Home

Back to Essays



Monday, August 28th, 2000

Max Hardcore at the Movies

Luke. Max here. Many times people ask me what I do when I'm not throat-f---ing whores. Like most people, I enjoy grabbing a big bucket of popcorn and sitting down to watch a good movie at the local cineplex. This weekend, I saw the new cheerleading film, Bring It On, starring that cute little f---hole, Kirsten Dunst. I thought your readers might appreciate my review.

Bring It On is a movie about a group of cock-sockets who compete against a rival school in a rigorous cheerleading competition. Thematically, Bring It On celebrates triumph through unity, respect, and hard work (something we at Max World know plenty about). Plot-wise, it is a compelling story with emotionally driven and complicated characters. But, what truly makes Bring It On a cinematic jewel is its overwhelming and undeniable stroke-value. Bring It On is the best movie I have seen since The Babysitter's Club.

Kirstin Dunst is real cute, and would look great with a facefull of piss and a spectulum in her ass. The other whore in the movie is from the television program, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. She plays a bright, capricious girl who wants to be the best cheerleader. Personally, I think she needs a throat-reaming. And, some lipstick all over her cunt, ass, and mouth so she'll look really cute for the camera. Much like a Hardcore Schoolgirls shoot, the makers of Bring It On spent a lot of time on the wardrobe. Short pleated skirts, pom poms, pigtails, and tight little sweaters, barely concealing the young, tender, budding bossoms of its stars, give this film its heart.

Luke, you have to see this film. Don't wait for video. Watching Bring It On in a theater full of young teenage girls was perhaps the most exhilerating moment of my adult life. Do not deprive yourself of this experience. See Bring It On now. www.maxhardcore.com.

Lysa Stone from Astral Ocean writes: Someone alerted me to Max's review of "Bring it On" because they were trying to point out how gross it was and all I could do was laugh and laugh. I don't know why it is that what he does seems SO sick to me but the man himself amuses me to pieces. He's like Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. He is so gentlemanly and kind to me whenever I see him (much to the chagrin of my David), people just don't understand why I like him. Probably because I haven't watched any of his movies lately, but he still cracks me up...

Kristin Kane writes Max Hardcore: Max i'm sure not a veteran in this biz but I dont see how you get ANY girls to work for you. What do you do feed them full of lies? Turn on the charm and lies like you did when you wanted to shoot me? I am just lucky I had heard about you already! Do you REALLY have to go THAT far?

Sergio writes: I don't know why people love to diss Max Hardcore. I had the chance to accompany him in Rio de Janeiro during his second trip to Brazil, and the guy was a true gentleman all the time. I can't see why he's being reviled everywhere I look.

Maxed Out 20 - Olivia Scene

Bofnyc writes on RAME: I just saw the controversial Max/Olivia scene from Maxed Out 20. The interesting thing is that the last scene on the tape is much much more brutal than the Olivia scene (Max makes a point of having the girl from the last scene do a quick scene at the end of the tape where she says she loved it and nothing was done against her will).

But as for the Olivia scene, it wasn't particularly brutal or anything. It started with Max putting his dick up her ass outside his front door (where are this guy's neighbors??). After a while, he tries to get her to do an ass to mouth and she won't do it. She says "no no no no no". Max sort of pushes her mouth towards his cock, but she resists. She then looks up at him and at the camera man, then gives in and does the ass to mouth. It's pretty compelling to watch. I wouldn't say that they forced her to do it, but I think they made it clear that she should. I would think she would have known before hand that ass to mouth was part of the deal, but who knows. There's more to the story here.

Later in the scene, Max has her upside down and he's forcing his cock down her throat. After a few minutes of this, she tries to get up and says "that's it, I've had enough". But Max just keeps going. I have to admit, that was a bit distrubing. Actually, quite distrubing. Max ignored her when she said she wanted the scene to stop. That's just wrong.

The only other notable part of the scene is when she says something like "god, I'm such a whore" and looks off the set at the camera people as if she's shocked at what she's doing. So overall, the scene I saw wasn't that bad. However, the other factor is the golden shower, which definitely seemed to happen in this scene (I think I even heard Olivia say at one point "you pissed up my nose"). So maybe it was much more brutal than what we saw.

