Dithering

RAME's sharpest, most literate and entertaining poster for my money is Dithering who burst on the scene in late 1997.

Porn girls who make Dithering hurl:

1) Bunny Blue--A Bette Midler look-alike with screw-on soccer-ball tits;ugh!

2) Paige Carlson--The absolute worst of Southeast Asia; if I've correctly matched the name with the face. Saw her in one of Max's movies and I will never watch her again.

3) Viper--The ultimate turn-off. The excessive tatoos cheapen an already tawdry skank.

4) Anna Malle--The awful muscle tone and shape of her legs; a demeanor that deflates my hard-earned erection. I doubt if I would enjoy lettingmy dog lick my penis. The same is true for a woman with a sexual style like hers.

5) Lovette--Fake cantelope screw-ons.

6) Countless Loretta Sterling videos--I'm feeling sick...

7) Chessie Moore--How do the dogs even keep it up with her?

8) Mila--Not so much her physical appearance, but her non-erotic animal-like behavior is even worse than Anne Malle. Coupled with an anus the size of Pluto, she makes me hurl.

Since porn is a fantasy outlet, most men aren't hot for watching fat women or diseased-appearing skanky women f---ing on film. There are, of course, fetish exceptions to this statement. But the logic seems applicable to Mila. Do I fantasize about a date who will scream, at the top of her lungs, "I love having my ASS WRECKED"? No way. Do I fantasize about my date spitting in my face like Roberto Alomar--after, of course, screaming how she loves her ass WRECKED? No chance. I guess that's just not my fantasy-girl. I wonder how long before her extreme antics become counterproductive, and she gets tossed into the heap of used-up porn actresses. But then she could always reinvent herself as a quantum physics scholar and web-site-developer extraordinare.

Subject: Re: Gangbang = Homosexuality ???

From: Dithering@meta3.net

Date: 1998/03/13

Message-ID: rame.889816804p16094@bash

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

<sticky@earthlink.net> wrote:> Tim-> > Thanks for the comments. You can be damn sure you'll get quoted.> > -Marc>

Hang on one second, dude. I presume you are writing an article on your assertion there is a link between gangbang videos and latent homosexual urges. Are you looking to be objective, or to write a slanted article because you have already decided there is such a connection?

If your goal is objectivity, then minimize the postulations of homosexual advocates. For whatever reason, some gays want to believe all men secretly want what they want. Your focus should properly be on heterosexuals who respond to your query, not the extensive psychoanalysis of someone whose jollies come from same-gender sex. (This is no indictment or pejorative judgement. Just an observation).

If you sense a trend of ambivalence from heterosexual respondents, then there is your data. But be rigorous in your research. Check to see if the people responding to this question commonly post to this group on gay issues. If so, those are not the data points you should use.

Suppose you were writing an article on whether women secretly covet rape. Suppose you posed that question in a newsgroup catering to profootball addicts. I am pretty sure those data points are slanted in a direction which will lead your article astray. That would make you a bad journalist and lead to a slanted, misinformed article. That question is better explored in a newsgroup geared more to women. Remember, your goal is whether WOMEN secretly covet rape. How can a man truly answer that question?

That same logic applies here. You want a connection, if any, between straight men watching gangbang videos and latent homosexual urges. By definition, including the responses of practicing homosexuals will skew your conclusions. Of course homosexuals think a gangbang video with 15men is erotic. Who do you think they are looking at? Contrast their focus with the focus of straight men who view the gangbang-guys as props. Their attentions are overwhelmingly focused on a good-looking girl getting rocked big-time.

If you are a serious journalist doing a serious article, do it correctly. Research it properly using the correct population. Don't write some hatchet article--quoting gay men as if they are representative sources--that creates a new theory of human behavior. That is piss-poor journalism. All you have done is assert something as fact that common sense tells you is untrue.

Ø I have several associates that would like information on how to go about > financing several movies. We are interested in getting involved in> the entire production.

I don't mean this as a flame, but if you are financing the entire venture, you are the owner. So being on the set is not something you need permission for. Although you may not have meant it this way, the wording of the second half of your post suggests you just want the cheap thrill of standing around watching people boink. Rather than spend $250,000 for that thrill, New York City has these "couples" places where you pay to get in; and once in, swapping and all kinds of good things happen. Just hire an escort to accompany you, pay admission, and you can watch to your hearts content. Just buy one of those adult newsletters available in adult video outlets or newsstands for listings of phone numbers and locations of these places. I bet your total costs; including airfare, hotel arrangements, $300-an-hour escort for 5 hours, admission of $200, will be under $3500. That strikes me as a higher-return investment. Otherwise, read the archives of RAME on Deja News for e-mail address of various directors who post to RAME and are now looking for new homes. Good luck.

