Home

Back to Essays

Censorship

While America does not literally censor consensual sexual expression among adults, the implications of the Supreme Court's 1973 Miller ruling which left communities to determine their own obscenity guidelines, effectively means that the United States has some of the toughest standards in the Western World against porn.

"If you do certain things [rape, incest, fisting]," explains John Leslie, "certain distributors won't take your movie…because they've already made deals with the district attorney. You have to remember, we're doing something that must return money so we can live and do another movie."

The right to free expression in America is believed to come from the First Amendment of the Constitution which says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...or of the press."

When Sir Charles Sedley in 1663 got drunk in a public tavern, climbed upstairs, took off all his clothes, and urinated onto the crowded street below, he provoked the first recorded occasion in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that the State punished an affront to public decency. Until this time, most Western societies worried more about blasphemy than obscenity. After the 17th Century, however, porn and censorship grew hand-in-hand.

"Pornography heralds the increasing hostility of the artist towards society," write Al Di Lauro and Gerald Rabkin in their 1976 book Dirty Movies. Sexual license in literature quickly led to explicit attacks on religion. By the 18th Century, porn depicted sexual orgies in religious orders. This rebellious attitude reached its apogee with the Marquis De Sade who fleshed out what lies behind porn's obsessional detail: "the superiority of the senses to established moral codes, a Hobbesian naturalism which sees aggression beneath the veneer of social forms, and the assumption that society is based on hypocrisy, that those who do no acknowledge sexuality's claims are fools or liars. De Sade is the clearest, most powerful example of the pornographer as transgressor. The first great transvaluer of values, he took piety, conformity, even pleasure itself, and inverted them. With its passionate personal hatred of God and Virtue, his writing offered the first detailed blueprint of the unspeakable depths beneath the façade of… [Western Civilization]." (Dirty Movies)

In Samuel Roth v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled in June 1957, that for material to be declared legally obscene it had to be "utterly without redeeming social importance." Under this new definition, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the imported French film The Game of Love which had been closed in Chicago for displaying nudity, was not obscene. The court also quoted Roth in overturning subsequent obscenity cases against the homosexual magazine One and the nudist magazine Sunshine & Health. In 1959, a federal judge, influenced by the new definition of obscenity in Roth, rescinded the ban against the novel Lady Chatterly's Lover, calling the book's author D.H. Lawrence a genius.

Then in June 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its landmark "community standards" Miller vs. California decision on pornography. In a five-to-four decision largely dictated by the four Nixon appointees, the High Court removed from the language of the law the "utterly without redeeming social value" phrase that had long been the favorite loophole for pornographers. As a result of the new law, any prosecutor wishing to ban a sexual work no longer had to prove that it was "utterly without" value; it merely had to be lacking in "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" to be considered obscene. In other words, Times Square and Sunset Boulevard no longer determined censorship laws across the nation, for now "community standards," instead of "national standards" ruled First Amendment Obscenity cases. This meant that magazines like Playboy and Penthouse or films like Last Tango in Paris might be banned in towns with conservative sexual values.

A few days after the Miller ruling, police in Salt Lake City closed a theater showing Last Tango. Jack Valenti, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, said that it was now impossible to determine in advance whether a film violated obscenity law because the Supreme Court's ruling created "50 or more fragmented opinions as to what constituted obscenity." The New York Times wrote that Miller gave "license to local censors. In the long run it will make every local community and every state the arbiter of acceptability, thereby adjusting all sex-related literary, artistic and entertainment production to the lowest common denominator of toleration. Police-court morality will have a heyday."

Censorship is a matter of ongoing controversy in the Western World, played out in thousands of forums. I am going to concentrate on quoting arguments in just one - the rec.arts.movies.erotica (RAME) newsgroup.

Brad Williams wrote on RAME: "Do you think that the Constitution was written with dog-sex or shit-eating in mind? These people also thought that the Constitution did NOT apply to women or blacks. This is the argument that people are going to use, and they'll be right. Certain enlightenments occur over time. Congress CAN pass laws that restrict freedom of speech, and do it all the time. Hence you can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater, or telephone strangers all night to express your opinions to them, or follow people around telling them you want to eat their pussy. You can't state publicly false information about people without facing libel or slander. Most sane people like these limitations on freedom of speech.

"Forget "defending the extreme" to protect even vanilla porn. What happened to museums and symphonies due to Mapplethorpe's pitiful "art" is living proof of what happens with extremes. Because of Mapplethorpe, it was real easy for critics and moralists to put together opposition to not only having offensive works funded, but to the entire NEA. People already opposed to government funding arts jumped right in too. Until then, most people could have cared less about the NEA, and tolerated it. The same will happen to porn once a few well-connected people get sent a Robert Black or Max Hardcore tape. Sensational headlines would abound that these two goofs' works are representative of ALL of porn. No, it wouldn't be true, but then Mapplethorpe's shit isn't representative of 90% of NEA grants. It didn't matter, the funding got gutted, and heads rolled. Porn doesn't even have "family-friendly" stuff like museums to fall back on like the NEA did.

"In short, count me out of ever defending shit-eating or bestiality on film.

"Adults do NOT have the freedom to engage in anything "consensual not involving physical harm within their own bedrooms." Maybe we wish they did, but the law in some

states says otherwise. Ask the guy who was prosecuted and convicted of sodomy in Georgia (Larry Walker) because his wife said he butt-f---ed her, and he admitted it. Ask the numerous gays and lesbians prosecuted in Georgia and other southern states because sodomy is ILLEGAL, in your own bedroom or any other place. That Larry Walker didn't have enough money to go through a lengthy appeals process all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the ACLU didn't exactly start volunteering. He served his few months and dropped it.

"The laws against the production or possession of this material are well-known, and I support them 100%. SO do about 99% of people, and it will never change. Guess what the cops find in about every child molesters' possession?