The rest of the video is fairly standard Max stuff. The second scene with China Doll is a bit boring. She's very enthusiastic, but Max has her in the same position for almost the entire scene. As I said, the last scene is brutal. There's some very extreme, to the point of near vomiting, deep throating, and Max actually slaps the girl at one point. Not very hard, but that's a first for Max, as far as I've seen. The girl seems to be crying later in the scene, but I think she was just acting because Max was barely even penetrating her with his tiny dick at that point. And there's more pissing that is cut. Max says he's going to pee all over her face, the scene is cut, and when it continues the girl's face is all wet.

Sex.com Controversy

Dig420 writes on Netpond: I'll bet $100.00 with any and everyone here that Cohen ends up in jail and BROKE b4 this is all over. Kremen gets everything in a judgement.

Kremen lost his bid to get the domain back on the grounds that he owned the domain and it was stolen property, because netsol claimed that domain names are property, just temporary placeholders. Which is bulls---, but we'll just pass on that for now. Still to come are fraud and forgery charges that have to be resolved. If you can prove in a court of law that gains were gotten illegally, they can be confiscated and turned over to the injured party, or the government will confiscate the ill-gotten gains, compensate the injured party to a certain degree and keep the rest. This is what I believe will happen with this case.

The premise for taking Cohen's money and property will be that everything he owns is the result of an initial illegal act, that of forgery. Cohen's background up to the point he jacked sex.com was as a petty thief and paper-hanger. Take away sex.com and he's just another small time hustler too dumb to stay out of jail.

The thing that really burns me is that after blatantly, and I mean BLATANTLY stealing Kremen's domain, he starts suing everyone with 'sex' in their domain name. The balls of that action are just incomprehensible. I mean, that is just nasty, disgraceful s--- right there... he just stole sex.com, he didn't invent the word.

Anytime I think about this case, I put myself in Kremen's position and think about what it would feel like to have sex.com stolen, for everyone in the world to know it was stolen from me, and then to run into this kind of bulls--- trying to get it back. I couldn't take it...

Justreading writes: Dig240, you could possibly be right if Cohen did not hide everything (including the domain name) behind offshore shell companies. He is not going to lose very much, if anything. He may lose the domain name, but i would be very surprised to see that he did not secure his assets quite well.

There are three basic purposes for offshore companies like the own that owns sex.com. The first is privacy. The second is to avoid taxes (or minimize them through various business structures). The third is protect assets against judgements. I am quite sure that he is taking full advantage of all 3. i will take your bet. :-)

How many people in this world that had fortunes extending well into the 9 digits went to jail? not many the odds are well against it and to my knowledge, he is still not facing criminal charges. Isnt that a little strange, considering he is the Internets most famous thief?

KC@paycounter.com writes on Netpond: Technically Cohen didn't steal or take it, he "tricked" NSI into ALLOWING him to use it. I certainly don't condone it or want to defend him for that matter. Using Dravky's auto lease example.. If someone were to "trick" the leasing company into transferring the lease to another party would that party have "stolen" the car from you?? Can someone steal something from one who doesn’t own it in the first place? Of course, this is pretty unrealistic because I doubt it would ever happen with a car lease. In the sex.com case, I say that NSI [Network Solutions Inc] is the responsible party. This whole thing should have been straightened out years ago.. NSI should have returned the domain to the original owner assuming a forged authorization was used to transfer the domain.

Luke Seeks Freelance Work

I seek more freelance writing work so that I can financially keep up with my hot new girlfriend. I won't write for anything less than a dollar a word, with a 1000-word minimum. Email Luke

Mainstream Crossover

Check out the director and star listed on this children's video. Talk about mainstream crossover! Click here: Amazon.com: buying info: Water Babies

St. Louis Post-Dispatch; 08-19-2000 Melanie Griffith tells Paper mag that if her young 'uns ever want to try marijuana, she'll light up with them. Keep in mind that Griffith is an alumna of a detox clinic ...

