to manipulate the stuff of Life. Like, for example, when I went on the Internet date adventure, with a date who suggested using public transportation though he knew nothing about the system, and I had to figure out the ticket machine for him AFTER we missed the train because I was being so femininely modest that I didn't just go ahead and get the tickets myself.

Yeah, "smart" makes me hot. My late husband was way smart and tested out as the smartest kid in the Michigan school system way back when he was still in high school. I didn't realize that I myself was of above average intelligence until my third year of university thanks to a truly dysfunctional family. One of my teachers had to tell me, after I questioned her grading. "I expect more of you -- you're smart." (I am? If I'm so smart, why can't I get laid? But that is another story altogether...) It's hard to date the usual "stupids" after actually having had a conversation with someone who can follow it. Like I'm asking so very much of a guy...

But back to algebra... I need tutoring, and I need inspiration, and I need dick, so thought maybe I could make a trade -- reciprocal blow jobs, I think they call it, in mathematical terms. And thought I'd found my Algebra Boy...young, intelligent, outspoken...not pretty like Luke, but well built and strong, with eyes full of sparkle and balls enough to speak up in class.

Only....this Algebra Boy is so very smart that even though he's just entering his junior year of high school, he's taking accelerated college classes so he can get to advanced calculus classes ahead of his peers....

Ooops! Shades of Mary Kay Latourneau! Me, the pornographer, the insatiable Dianna Roth, hiding out incognito, masquerading as a harmless old biddy taking community college classes...sitting behind a sixteen-year-old. Thinking lustful thoughts about solving equations and sucking cock...

Poor boy...yesterday he made up an excuse of another class. Today he confessed -- his father picks him up after algebra lets out. He'd never had a compliment on his intelligence from a woman before ("You're a smart boy, aren't you?" "Wha?") I thought he was modest and humble, but no -- this is the real thing! Pure, honest youthful innocence!

I'm writing about this boy on a site he isn't old enough to read....

If only we were in France, where a teenage boy can find an older woman to teach him how good sex SHOULD be, and how to pleasure a woman, so that he can share that knowledge with women his own age... But no -- here we arrest women who understand the needs of testosterone-laden male teens... Seems like babes have achieved equal rights in all areas wherein we can be punished for wanting to act "just like guys..."

Gentle readers, by now you are thoroughly appalled. Somehow the idea of whale-sized, grizzled Chaim Amalek consorting with the nubile and lovely Kendra Jade is status quo, but my gracious and learned introduction of a young male into the delights of adult sexual behavior is beyond the pale. Why would I want a boy, you ask, when I could have a real man? (Luke doesn't count, not that I've "had" him -- we're saving that for marriage. Exactly whose marriage I have no idea...) Because real men are stinky and rude and set in their ways, and boys are tender, sweet and unspoiled? Because a boy might appreciate a sexual encounter, instead of using it as an opportunity to get back at his ex-wife?

Why would anyone want a girl when they could have a woman? Gee, guys, doncha wonder? See, I know you DON'T! "Barely Legal," "19 & Naughty," "Cherry Popppers..." Guys are mesmerized by the presumed sexuality of YOUNG women....even though we females remember ourselves at that age, choking on cocks, hating the whole business, putting up with it just to be able to say that we had a date for Friday night.... Yes, our bodies were fresh and unspoiled, unmarked by childbirth and gravity. Our ignorance of what to expect from good sex led us to allow the exploitation of our tender flesh by careless aged clods intent on their own pleasure, rather than give ourselves unto the fumbling of our pimpled peers.

But we didn't like it, dammit! And drooling old men in their twenties and beyond were disgusting! (Still, they had cars, jobs and dot, dot, dot as Luke likes to say...)

I am very well aware that if I tell this youngster who I am, and what I would really like to do with him (and it ain't differential equations), he will be both disgusted and titillated. Disgusted, because I am his parents' age, and have children older than he is. Titillated, because his virginal meat is fueled by the early stirrings of manly hormones and it wants sucking, even if he doesn't know it!

If I am evil, I am no more evil than Pat Riley and the rest of you porn consumers who are sexually excited by youthful female flesh. In deference to Luke, I think a first sexual experience based on mutual love and desire would indeed be far more preferable than an initiation by a sordid professional type like myself, even if I do know what I'm doing and could take this boy to heights of ecstatic carnal pleasure he may never reach again. Why, we could even have anal sex! How many sixteen-year-olds get a chance to try that!

Gay men understand the beauty of male youth and innocence, and have one hand down their pants in empathy with me as they read this. We aren't talking NAMBLA here, but teen males, with pubic hair, hormones and desire. This is not "sex by eight or it's too late," but healthy lust, for the young and beautiful and unspoiled. And it's totally, absolutely, 100% normal. Right, Pat?

Back when Luke was masturbating in the woods on his way home from high school to pictures of Suzanne Nero and Marilyn Chambers and, oh yes, me...wouldn't it have been a wonderful fantasy to have been discovered by a beautiful, ageless woman, who could have taken his turgid cock into her hot mouth and given him the release he craved so badly?

I rest my case. Actually, I'd better rest my case, because I do believe it is a violation of my probation to have sex with men who aren't considered old enough to consent.

But can I give Algebra Boy my phone number and ask him to call me when he turns eighteen?