Child porn. Obviously, fantasy isn't enough when you're that sick and twisted.

"This is bizarre: 'I feel like raping somebody, but

instead, I'll watch it on film and jack-off. Thank God for rape-porn, it saved my life!" HELLO, rape is a crime of sexual violence, not about having just an orgasm. I used to think the same way when I was in college and single without a family. As time and my family and political situation changed, I quickly came to realize that Utopia will never be reached, and to fight for things worth fighting for and not wasting time going off on tangents that 99% of the political and economic power structure

are against, and have always been against., and will always BE against.

"I think it's the exact opposite of your argument: by defending the extremes and stuff that the vast majority despises, we don't "strengthen or defend" basic porn, we run the risk of losing it all because of a the tiny few.

"I am definitely open to any evidence that suggests any future change whatsoever in the attitudes by the people who run and make up the USA that dog sex or shit eating in porn will one day be legal, or that Robert Black and Elegant Angel or whoever distributes his movie to the wrong place won't be busted and convicted of obscenity for appealing strictly to 'prurient interests.'"

Taylor replies on RAME: "We could, if you want, consider laws against murder to be limits on freedom of expression--but theu're not, because these laws are about preventing

something which obviously harms someone. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theatre ONLY because people are going to stampede toward the exits, likely hurting one another and surely creating a public disturbance. That's why it's illegal, because it endangers life and limb and creates a public disturbance. You can't do those other things

you mention because they harass someone and invade his or her privacy and his or her own right to be free in life. As for libel and slander--they're only illegal because you're saying something that causes harm that you know to be untrue. But, you can still say any thing you want to about anyone provided that it's true.

"If you want to fake all these things you've mentioned and tape the fake scenes of harassment, libel and public endangerment, it's your right. So why shouldn't it be legal to fake rape and film it, or dress an adult as a child and screw her on film?

"Although there was opposition to NEA because of its funding of dumb things like a crucifix in a jar of urine, NEA's decline was due ultimately to the need to cut the federal budget. BUT, even if we accept that it was cut due to what it chose to fund--your argument is invalid because the NEA was a government program which received tax money and not a private company. Were it a private company, it would have had the right to fund any bloody thing it wished and the government couldn't do a damned thing about it. The feds couldn't even have gotten them for obscenity, because thousands of people would line up to testify about the artistic merit of Christ in urine and pictures of naked kids. You can't compare it to porn, because the government did not regulate the NEA--the government OWNED the NEA. Besides which, none of the "offensive" works was ever attacked in and of itself, and any museum that wants them is free to buy them and show them--the objection was to the federal government subsidizing these things.

"There have been a few periods in my life when I've almost been lonely and desperate enough to resort to a prostitute; I haven't, because if I indulge in the fantasy of an adult film then my appetite for sexual companionship diminishes. I'd imagine a similar thing is true for most people, even potential rapists or child molesters--the fantasy can sometimes be fulfilling enough that you don't need the reality. Fantasy isn't going to satisfy the appetites of some, but it will satisfy the appetites of others.

"If other nations can outgrow their childish desire to impose morality, then the U.S. can. The only reason it's taking longer in America is that we got all the Puritans no other country wanted--but eventually we'll evolve toward freedom. But only if we fight for it, as other people in other nations have before us. Again, your argument proves my very point--that we need to stick together and fight for freedom in all things that don't hurt others.

"No, we don't run the danger of losing it all by allowing faked rape, anal cum drinking, or whatever else. Peter van Aarle was right when he said that the rightist extremists want to ban porn outright and won't stop at the depictions of these things. If there were no faked rape, BDSM, watersports, bestiality, and other things you can still find in New York City, they'd attack Buttman, Private, etc. Then they'd go after VCA, Vivid, and the rest. The most extreme videos are like a bulwark against charges of obscenity--the outer defenses, if you will. If those are penetrated, then we have to fall back and defend the next line. If we entrench and survive on the outer lines, we have to push forward in the hopes of gaining ground. Just like in modern war, there can be no compromise--because the radical right will always attack whatever porn is the most unusual, regardless if they get everything banned but Playboy videos. So, we can either work towards becoming the Netherlands, where freedom is real and extensive, or prepare to become Singapore and have no freedoms. As I've said, I'm a conservative myself. So, I know the opposition intimately--many of them happen to be my good friends, with whom I agree on a lot of other issues. I've got a picture of me and Ralph Reed hanging on my wall, and trust me that he attacks Playboy videos as obscene pornography. To fall back is to invite attack of more vanilla porn; to push the envelope is to keep them from attacking most porn while they concentrate on what they find most offensive. Remember that in our legal system, blanket decisions are

rare--something has to be attacked piece-by-piece. They can't get all hardcore porn deemed obscene at once; they have to pick it apart, here challenging faked rape and there challenging spitting and fisting. So, we have to promote the most distasteful things we can--they'll attack

these things first. And when we get to something that finally gets up to the Supreme Court and is deemed universally acceptable, then we can draw a line there and say "we're absolutely protected at least to this boundary." The more we push, the further out that boundary is likely to be..."

Guinessguy: "I am fascinated by the opinions of those who encourage pushing porn to the absolute boundries of what are percieved to be our 1st amendment protections. While I have always considered myself an idealist, these heartfelt pleas for absolute freedom awe me. Mostly, they awe me in their degree of naivete. Guess what folks? We live in a land where political decisons, laws, Supreme Court Rulings, and even the Constitution itself are determined by compromise. You don't believe me? Watch the balanced budget amendment debates over the last few years, and see how the proposed amendment is shaped and tuned carefully as a result of multiple compromises. This is not set in stone. There are no absolutes here, and yet potentially this will become a portion of the highest law in the land.