People mag says Kirstie Alley took her kids (ages 7 and 6) to see a topless act at the Moulin Rouge in Paris ...

Jack Chick Presents - Christian Comics For The Completely Illiterate

The ministry of Jack Chick has touched many of l-keford.com's readers in these past few days. His comic book simplicity brings life to the complicated spiritual concepts laid out in the Holy Bible. We realize that many international readers are not well versed in the English language plus many American porn fans are less than literate and so we present today's installment, "The True Path." NOTE: Jews are advised to skip the Jesus panels #17 -- #25. Click here: The True Path

Amused writes: I don't remember the part in the Bible about Adam and Eve having to wear Fred Flintstone's clothes after they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Also what's with all the drunken Indians marching onto damnation?

File Sharing

Johnathan Kurtzman writes on a non-Jewish note: I've been told - and have checked out for myself - that the various free file storage sites have been clamping down on bandwith usage. This will put a crimp in the way people exchange porn and soft-porn files.

I've followed the "free" file business for a while and one of the big issues is bandwith. They pay for bandwith and the users don't, so it was only a matter of time until these businesses had to shut down those users "hogging' it all.

The way cost drives things is very interesting. Many people have set up sites that link to free storage sites. This takes the big cost of paying for bandwith and dumps it in the laps of these other guys. I doubt that any of these people could afford to pay the hosting charges on their own.

Cost is pushing people toward two alternatives. One is newsgroups, but they don't archive material - at least, not for free - and you can't make money off the postings. Second is a napster like peer to peer file sharing, but that would mean taking direct responsibility for bandwith and I don't see that happening outside a university or other place where bandwith is, for the time being, free.

In other words, it looks like the distribution of porn and soft porn is going to be moving in another direction soon. What that will be is uncertain, but it's possible that pay sites which take on real bandwith obligations may make a comeback. A paysite with lots of cheap bandwith might do very well.

Of course, fairly soon the cable companies and other providers will start to focus on their bandwith hogs and start charging them extra.

Why Do Single Women Vote Democratic?

Why do single women overwhelmingly vote Democratic? Married women vote Republican at the same rate as married men.

The more functional a nuclear family is, the more likely it is to vote Republican. The more family breakdown there, the more single women, the better for the Democrats.

If everybody was happily married with kids, Democrats would not get elected.

Dennis Prager says his hunch is that single women get their needs for a psuedo-husband from the government. Thus Democratic rhetoric - we will take care of you. We will look after you.

Women look to their husband to meet certain primal needs - financial and emotional support, comfort and protection. Just as men look to their wives to meet certain primal needs.

Think about federal funds supporting daycare - a popular Democratic idea. Single women love this because they get someone taking care of their kids on taxpayer money.

Men vote Republican because of its emphasis on a stronger military, stronger justice and the notion that individuals should take care of themselves.

Young Female Caller: You DP say that women must depend on something - either a husband or the government.

DP: There is a primal urge in women to be taken care of. Which is why women who make a lot of money want a man who makes more money, so they can feel taken care of.

Rumdar: There is not. I repeat NOT a primal urge for women to be taken care of. Their is a Lazy urge. They don't want to work anymore than we do. That is why they are so eager to knock out a couple of kids and stay home.

Caller: The primary reason for the gender difference is abortion.

DP: Baloney. Women oppose abortion more strongly than do men.

Caller: Democrats represent the all loving mother - let us take care of you, infantilize you. Republicans are like the father - we have standards and rules and moral demands on you.

DP: Men and women who marry and have kids are matured by the process and do not seek to be taken care of. Therefore they vote Republican.

Rumdar: My take is that single women are working woman and therefore realize that Republicans are going to do nothing for them. No abortions, no bennies, no nothing, Republican women who are married are prob. linked up with some fat cat who is well heeled. They want to hang on to their $$ and feed the rest of us cake.

From the New York Times Ethicist column in the Sunday magazine:

Standing in the supermarket checkout line, I left briefly to get a drink at the nearby fountain. When I returned, my cart had been pushed aside and my place had been taken. I said to the offending lady, "I believe I was ahead of you." She replied, "You left." I then proceeded to push her cart aside and tell her that I do not go for that garbage. What is your opinion? -- Scott Bodin, Suffern, N.Y.

