The bankrupt porn company owned by veteran Elliot Segal burned down Sunday. Arson suspected.
Gene Ross raves about Luke F-rd again in the 9/98 AVN editorial.
Luke recommends a new book - Sex American Style by Jack Boulware - about the heterosexual sexual revolution. Available at www.feralhouse.com
[Luke now believes that he was hoodkinked by the following call. It was not Raven McCall. The info is wrong.]
Raven McCall is back in porn. She's a contract girl for Jerry Garfinkle's Impressive Video. "They've given me a one-year contract. The price was right. I'm his girlfriend now so he's [Earl Slate] trying to help me out. I had a bad setback a few months ago. But I live with Earl now... We got together a few weeks ago.
"We shot this movie that will come out in January. I have five scenes in it. I just went on an audition for Easy Rider magazine."
McCall entered the industry in 1994. She's made her living off escort work the past year.
A week ago, Earl told me that he was engaged to Jasmine St. Clair.
.....................................
From www.latimes.com:
Porn Mixes With Politics at State Capitol Law: Lobbyist Kat Sunlove is part of the adult entertainment industry's bid to go mainstream.
By SOLOMON MOORE, Times Staff Writer
Sunday, August 30, 1998
SACRAMENTO--Kat Sunlove, publisher of a sex magazine and a retired dominatrix, is hugging the most powerful man in the state Senate.
Having just missed him at his office, the nation's top porn lobbyist spots "close personal friend" President Pro Tempore John Burton in one of the grand foyers of the Capitol and receives a warm embrace--and a little help on a troublesome bill.
[Editor S. Andrew Roberts: "I gotta figure that Mike Ross [rival lobbyist] shredded the newspaper right after he read the first line of the second paragraph."]
A Sacramento power broker meeting with a porn industry lobbyist, let alone plotting strategy with her, would have been unthinkable a few years ago. But a group calling itself the Free Speech Coalition, which is headquartered in the San Fernando Valley, has entered the lobbying game in pursuit of an audacious goal--the mainstreaming of the multibillion-dollar adult entertainment industry.
Critics see that aim as something far more sinister. It is, as one legislator put it, "turning perversion into politics."
The coalition, often shunned and frequently ridiculed, is no political heavyweight. But Sunlove, the group's paid lobbyist, has learned that even if lawmakers are no friends of pornography, she can enlist their aid against some bills threatening freedom of speech. That certainly is the case on the day she runs into Burton, a San Francisco Democrat.
"I'm worried about this one," she tells him. The bill would empower local governments to restrict sexually oriented businesses and potentially banish them to a far corner of the state.
The legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Martin Gallegos (D-Baldwin Park), had cruised out of the Assembly and appeared headed for a favorable vote in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
"That's not a good place for it," says Burton, chairman of the body that makes committee assignments. "Let's see if we can't get it in the Judiciary Committee."
And a few days after that May meeting, that's exactly where the bill went.
Sunlove considered the original Gallegos bill an illegal limit on free speech. Burton had his doubts too. But by the time a much watered-down proposal emerged from the Judiciary Committee, which Burton also heads, it posed no new legal threat to sex businesses.
With a meager annual budget of $290,000, the coalition acknowledges that it is a marginal player on a political stage dominated by some of the biggest special interests in the nation. Sunlove's strategy is to join hands with those interests--even when they would rather that the pornographers keep their hands to themselves.
As one lobbyist to another, I would like to congratulate the FSC and Kat Sunlove on the story that appeared in the Los Angeles Time dated August 30, 1998.
For the record, the article was shown to me Sunday night when the State Senate was in session by two legislators and three lobbyists, all of which for some reason, laughed and congratulated me on not being "Outed" (as in out of the closet) as the Nation's top Porn Lobbyist.
With that in mind, I would like to officially respond to that article:
1) I am publishing it here, because I was asked too by Luke F-rd. He called me and asked if I would like to publicly respond to the LA Times Article.
2) I was also interviewed by the L.A. Times reporter, but apparently he found me to be "boring or dull," especially since what you read in that story is what I have been doing for over 20 years. Additionally, I deal with a variety of subjects and clients, while she deals exclusively with "porn." In fact, at two specific hearings that the reporter attended when putting together the story, including the Calderon Bill, I testified on behalf of the AEIEF, something that was omitted. What makes it stranger is that on one of the bill's the FSC and AEIEF took different positions.