"What's my point? Simply that compromise and pragmatism are a necessary way to plan one's battles. That means coalition building. By definition, the extreme holds the least area of common ground. It is the last place

to find compromise. Those pushing for an absolute freedom in pornography (either through idealism, or a dissatisfaction with what is currently available and a desire to view more extreme behaviour) are trying to fight

their battles on the terrain where they cannot win. Further, they do the rest of the porn community and its supporters a disservice by fracturing their coalition and making them more vulnerable to the opposition.

"I have seen the argument in favor of extremes from a few posters, (max volume, etc.) but Taylor seems to me to be the most impassioned. I simply don't understand his position that the 1st amendment is virtually unbounded. Taylor, Hugo Black has been dead for decades, and the

definition of "local community standards" (a Burger creation that has NO constitutional basis) has been upheld time and time again. There is no basis that I can see for believing that a Rehnquist court will throw it out. However, if you feel so certain about your views, let me propose a test:

"On some property that you own, erect a 60 foot sq. screen (use bedsheets if you need to). Make sure your viewing area is facing a public street. Then invite some friends over one evening and give a screening of the latest Robert Black feature. (Don't know how you will get it on film

<g>.) Let's see how far you get before you face an indecency/obscenity arrest. Go ahead, fight it. Take it all the way to the Supreme Court. After all, you weren't hurting anyone. No one was endangered or threatened in any way. When the subject of "local community standards"

comes up, make sure you tell them 'Law isn't supposed to have a damned thing to do with morals! Law is supposed to be man's attempt at trying to promote justice, and justice

is preventing people from or, barring that, punishing people for, hurting others. Therefore, if it doesn't hurt someone, it shouldn't be illegal.' Here's an idea: You could even argue that you were attempting to provide

a public service, since all those scenes that depicting NC (non-consensual behaviour) hopefully served as a safe means of indulging the fantasies of any potential rapists that wandered by. (Yeah, that's the ticket...community

service <g>.)

"Okay, I know this whole scenario sounds ridiculous, but don't you see how similar your offense would be to the effect that Max Hardcore, Robert Black, and whatever comes next has on the general public? It is both deliberately in-your-face in style and provocative in the least desirable way. I am not arguing the morality of the behaviour depicted, I am challenging the lack of common sense. There seems to be an assumption on the part of some that the freedom to enjoy pornography can only be enhanced through court challenges and aggressive confrontation. This view is contradicted by the facts. The last 20 years has seen no new expansion of 1st amendment freedoms, a

string of generally conservative judges appointed at the regional and national level, and the Meese Commission. However, the VCR and the general passage of time has made porn far more available to and far more accepted (or at least tolerated) by the general public than anytime in

this nation's history. (Is the product any good, not really-the quality has declined dramatically-but that is a seperate issue.) This acceptance has come without anyone needing to "push the envelope" of extreme behaviour.

"I almost have the impression that some believe that Max et al. are a breed if courageous freedom fighters, pushing the envelope of accepted practice and fighting the oppression of a prudish, overbearing society. This is nonsense. As has been amply documented in this group, the whole industry, "extremists" included, has submitted meekly to the new laws regarding depiction of women as underage. Before a single challenge to their material was made, let alone a threat of arrest, fine, or other legal action, they have pulled their material. (Indeed, if the comments by

experts in this group are reliable, they have overreacted, pulling and editing material that might even faintly be deemed in violation.) These are not the acts of brave men and women fighting to preserve the integrity of their artistic vision. Nor are they the acts of noble warriors

striving for enhanced constitutional protections for all. I think the dramatic statements of support we hear from some in this group are wasted upon an industry that so obviously cares solely about the bottom line and

covering their own collective ass."

Patrick Kelley: "Nobody is advocating displaying anything in public. We are talking about viewing in the privacy of your own home. We are not talking about showing

anything to children or others who are offended by pornography. We ARE saying that people who want to see certain sexual acts performed, acts that are legal and readily available in many parts of the world, should be able to see those acts in the privacy of their own home. In this respect Europe is many miles ahead of us.

"…We have lost ground. Why do you think many of the older movies are so heavily edited. Twenty years ago fisting was available in this country, twenty years ago pissing scenes were in videos (you may not like them but many do, we are denied access to what was once available). No matter what you might think about those pushing the envelope, the fact is they are trying to regain lost ground, not necessarily gain new ground. Max and the other are not "freedom fighters" in the way most would take it. They are business men, not really brave but willing to take the chance that they can make some money by providing material that a great many people want to see. I'm sure they could make a living cranking the usual San Fernando Valley shit-porn but they have chosen to try something different, and yes they hope to make money from it. I hope they do. Do you think Dino would have made all the extreme material he has if it didn't pay.

"Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with bestiality videos. It is certainly more pleasant for an animal than going to the slaughter house. NOTHING should be banned, as long as the performers are of legal age and have consented to the act (I would say consenting to be snuffed in a snuff

video (which I do not consider pornography) is a sure sign of mental incompetence).

"It is a strange and varied world we live in. There are people who enjoy pain, who enjoy having needles or nails driven into them. I don't understand it but it is true. There are people who like a taste of turd, again I don't

understand it but it is true. There are people who like having hands inside their bodies, and there are people who have no problem sipping cum from an asshole. The world is much more varied then the morays of a district attorney, or a local judge or a supreme court judge. And much more varied than the Christian fundamentalists and their very narrow view of the world. And much more varied the majority of American citizens would ever believe."

SteveC: "Did we lose fisting and pissing because the law was tightend or is it because the porn industry has gone kinda legit, giving up the riskier stuffs so they can maintain continuity of their business. In the old days porn always had that underground feel to it, its perpetrators risks the same whether they do the taboos or not."