Randy Cohen: My opinion is that if you try this sort of thing with, say, a couple of burly guys at a junkyard instead of with a woman at a supermarket -- well, I hope your health insurance is paid up.

This sounds more like a matter of social custom than ethics, and as I understand the folkways of the supermarket, that lady you bullied was in the right: unattended carts may be moved. It's not a bad rule; she had no idea how long you'd be gone or if you'd be back at all. Without it, shoppers would be tempted to reserve a place in line with a half-filled cart while they strolled through the produce department, inconveniencing all. While that woman would have been generous to let you back in line, she was not obliged to. And if everyone responds to such small slights as belligerently as you did, picking up a little broccoli will become a lot riskier -- and the inspiration for a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.

Dennis Prager: The man was a bully. He would not have pushed in front of some burly guy. I would not have done what she did, but I support her because we should not foster people leaving their carts in line while they go shopping.

Columbus writes Luke: I can't believe that you have this hero-worship thing for Dennis Prager. Dennis Prager is a light weight intellectually. The word "sophist" comes to mind. Most of what he says is not taken seriously by any real thinker in this country. The man is a total fraud. All he has is "chutzpah". And lots of it.

Laura writes: So Dennis Prager believes the more dysfunctional families and single women there are the better it is for Democrats? Were there more dysfunctional families and single women in the '30's and 40's when FDR was president or in the '60's when JFK and LBJ were elected? What Prager is saying is a load of crap. It just so happens a good number of nuclear middle class families vote Democratic because they know the GOP is concerned more for the wealthy, more for the pharmaceutical industry and the health insurance companies than patients, is in the pocket of the oil industry, the gun lobby among other things. There's also a good reason why single women vote Democratic, first of all abortion rights, secondly the GOP opposes women's equality just to name a couple. Dennis Prager is a shmuck.

Unsure writes: Luke, I believe it is true that, demographically, in general the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote for a Democrat. Since more educated women tend to marry later and less, I believe it is also true that, as a group, single women are better educated than the general population. Maybe this also accounts for why, as a group, they tend to favor Democrats?

Luke Gets Mail

Lynne writes: I agree with the Pierce rant, too. A nation with no self-esteem. Promoted by a capitalistic system. If people were happy within themselves, they wouldn't be buying "Stuff." People are made to feel they need "Stuff" to be of value, for their own redemption, for their own self worth. One thing I like about Oregon is that there is less emphasis on having to wear new clothes, have nails....do the office girl thing, where you are allowed to wear any given outfit only three or four times a year...have to wear something different every day, and it always has to be brand new.

My only comment on your Israeli pictures, dear, is that I feel vindicated for always having said that the worst part of having grown up in an abusive household was not the sexual abuse, but not getting the orthodontia that would have allowed me to circulate in my own Jewish peer group, thus knocking me out of the market as a potential date/bride very early on.

Having unimproved teeth identifies me as aberrant (see the photos of your group--advertisements for dentists all...) long before I have to share that I have no acceptable family affiliation (financial or otherwise). Even though it is often presumed that childhood sexual abuse leads to a distaste for adult sex, I personally never found that to be the case. Besides, aren't these Jewish girls with the perfect smiles also known for having a culture-wide distaste for sex?

People ask me why, if I care, I don't go back and have my teeth done at this point in my life. Actually, I tried once during my first marriage but, when that fell apart, I had to use my financial resources for such prosaic needs as food and shelter. Now I do not have enough money for those, let alone a few thousand dollars worth of fancy dental work. But the teeth are an obvious sign of what cannot be seen: that this person was cared for and nurtured as a child, is more likely to have a loving family, is less likely to suffer from the effects of abuse, therefore more likely to have the kind of self-esteem needed within a good relationship. Not to mention having had opportunity and maybe even access to parental financial resources.

Like I always say, there's nothing wrong with my appearance that money won't fix, but there are a whole lot of very pretty people out there who have character flaws no amount of plastic surgery or ortho work could ever cure.