3) In total my overall legislative agenda ranged from Collectibles to Obscenity definitions to Internet Taxation. In total, my overall agenda contained 263 bills (or about 5% of the overall policy stream). Of that, the AEIEF participated in 47 Bills on behalf of our coalitions members, not to mention participating in local "adult entertainment politics," while I believe she dealt with 15 to 20. While that is a great amount to undertake in just her first year, it is by no means satisfactory because of the precarious position the industry currently rests in. That's why on the day of Calderon's hearings, I testified in support or opposition to 13 or 14 bills while she testified on one. And I am glad I did, not just for my clients, but because the FSC and Kat failed to oppose, testify on, or take a position on two "obscenity bills" up in the Assembly that same week (Washington's and Thompson's).
4) According to the article, the FSC has "a meager budget," yet spent $290,000. My budget for this area of law this year was/is $40,000 a year. If theirs is "meager," what's mine?
5) I congratulate Ms. Sunlove and the FSC on being the #1 Porn Lobbyist and Lobby, a title I don't want - never have. As you can see from my work, my style is pro-active vs. reactive, and I don't want to be known as "The Porn Lobbyist." I want to be known as a lobbyist who represents several consumer related issues, of which the 1st Amendment (and porn) is just one.
6) One legislator is not the ball game. Just because she has Mr. Burton's ear, doesn't mean he will support her when it comes down to voters and campaign donations verses "pornographers needs". Why? As the Senate Democratic leader, he now represents over 20 legislators (usually called a caucus) and as such, he himself has to listen to his party and meet their needs. Additionally, legislators and the offices they hold continually change. Just because he is in power today doesn't mean that he will be here tomorrow. Especially, if the Democrats lose seats and thus the Senate Majority. My approach is to have relationships with everyone, Republicans, Democrats, Lobbyists, Staff, the ACLU to the League of California Cities.
7) The $10,000 reward mentioned to help stop child porn is a fantastic idea, and one I support wholeheartedly; yet the L.A. Times didn't mention when it was last awarded. Additionally, the Times didn't think it was important to report the fact that the FSC supported an anti-child porn Bill which I had introduced, but they never testified for when the bill came up in committee (position stated as per AVN).
8) Over the years, and three last year, I testified with dozens of lobbyists regarding a variety of issues, including the lobbyist for the M.P.A.A. on several subjects the FSC didn't or hasn't taken a position on.
The first two that come to mind are/were the CD ROM trademark and copyright law (Murray) and the home occupation permits bill (Cardoza).
9) I worked closely with Assemblyman Honda and his staff on a bill that he carried dealing with the Year 2000 bug (In fact, my consumer group was the only group in the State to support the bill. Simply put, the issue affected your computers and industry warranties and guarantees (on those computers).
The FSC took no position on two Bills dealing with this subject. (For the record, the M.P.A.A. and the AEIEF were opposed to the Republican version that would have cost you money because it would have not required "fixes" to the Y2000 problem, thus voiding your warranties).
In conclusion, after a last final analysis, I believe the article was positive for the industry because it shows that both Kat and I are fighting the right fight, even though we have two completely different styles.
Additionally, it shows that even if they don't vote our way, we are giving them a one-two punch they didn't expect. Finally, as Free Speech supporters, it also shows that their are two sides to any story and I urge you all to not only read between the lines, but also to research the differences between our styles, products and services before you make up your mind.
Thanks for listening,
MICHAEL ROSS, Adult Entertainment Advocate
.....................................
Pat
Riley writes on RAME about "raincoaters"
.....................................
Allegedly some guys would wear raincoats to the cinema so as to be able to masturbate while watching the movie without actually getting their dicks out in the open. Personally I never noticed this happen and it may be an urban legend.
To carry on like this indicates a certain lack of personal self-discipline. Not only is it messy but one needs time to absorb the information presented by the movie maker, blot out the ugly parts (Ron Jeremy, for example), and reconstruct the scene to your liking. Most people also like privacy, something not available when sharing a viewing experience with dozens or even hundreds of other guys. You might let slip the occasional "aagh" while in process thereby drawing attention to yourself, something that won't happen if you reserve your self-gratification for a later session in your bedroom or bathroom.