On July 13, 1997, Sheldon Ranz wrote on RAME: "If the industry has given up risky stuff, they certainly don't act

that way. With Robert Black and Damian Hell-X "rape" videos and "The Violation of..." girl/girl roughies these days, why would fisting be feared? Simply because the industry's lawyers feel that that particular sex practice sets off police sirens. Two adult classics, Little Orphan

Dusty and Candy Stripers, did encounter legal problems due to fisting in the 1970s. I met the producer of these gems (an Israeli) at the 1996 CES in Las Vegas and he confirmed that these films were singled out for obscenity charges. My speculation is that this happened due to racist anxiety: both were directed by Bob Chinn, the first Asian-American porn film director. I haven't come across any solid account of other "fisters" getting nabbed.

"As long as it's not advertised on the video box, the industry could bring back fisting(not just in gay tapes) and I predict NOTHING of consequence will occur -- except for increased sales and rentals."

HerbDntist: "We did not lose fisting and pissing because of any US or State law that made it illegal. The only porn that I know of to be illegal, here and in most of the "first-world", is kiddie (child) pornography. In many places in the US, those other subjects are not "lost" at all and are readily available. The problem is that most

of those materials are of poor production (or reproduction) value, and they are often stolen European works. Fisting, pissing and a host of other activities are not BANNED, but

often left out, or cut out because of the FEAR that producers and distributors have that some local community may challenge the material by calling it OBSCENE. The supreme court has upheld the rights of communitites for setting standards of what they consider obscene. The court did not want to get into definitions of what OBSCENE meant other than to say that it was up to the local communities to decide, also that OBSCENE material can be defined as contributing to the prurient interest of people - i.e. the Dark Side. This nebulous ruling has led porn distributors

to fear and self-censor materials that might be labeled OBSCENE. Again, the bottom line is all that matters to them."

Taylor: "…If guys are willing to put their penises there, and often lick a girl's butt or even her asshole, then why is it sick for a girl to drink semen that's been there, especially since we know she's probably been nicely flushed out before hand? Or, how about A2M? That seems about the same thing. Is A2M sick? I once had a girlfriend who did A2M on her own, without my encouragement, and it seemed normal enough to her. It's NOT the same as "shit eating" or getting pissed on, since no excrement is involved at

all. It's not even in the same category. It's just cum and a little of the natural lubrication that assholes, too, produce, and it's not any more unsanitary than eating a girl out. Gee, she does have some warm, nutritious flesh in her vagina that bacteria just love--but you don't

say oral sex is sick. And come now, that other stuff is just WAY into another category--whipping and knitting needles is torture and pain; drinking semen whether from an ass, a pussy, or anywhere else, is just normal sex.

"…ANYONE WHO LOVES FREEDON SHOULD SUPPORT IT. Even if it turns your stomach. I find things like coprophilia personally revolting; they make me gag and want to spew (in the bad sense of that word:-). But hell, let people do it

and videotape it if it's consensual and they want to. No, we don't need this as a society--but we DO need the freedom, to do as we will as long as it's all consensual. As for the real question at hand, the visual depiction of Max spewing into some girl's ass and pouring it onto her

tongue via a wineglass--how many people do you really think are going to do this just because they've seen it? MOST IMPORTANTLY: What does it matter if they do emulate it? We're not talking about forcing a girl to do anything--we're talking about things people voluntarily do. And I've

known some girls who, quite on their own, have done some pretty "sick" stuff themselves without any help, encouragement, or ideas from movies, so don't think there aren't girls who'd actually get a kick out of doing

it. I knew a girl in high school who was fond of rubbing peanut butter all over her body and letting her dog lick it off. Then she'd screw the dog. Now, by my definition that IS pretty sick, much more so than drinking cum from your own ass. But, as a professor of mine once said: "If you like it, and Lassie likes it, what's the problem?" And if she wanted to videotape herself screwing the dog and sell it, what harm would be done? How many girls who wouldn't have done so before would go out and smear themselves with peanut butter and screw dogs? And if they did--SO WHAT???"

The Director: "I don't know she's been nicely flushed out before hand. The fact that some dicks do come out covered in shit (which is then cut -- see another recent thread) make me wonder how well they're cleaned. I won't say it is a widespread thing, but it does happen...

"I feel the same way about the Gangbang Girl where Bambi's ass stars bleeding. ALL WRONG. I don't care if it didn't hurt or whatever, it's not right.

"Look at Sarah Jane Hamilton's A2M in her Sodomania outing. She is NOT AT ALL HAPPY about taking a dick from her ass right into her mouth, but she does it, begrudgingly. What makes this scene so hot to some people? The fact that she doesn't want to do it, but is more or less pressured into taking it.

"Also, aren't we supposed to believe A2M is bad? Why else would it be dangled in front of us like a forbidden fruit? If it is so normal as you say, why is it a major point of marketing? Why does Tom Byron's Cumback Pussy box say in big letters "Outta da ass, inna da mouth!" or the other Elegant Angel series (Sodomania? I don't recall) trumpeting 17 A2Ms! If it wasn't a forbidden fruit, then why is being hyped as such.

"The same thing happened to anal sex. Anal sex was a rarity in the 70s and 80s. Thus the need for a "girls who do anal" list. These days, the list is shorter if it goes the other way, "girls who *don't* do anal." And in the early 90s we got more and more girls doing the anal thing, until it is now an accepted part of the routine.

"Now I happen to think that anal sex is not all that bad a thing, and no one is being degraded or otherwise humiliated by taking it up the ass; it only stands to reason... I mean the Greeks have been doing it for ages.

"But the way that anal moved from the back rooms to the mainstream could conceivably happen with some more unsavory things, like A2M, so soon we'll see the IAFD list 150 titles with A2M as part of their title, like it does with "Anal" now.

"I think that things like A2M and Max's Anal Cum Drinking will eventually lead porn to destroy itself. People don't look at Vivid productions and say "that's nice." Instead they look at Max and say "that's all wrong" and then vote to ban smut outright.

"Why is such a feat when a normal guy can find a girl who swallows? Where did the joke "What's the difference between like and love" come from? REALITY. (Answer for those not in the know: "Spit and Swallow")

"Law is the codification of morals, my friend. Law is based on what is right and wrong, and they are nothing but judgment calls. I think a majority of the people today really have no sense of right and wrong, and that scares me.