Don't you think I would rather be blowing an XXX-teen year old boy than writing you about not blowing an XXX-teen-year old boy? I only had the opportunity to work with Stephanie Swift once, on a Zane set. I would gladly be her high-school boy. I'd be her lap dog...lap, lap, lap, That woman is a gem and a gentlewoman. They don't get any better, folks. In fact, Luke, I'd wouldn't have to think twice -- I would throw you over in an instant for Stephanie Swift.

Being that ALL the better women these days are connecting with young, unspoiled DECENT men (and not you overaged moronic lurkers out there), I would rather have Stephanie's "sloppy seconds" than Bloomingdales' cashmere.

Why isn't XXX (Curious) offering to introduce me to any of his students? Afraid he and JR would be exchanging l-keford trivia in the unemployment line? Better than being me in the pokey, for getting a kid high and blowing him! What can I do? Wait til the last day of class, give him my e-mail address and say, "I've got a present for your eighteenth birthday?"

Curious admonishes: Here's an algebra equation for l-keford.com's sex starved coed Lynne L-patin. A middle aged, hirsute, tattooed ex-porner age is equal to X. Her age is three times the age of a highschool Junior plus six. How old is the middle aged ex-porner? Answer: TOO f---ING OLD TO EVEN THINK ABOUT TOUCHING A CHILD YOU SICK PERVERT ! BTW I'd say the same thing if a man was leering at a 16 year old girl.

Lynne writes: I'm glad to see you people debating censoring my business. Reminds me why we have laws -- to keep the yahoos out of decision-making.

As those who participate in it know very well by now, I am no fan of the Free Speech Coalition. They were started up as a scam and have done NOTHING but suck money away from the adult industry, originally with the late R. Sturman's blessing (to obfuscate the real work the Adult Video Association was doing toward making sure the First Amendment was not invalidated by threat of RICO seizure).

The obscenity law we already have in place is a brilliant one. It keeps people from imposing their pissy little predjudices on others. For those of you who forget, here 'tis: Miller Test for Obscenity:

The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

The work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable law.

A reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.

And, as a reminder: First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

The adult industry is not a "policing body." It is a business. The prurience of the product ebbs and flows with the times. It would never have occured to me, for example, that anyone would get sexually excited seeing mice crushed to death under stiletto heels, but apparently it did to someone, and the tapes sold.

As a woman, I am very leery of anyone telling me what they think should be found obscene. It wasn't that long ago when women's orgasms were deemed non-existent and/or pathological (my mother, who is in her late sixties, was so taught at COLLEGE in the fifties.) Birth control information was prosecuted as obscene in the 1960's. You may not like my orgasmic potential OR my bestiality tapes, but, hey, I don't like your Jim Carrey tapes, or your religious broadcasts, or your football games.

There are two rules of thumb (The rule of thumb, by the way, refers to beating one's wife with a stick of an appropriate thickness rather than with a really BIG stick) when it comes to judging any piece of porn as to its obscenity:

1. Was a crime committed in the making of the video? If so, the video is a record which will serve as evidence IF anyone wishes to press charges.

2. Is the video prurient when community standards are applied?

If you don't like a tape and think it should be found obscene, all you have to do is trot that tape on down to your local law enforcement agency and see if they have an extra half million dollars to prosecute it. If they don't, there are all sorts of "citizens' organizations" which have money to fund obscenity busts IF they get enough publicity from them to raise more money to support the lavish lifestyles required by First Amendment Busters. All you need is twelve citizens who agree with you that bukkake, say, is not acceptable in the community, and whoosh! It's gone.

Meanwhile, I am going to start telling J.D the Music Critic which bands are acceptable for him to write about (Bruce Springsteen is total puke material) and XXX what he should teach in school and Luke F-rd what he may write about. And Ocean Spray what juice to make (lay off the corn syrup, guys), and Proctor & Gamble what flavors toothpaste should come in. Because I know so much about what everybody should do, and watch, and say, that my rules should be enforced and everyone else's opinion counts for s---. (Except for Luke's of course. He is so spiritual he can watch even the most degrading of porn and still be pure and suitable for the most sheltered of Professional Jewish Princesses).

Meanwhile, I've got a great book for anyone interested in the application and final crash of the Hayes "One foot on the floor" Code, called "See No Evil" by Jack Vizzard (1970, Simon & Shuster), who trained at a Jesuit seminary for sixteen years before he went to Hollywood in the 1940's to administer the Code.

Perhaps some day the marketing powers that be will decide that it is too much trouble to make root beer, when colas dominate the market. They will convince us that root beer is somehow undesirable. That it causes birth defects, or mental illness. They will demonize it, as they have guns, drugs and non-custodial parents. We will beg the soda pop companies to police themselves, and to remove the deadly root beer from the market. Some of us will be stunned -- we've been drinking root beer for years and our children are healthy, and we think we are sane.... But, because some one out there might not be able to handle the nonconformance inherent in ordering root beer rather than the socially-acceptable drink, we will go without our favorite flavor to do our part in keeping America safe for Coke and Pepsi.

Politics and Amy Sohn aside, Luke, your definition of conservative is pretty funny, since you yourself can be seen cavorting in the nude with porn girls on the internet. You'll be lucky to find a liberal woman who approves, let alone a conservative one!