Thus people who gave in during the watching experience could be seen as lacking attention span or simply not caring about the image they present and therefore crude.
In the video age the word raincoater has taken on the meaning of crude, lacking in refinement, lacking sophistication, and desiring to watch the more deviant and more explicit forms of sex.
You must remember there are various degrees of raincoaterism so you may not regard a person who is only slightly afflicted by the malady as being "a raincoater". Hence you could consider it on a scale like this:
E--------N--------R
where people who are at the E level would call their porn "Erotica" and those at the R level are full-blown Raincoaters. The likes of the raincoater would be as follows:
bestiality
defecation and vomiting
golden showers
stuffing the girl's head in a toilet
calling the girl a bitch and a whore
gang bangs, the more guys the better
Buttake movies (dozens/hundreds of guys giving a girl a sperm bath)
felching
triple penetrations
double anals
double penetrations
multiple male/one girl sex scenes
A2M
A2P
Mila's prolapsed rectum
gaping anus scenes generally
copious facials (overemphasis on cum shots)
anal scenes (this is a question of degree)
facials (degree)
hefty slutty/whorish women
fellatio (like Dr. Fellatio series)
humongous hooters
WWF <g>
monster truck rallies <g>
A raincoater would be inclined to like movies by Robert Black and Max Hardcore but detest movies by Andrew Blake and Candida Royale (normal people detest these too). Things the raincoater doesn't like to see:
any plot
any action that gives the impression that the girl is not just a warm
receptacle (kissing for example)
small breasted women (they call them flat chested)
young girls (reminds them of their daughters)
slim, model types (they call them skinny)
internal cum shots
any attempt at romance
purely vaginal sex (they feel cheated)
While I'm insulting everyone I might as well deal with the other end of the scale. "Erotica" fans like:
movies by Andrew Blake and Candida Royale
old biddies
ugly old biddies
big ugly old biddies
(the last three are because the erotica person has convinced himself
he should not be "judgmental")
exploitation of the male (the male is a piece of s---)
missing cum shots (why should the male have any pleasure)
condoms (why should...)
cunnilingus (the female pleasure is what counts)
real lesbians (the ultimate in no male pleasure)
artistic movies (see Andrew Blake)
Tangential to the Erotica/Raincoater continuum are the FANS of a particular female performer. These are males who for some reason fixate on a particular actress and fall in love with her. They'll ignore all of her faults and be quite vociferous in defending her honor, particularly against types like me.
.....................................
Blake Leigh, husband of Heavenly Leigh, says that the higher courts of Van Wert County, Ohio, have upheld the lower courts decision of denying him access to his son because of his work in porn. The papers read as follow: "The Father at this time of said minor child will not have any further contact with said child into the courts feel that the immoral conduct at which he is doing has stop and has moved back to the county of Van Wert Ohio."
On page two: "Said Father will pay said mother(f---ing trailer trash drug user whore)$85.00 a month to the counties Child Support Agency and proved all Medical coverage for said child."
On page three: "Said Father will have no visiting privileges so all privileges asked for by Said Father are denied."
Blake: "As you can see I am Said Father now not a Father. As the papers go on I have become a walking check book and Medical card for my son not his father.The judge went on and said porn is the fall of this country and that no child should be part of. Instead he let my son go with a known drug dealer and her (I am in jail more then I am out) boyfriend. My son has told my parents several times that the boy friend "has touched him "but now that we have been labeled as porn people the courts don't want to hear about it.
"Right now we have spent
$15000.00 on lawyer fees so far while she gets a free lawyer from the
state of Ohio. At this time we would like to get my son back and take
this to a different court but at this time we have no money to keep
this fight up we don't have the privileges of having a free lawyer handed
to us like the welfare mother that my son is forced to leave with. Its
so funny anyone that knows us know we don't have parties and don't go
to industry parties or all of the other s--- that goes on. We are home
buddies we are home most of the time and only see porn when my wife
works. We don't have porn things all over the house, but to the courts
we are drug using child molesting perverts."