"Society is not a great place when a girl has to drink

cum out of her own ass to make a couple hundred bucks. "It's all she can do" they'll say... well, that's the sorriest damnation of ourselves I have ever heard.

"When people say "I'm tired of the old in and out" perhaps it is time to get a new hobby, not look for movies where a girl takes 6 dicks up her ass, while she's blowing two other guys, jacking one off while having sex with a dog; all the while protesting that she doesn't want to have sex."

Brad Williams: "Would you stick something in your ass and then stick it in your mouth and suck on it? Forget about those fun germs; it's common sense. Semen-drinking out of an asshole is a freak show. I can't even imagine the mind that gets turned on by something like this in porn.

"If you or any other crusader of free expression can't get it through your cloudy view of the 1st Amendment that watching a porn film with shit-eating and so forth has NOTHING to do with any constitutional rights, pretty soon there won't be even mainstream porn. Sooner or later, you either compromise or lose it all. That is the reality of American politics and morals. Not only do I have better things to be concerned with than defending porn that

features dog-sex or shit-eating, it can flat-out be banned. I'd gladly throw those two bones to the Christian Coalition while I defended material that isn't for f---ing sick, twisted losers. Anyone who gets off on shit-eating is wasting the oxygen that we all need to breathe.

"While your fighting to make dog-and-pony porn legal, the Christian Coalition will get millions from concerned citizens who would like to ban all porn. WHat better ammo for the CC-gang than some bestiality, rape, or cum-gargling from your ass to get all of porn banned."

Roger P. Tipe: "You don't take MOST bacteria and viruses in through your penis. You DO take it in through your mouth. So, even ignoring the whole taste bud thing, that comparison holds little water. As for licking a woman's asshole, I don't think anyone said that was a bad thing. Now, next time you're with a willing girl, bugger her in the ass with a dildo and you pull it out and lick it clean. Then you can say it's all even.

"I took an office poll and exactly zero people would even speak to me after I asked them if they would drink sperm from a glass after it had come from their anus. One hundred percent were ready to kick Rog in the teeth for even asking."

Pat Riley: "Your [Director] comment about your daughter parallels that of Howard Stern and makes me wonder why you feel this way. I've always adhered to the rule "Don't worry about the mother, but watch out for the father" but have always wondered why fathers, who presumably in their earlier years would poke anything that moved, would be so protective and deny other males their chance.

"Sure she's your daughter but as we know from experience girls don't die because of sex--it really doesn't harm them in any way and some might actually enjoy it. I'm not referring to some pre-puberty activities or getting laid with every junkie in town. I also would caution (and do) my two sons to be careful of who they screw--also avoid daughters of shotgun toting rednecks and of mafia dons--but other than that it's "Get laid as often as you can because it doesn't get any easier."

"So what's with the protective feelings? Supression of incestuous desires? (that's not intended to be an insult, just a suggestion) A desire to put all women on a pedestal, and your daughter in particular?

"BTW in my experience the rule above is also true as to the other side. Most mothers (all I've ever known) will connive at their daughter's sexual activities (probably not pre-puberty though) even assisting to hide them from their husbands. For boys, if my wife's anything to go by, they form a cheering squad."

Tim Evanson, who is gay, writes: "In the paragraphs on rape, you [Director] argue that Black's films are "wrong" because they do not produce any benefit to society. I find that sort of utilitarianism appalling. It begs the question why you--or Jesse Helms, or me, or Governor Pataki, or Senator Leahy, or Robert Schuler, or Mother Theresa--or ANYONE has the sole right to make that decision.

"In confronting why any given single individual has the right to make rules governing morality in our society, AS a society we have argued for majority rule. BUT WITHIN CONSTITUTIONALLY DETERMINED LIMITS! Yes, yes, we always return to the LAW. I know, most people think "But that's

'the law' " as if "the law" were some artifice, some falsehood, some game that's just played by a bunch of money-grubbing lawyers and bureaucrats who aren't productive members of society. But the law IS

real. It HAS impact, it HAS meaning. It IS important. You seem dismissive of free speech claims when you say "...the 'free speech' stuff and all is great". I for one find such "stuff" at the VERY CORE of my DAILY fight for BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. I don't know if you meant to be so dismissive, but I for one cannot agree with you when you lay down

personal moral lines and then say "liberalism be damned" beyond that point. Far, far too many people in this country TODAY feel that my most basic human rights should be stripped away.

"And in the United States, the way we've come to deal with shit-eating, rape scenes, and the like is NOT by saying "liberalism be damned" and "free speech is great and all". We HAVE to uphold our principles.

"You ask where shitting out 8 men's cum into a glass and drinking it get us. I think that's clear: It gets us into an untenable political situation where those who argue for the most minimalist, sanitized kind of free speech is the only kind which is permitted. And yet, I find myself in the position of defending such acts. Why? Not because I

think those acts provide great moral teachings, but because I for one do not know what IS a great moral teaching. The only way to figure out what is a great lesson to be learned is by free and open discussion. Yeah, I don't think shit-eating is lending much to the discussion. But what do we do when someone says, "Yeah, and anything you fags say

doesn't lend anything either." Or put anything you will in place of "fags": blacks, women, pornographers, immigrants, Jews, chinks, Catholics, abortion rights supporters, what have you. The same rules that protect gays, blacks, women, etc. ALSO protect the shit-eaters and rape-scene portrayers.

"Do we reap negative benefits from those rules? Sure. We reap people like Piglet, who see nothing wrong in rape or misogyny. Do we reap positive benefits? Sure. We reap a more open, free society where individuals like me are free (or free-er) to pursue happiness. And you yourself ask, Jeff, how SOCIETY benefits. *I* say: Society benefits

because we've managed to convince ourselves that being black, female, poor, gay, Jewish, an abortion rights supporter, etc. IS OKAY. We didn't used to think that. It would have seemed incomprehensible even a few years ago for someone to think that such groups as I've listed (and

others) should be free to pursue happiness in the manner they want. In my case, that struggle to win the freedom to pursue happiness continues every single day.

"How do we confront the negative benefits? Again, not by engaging in "should" arguments, nor by saying "beyond that point, liberalism be damned", nor by being dismissive and saying "that 'free speech' stuff is great". We do so by DEBATING THE ISSUES. We CONVINCE. We do not legislate. Only in cases where there is such immediate, terrible harm

from speech--crying "fire!' in a crowded theater, child pornorgraphy--do we legislate. We don't legislate because argument doesn't work. It often does... We legislate because of the IMMEDIACY of the harm and the irreversibility of the harm. THAT is why we would never permit a pedophile to touch your daughter or even produce the kiddie porn which would induce your daughter to be touched by a pedophile. But in other cases, we have to avoid legislation--the laying down of rules in the

manner you've advocated.

"Lastly, I think it is incumbent upon us to realize that, in the same way that 40 years ago no one thought blacks should marry whites or homosexuality be in any way permitted, none of us can be fully sure that

drinking cum from someone's ass is so immoral or lacks in benefit. No one, least of all me, is God. We HAVE to permit people who advocate rape, pedophilia, shit-eating, etc. to make their case. We need not permit rape itself. We need not permit pedophilia itself. In each

case, the harm is immediate, irreparable, violative of another's rights. But shit-eating? Who does that harm? It may not enlighten us as a society, but where is the harm? And how can we be so sure it doesn't enlighten...? In all honesty, how can we be sure?

"And so we permit such individuals to argue their point in public, by the most permissive speech means we can permit without allowing the kind of harm outlined above."

Max Volume: "Try going to asia or Denmark and you'll see that peeing in mouths, eating shit, needles, garden hoses up the butt with the water on, etc. is commonly available ... just because you guys can't handle a little cum from the ass eating, don't try to make anyone who is interested in it appear to be ill.

"Dogs don't give consent to getting their nuts whacked off either but we don't seem to have a problem with that. In fact it's considered admirable to "Spay" or "Neuter" most domestic animals. Cattle don't volunteer to go to the slaughterhouse either but unless they're whacko

animal rights lovers most people don't have too much of a problem with this. So your reasoning is incorrect; it has nothing to do with the animal giving consent or even our interpretation of what the animal would consent to if it were human.

"The focus of the anti-bestiality instigators is really on the person screwing the animal and is related to the philosophical (or religious if you prefer to see it that way) argument that man is of a higher nature than an animal (made in the image of God for the religious people). To screw an animal is degrading that nature and reducing the

act to an animalistic urge of lust, rather than the higher motive of love. Most people, especially those who don't have contact with farm animals early on in life, have been imprinted with the idea that it's wrong but usually have difficulty explaining why (as with most imprinting).

"Of course, although not understanding it at the time, many of these don't-quite-know-why rules have a basic foundation in good healthy practices and furtherance of the reproductive imperative such that when we violate them excessively, we start to find that nature has placed some nasty pitfalls in our path. Without getting too far off

the point a good example is the emerging problems of BSE (Mad Cow disease) and the related Kure and CRJ. It seems certain that these diseases have been in existence for a very long time but were not a significant problem until we violated the rules against cannibalism.

"Is there something lurking in the background that would emerge if we all started screwing dogs and chickens? Of course we don't know until we do it but, apart from the occasional Dogarama, I hope we don't try too hard to find out.

"Nature rules and she's a real bitch!"

Brad Williams: "Banning bestiality is not the first

step to a ban on porn, just like requiring peformers in America to be 18 to f--- on film has not slowed the industry's growth whatsoever in this country. Almost all of the regulation of porn comes from the industry itself in America(fisting/GS/etc), and I'm calling on them to

regulate themselves before someone else does..

Pat Riley: "Every time Clinton opens his mouth these days he seems to mention the word "children". We have a whole slew of women's groups devoted to "save the children" and an attitude from them (females and various supporters) that not only borders on the paranoid but is specificically anti-male. Take a look at alt.true-crime on the JonBenet killing. It seems every female on the net sees all men as

child molesters--it's sufficient to be male to be guilty. Even when the autopsy and other disclosures by the Boulder Police Department seem to have ruled out any molestation around the time of death these women are not saying they're wrong but "The father must have molested her earlier". This attitude worries me."

Tim Evanson writes on RAME: "Several months ago, I made a post to RAME about Roger Shattuck's book FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE. In his book, Shattuck argues that some things are so obscene, so horrifying, so out-of-bounds that they should not be protected even as literature. He cites the case of the Marquis de Sade, among others. (See my other post citing the sort of things de Sade advocates as "erotic" in his books JUSTINE and JULIETTE.)

Shattuck's argument isn't based on legal or Constitutional principles. It is based on an ethical argument. Shattuck cites "Paradise Lost" as an example of what can happen when we reach too far. He cites "Faust" and FRANKENSTEIN as examples of how disastrous forbidden knowledge can

be. He cites Emily Dickinson as an example of how abstinence is a virtue. He cites Melville's BILLY BUDD and Camus' THE STRANGER as examples of how different aspects of knowledge provide different conclusions. [BILLY BUDD is either an impulsive act against evil that is punished by a cruel justice system, or a heinous crime dutifully

punished. THE STRANGER is either a dying man killing the person keeping him from water, or an a-moral man's slaughter of someone who got in his way.]

"Shattuck then poses two cases of "forbidden knowledge": Genetics and de Sade. The latter concerns us. Shattuck argues that yes, de Sade has a right to say what he wants to say. But is de Sade SO heinous that no matter what free speech rights we want to give him the harm outweighs

ANY benefits?

"He takes the case ONLY of de Sade, refusing to acknowledge that others may benefit from the same rules which protect de Sade. Shattuck, however, attempts to link de Sade's writings to several murders, including Ted Bundy's and the "Moors Muders" case in England. I found his argument laughable, of course... it's the old "TV violence

causes violence" argument."

"I've got a question for the denizens here--in the American

releases of Private Films #20 and #21, were there scenes cut out and, if so, which? I've heard conflicting stories--some say it's all left intact and they just conveniently don't translate some rough and incestuous stuff, and

some say that some of the rough stuff and incest scenes are gone. Has anybody out there seen both, or otherwise somehow know whether the American versions are butchered? If so, I'll just have to learn French and get the Euro versions... :-) And then get them converted to NTSC...

As to this self-censorship in general, I think the companies that butcher these movies are the lowest sort of spineless worms. If they, after making all the money they do from US, can't respect us enough to keep from watering down the wine, so to speak, then they're no better

Than the puritanical legislators and judges who should be stopping REAL crimes that actually hurt people instead of ruining our little entertainments. I'm tired of hearing about all these great movies that I can't get all

because of self-censorship and government censorship. If I want to see *Little Kimmi Johnson* pretending to be a schoolgirl, that harms no one. If I want to see Rhonda Jo Petty PRETEND, in *Little Orphan Dusty*, to get raped, that harms no one. Films are harmless fantasy. In fact, if I

were a potential pedophile or rapist, maybe having these things in my video library would keep me from really acting out those desires--movies are an outlet for our pent-up fantasies. We all can't be in Her Majesty's Secret

Service, but we can watch James Bond films and experience something like it. We can't all make love to beautiful young high school girls, but we can watch *Little Girls Blue* and escape into fantasy. Actually, no--we

can't watch *Little Girls Blue* anymore, because VCX just censored itself and changed the title to *Girls in Blue* instead--I haven't seen it, so I don't know whether they cut the film beyond this; I can only pray they didn't, and ask anyone who might now whether they did indeed cut scenes. I hope not. And, we're not perfect creatures who think only nice thoughts, so sometimes we might want to see *Pretty Peaches* and watch the rape scenes--we'd never really do anything so inhuman in real life, but that doesn't mean that we might not like to watch it being faked with a girl who isn't being hurt. But, I can't find *Pretty Peaches* anywhere, which is really sad because I live in Washington, D.C., and have scoured the streets and the Internet looking with no success. Excalibur tells

me it's been discontinued. How stupid, especially since the poorly-shot hardcore *A Dirty Western* is still available, though it's a crappy movie."

X-Trader: "You didn't give the titles of these films but I think this was The Tower #1& #2 (correct?). If so, then yes, they are both censored. The Tower #1 was censored a

little bit because the video is about a guy who rapes and kills girls. I think they cut out some of the violence. In Tower #2 there were at least 2 scenes completely cut from my copy and the only reason I have for this is because the girl in the scene was having sex with a guy playing the part of her father. It's so stupid because the

damn movie is in French and you can't even tell they're related unless you speak French. However the almighty self-censors have once again covered their asses and butchered out these two scenes COMPLETELY. There is nothing left at all. "

Andy Roberts: "The scenes cut were the ones that the powers that be determined they would have a hard time defending should a bible-thumping district attorney decide to charge them with obscenity.

"No...they have NOT been butchered, they have been edited, BY ME, according to the instructions of my clients.

"I edited "Little Kimmie Johnson" too!!! Ain't that sumthin??? I worked at VEP for quite a while. Best friends with one of the owners. I know what happened to the company and the movies. You sure would like that information, wouldn't you?

"Let's see. In the first part of your message, you call me a butcher and a spineless worm and now you want my help. Ain't that simply ironic?"

Taylor writes on rec.arts.movies.erotica about the way that Private has snipped controversial scenes from its videos. "…They make their work a little more bland and unremarkable, just like a lot of other stuff out there. It's not as if this multinational company lacks the funds to defend their work if it should be attacked--they have more money than nearly anyone else in the business. It's rather that they don't care enough about their work or their customers to have the integrity to sell Americans the same product they sell everyone else, and they can get away with it because their videos are otherwise usually great and they can make money with them. I could understand fisting and peeing being cut from a Euro vid for the American market, because those are the most likely targets. However, rape scenes and incest are now

being produced in several U.S. films that are from pretty big sources, like Elegant Angel's Robert Black. And if other companies, like Magma and a few others, show real incest between real-life sisters, then surely Private could show fake incest. They don't, because they don't have the integrity or the balls. For that, I fault them, and for that we all should--before everyone scales themselves back so much due to their own choices and cowardice that all we have is bland crap. VCA and VCX used to have the balls, and they offered a range of great classics with nearly everything intact--but now that they're so profitable with their bland BS, they don't offer their great classics that had rape or little girl themes or incest, except in hacked-to-bits versions that have been "cleaned up." Why? Only because they can afford to be "respectable" and sanitized--they'll make a profit with crap, so they give us crap."

S. Andrew Roberts did the 'dirty' editing work for Private.

"The consequences of taking such a chance might be fines in the millions of dollars and years in prison. If it were you making these tough choices...would you be willing to risk all your wealth and some of your freedom?

"Private does not sell movies here. Rather, it licenses the rights to an American company.

"VCX went out of business defending themselves. What exists now is not the same company or the same owners as 15-20 tears ago. As far as VCA is concerned, it's owner Russ Hampshire paid millions in fines and spent several years in prison for distributing movies with the themes you dearly love. Would you do the same? {Not true. VCA paid two million dollars in fines and Hampshire spent a year in a low security jail that in many ways resembled a country club.]

"My reaction to hearing blacks called niggers in "Blazing Saddles" now, is far different from what it was years ago

when the movie first came out. I'm no longer comfortable with it or with Don Rickles' brand of humor even though I used to cherish seeing him in Las Vegas. It ain't the same world anymore Taylor, but that's yet another debate.

"What you fail to mention is how another culture views these acts. Europe is far more open with sex than America is. It's not possible to ram one's own vision down another country's throat. Remember Taylor, you are not the arbiter of America's tastes."

JR: "Even if Private had all the money in the world for legal defense it wouldn't make a difference, since the films were edited buy the American distributer. Private would never face any charges no matter what was in their tapes, unless American courts now have jurisdiction in Stockholm! Only the importer, distributer, and your friendly neighborhood video store would be in jeopardy."

Brad Williams: "We risk a lot of stuff every day that's probably far more likely to happen than Private's U.S. distributor getting dragged into a legal dispute because they left in all the violence and incest in the *Tower*

films. Look at what's out there that's easily available that's much more potentially objectionable--I drop by three video stores in D.C. and northern Virginia on occasion, and there I've seen movies by Robert Black that would put *The Tower* to shame in regards to violence mixed with sex, Max Hardcore movies that make Private look like Vivid in terms of the nasty stuff the women do, or have done to them, and the first few *Taboo* movies along with more obscure incest films that would surely outrank the father-daughter scene in *The Tower II* on some DA's prosecution wish-list--whole bloody films are devoted to the stuff that Private's American distributors edit out of isolated scenes. Yes, I would take that chance, knowing that firstly a lot of other movies are more likely targets, and secondly that self-censorship is advisable to a degree if I'm worried about obscenity charges but that censoring a good adult movie to the blandness of a Vivid production is both unnecessary

and a crime to the work itself. It may not be *Casablanca*, but a great adult film is a work of art just the same, only it strikes chords with different feelings and desires. Personally, however--yes, I'd be

willing to risk my neck over it, because anything at all worth doing is worth fighting for. And, with the make-up of the Courts changing on all levels and becoming, after the influx of "morally conservative" judges and justices under Reagan and Bush, more tolerant with the Clinton appointees, and with the increasing acceptance of sexuality in this decade, it's very possible that an obscenity charge could backfire on a prosecutor and change the definition of "obscenity" in a state or even the country at large. With the likelihood of conservative Chief Justice Rehnquist retiring and other factors, it's even possible that a good case could be argued and won at the highest level. But that will NEVER happen and the industry will NEVER have more freedom and security in this country unless other cases come up, and other cases will never come up unless boundaries are pushed--but like I said, I honestly think except for fisting the Private productions really don't have any content a prosecutor would sink his teeth into. I understand editing this out, but not the NC or incest.

"VCX don't offer as much as they recently did, unless it's been cut up into a shadow of what it would have been had one bought it a year or two ago. And, while it's better to survive than be a martyr, it's not better to survive by cowering and caving in easily--better to help pave the way for freedoms to be gained in a few decades, or else, if no one risks it, those freedoms can never be attained. Maybe freedom in porn doesn't seem as noble as other kinds of freedom, simpler freedoms and less contested artistic freedoms, but to me it's all the same. Freedom is freedom, period. And to have the maximum amount of freedom enjoyed by the greatest number of people, a society must learn to protect all things which don't directly harm others. Our society will never cease wrongfully imposing limits on things which don't cause harm unless people fight for freedom--else they'll never change. And despite the losses that the industry has endured, no one can deny that it has also made tremendous legal headway on several fronts, not the least of which has been the right to exist and not be outlawed as prostitution and pandering.

"As far as VCA is concerned, I was aghast to recently receive a copy of the Dark Brothers' *White Bunbusters* which had had a whole twenty minutes chopped from it. And yet, in the same shipment I received a copy of *Lust at First Bite* made sometime prior to 1995 because of the lack of a records label, but after 1990 due to the presence of that label, which had probably been sitting around for a few years in a warehouse somewhere, which had two rape scenes, necrophilia, and blood streaming from a vagina, although the peeing scenes had been chopped (though the results were visible and obvious)--if this were a tape run off in 1997, I guarantee these would be gone, since the *White Bunbusters* tape was so shamefully "cleaned up". Meaning, of course, that self-censorship is continuing to be tightened by the top companies, and I shudder to think of what they'll start purging next.

Taylor: "It is a new world, and sexuality is becoming more and more accepted with larger segments of the populace, particularly the younger generations. On my floor of the dorm building there live twenty-five men aged 18 to 23. Twelve of us own VCRs in our rooms, and of those nine have at least one adult video lying around the room. Every once in a while when there's nothing to do almost all of the twenty-five, though not at the same time, get together with pizza and beer and sodas and nachos and an adult film and a deck of cards. My collection is by far the most extensive, and no one has ever been "offended" at the fisting or rape scenes in films like *Little Orphan Dusty* or the rape and necrophilia in *Lust at First Bite*. They love fisting. We're also all students at one of the most conservative colleges in the country, where the term Christian Right takes on its full meaning. This is the generation that is coming up, and this is what we like and find acceptable--what even the conservatives among us like and find acceptable. And most of the people I know in their later twenties and early thirties think the same way. As for community standards--they're going to increasingly conform to ours as we graduate and take jobs as teachers, attorneys, doctors, garbage men, and McDonalds employees. Now is a time when self-censorship should be relaxing, but instead it's cow-towing and censoring more as the last gasps of the Old Guard proclaim tighter and more restrictive guidelines. Jesse Helms and Orrin Hatch won't be around much longer, and their ideas are already out of date in terms of propriety and obscenity, and yet it is people like these who are not the public at large who get their wishes acceded to. This makes no sense. People should continue to stand up and fight for freedom, because increasing freedom can be won in the next few years--but not if no one ever challenges the status quo.

"This country in ten or fifteen years might well be able to enjoy some of the freedoms our European cousins enjoy now, but not unless people are willing to defend the so-called 'obscene'."