Subject: My GangBang-Girl-inspired homosexuality

From: Dithering@meta3.net

Date: 1998/03/14Message-ID: <rame.889917614p15513@bash>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

<booochie@aol.com> wrote: > >i'd say the same about vanessa del rio,> > Wouldn't you like to mess around with a girl having a clit the size of a> Vienna sausage? Probably make one a homosexual tho, a la gang bang fans>

Isn't that the bloody truth? Here I was, naively thinking I enjoyed watching Trixie Tyler in Anabolic's GangBang Girl 1 because she tenderly received and swallowed 8 gooey cum-shots without being either a prissy, closed-mouth cum-dodger or distastefully Mila-like vulgar. I, the self-delusional fool I am, erroneously thought I enjoyed her natural, life-like way of raising her knees towards her shoulders (with her feet suspended in the air) because my girlfriend does the exact same thing. I, the idiot-of-the-month, thought I enjoyed the movie because of her. But luckily, I have been educated. It turns out, the REAL reason I liked that movie, and several other Anabolic Gangbang Girls is because I am a latent homosexual. I was subconsciously watching Ron Jeremy's hairy asshole, wishing it was me there; with Ron, instead of Trixie Tyler. In fact, I never watched ANY of those GangBang Girls for Selena Steele or Lydia Chanel or Ashley Nicole or Missy or Tina Tyler or Deborah Wellsor Tabitha Cash or Alex Dane or Debi Diamond or Vanessa Chase or Beatrice Valle or Rebecca Lord or Francesca Le. No, no, no! I watched those movies for the MEN. I now know I am a latent, suppressed (and repressed) homosexual. Hmm. I think I'll go watch the Knicks now so I can see all those men posting-up against each other. I can't wait for football season now that I know my true leanings.

Subject: Time for a cease-fire on Rodney's girls?

From: Dithering@meta3.net

Date: 1998/03/16Message-ID: rame.890034004p18138@bash

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

I have followed, and participated, in the wide-ranging debate on the quality of Rodney Moore's actresses. I confess to have taken a shot or two at Rodney (it felt good). Both Rodney's critics and his supporters have persuasive cases. But of course, with this being porn; no one opinion is correct.

Rodney has conducted himself well in the face of some blistering comments; far better than I would have if I were the artist whose life's-work was being challenged so vigorously. For that, he deserves credit. But I wonder if the law of diminishing returns is now if effect (i.e. each additional comment yields less-and-less improvement). Rodney has indicated his upcoming movies will feature a higher percentage of what many fans are clamoring for (cuties). That seems like a good businessman responding to market demands. So I wonder if it is time to invoke a cease-fire on these broadsides against Rodney's girls. Since I have been guilty of this behavior as well, I can't be accused of being a pro-Rodney fetishist who is touchy about my secret desire to couple with ugly girls.

I realize that as an ambassador of peace, someone will want to pay me. But as a man of peace, I cannot accept money for my kind deeds. But if Rodney insists on rewarding me, I will grudgingly agree to a scene with Nadia Nyce where I present her with a Dithering-Blast, filmed in living RodneyVision.

Subject: Re: Rodney's girls

From: Dithering@meta3.net

Date: 1998/03/17Message-ID: <rame.890152810p29039@bash>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

.B. Mac <krisbam@thecia.net> wrote:> You know I was just at the video store and I saw at least 6 different vids> that featured FAT ladies. I mean the 250 lb. type fat ladies. Now these > don't interest me in the least but I have to wonder; do these producers> make these videos to lose money for a few fans of this genre? Hmmm. Now> ugly is very hard to define.

You only saw six videos of morbidly obese women? My store has an entire rack of these things. And to answer your question, I doubt if these videos are made to lose money. Your inference is valid; there must be a meaningful market out there. > Very abstract. When someone responds to a critique and says" Don't like> it? Don't watch it," it seems oversimplified to me and standoffish but> after a week of the discussion of this topic, when almost every aspect of> the debate has been covered, the answer narrows down to the quote above. I> personally try to understand other peoples taste that are different than> mine and if they are no harm to me (or anyone for that matter) than more> power to them. What credentials do any of us have to declare our tastes> superior to others?

My credentials and preferences are no more or less valid than yours. Likewise, my opinions are neither superior nor inferior to yours. >The Seinfeld smash hit comedy was a bust in Europe. So wasn't>Disneyland (or what it Disneyworld?). Are our American tastes better>than Europes? Why is one thumb up and own down? When it comes to these>gray areas, we can debate until we're blue in the face. And that's why>it's only inevitable that this type of (gray-area debate) devolves into>a flamewar. Hopefully, the referee will soon break it up. Anyway, I >personally think Rodney Moore has been a great innovator and appreciate >his work. Thanks for listening, A. B. MacSince you wrote a thoughtful post, I will offer a thoughtful reply. Iam tired of this war as well. It is counterproductive. Let me tell youwhat I hoped would happen and why I am uniquely frustrated with RodneyMoore. The American economy is unique in that it is consumer oriented. Oureconomy is basically a buyer's market. Consumers can get virtually anyproduct they want at prices the rest of the world only dreams of. Forexample, American consumers pay $19.95 per month for unlimited internet access on top of relatively cheap phone-line charges. Europeans havehigher overall costs, primarily because their economic system operatesdifferently for all kinds of historical reasons. Japan is aproducer-oriented economy. Their consumers get shafted by high pricesat almost every level, from taxi fares to fruit prices. So we arespoiled. As a spoiled consumer, I can get products tailored to my whims byletting the supplier know how I feel since I am never the only personwho feels that way. If they are unresponsive, I simply shift to anothersupplier. How many brands of toilet tissue does Procter & Gamble supply? How many diaper brands or detergent brands are there? The only industry that won't refine their products once they get wind of consumer disinterest is the adult industry. They make no effort to systematically study or communicate with their customer base. They churn out horrible, undifferentiated products (brands) to what they perceive are morons who will rent anything. And that is basically what happens. People rent this junk en masse, so the industry says "what the f---?". "Why change anything since these dunderheads will simply keep renting?" So I guess we get what we deserve.

The only vehicle to communicate intelligently with the decision-makers is RAME. I suspect a lot more lurk in this newsgroup than we realize, but nothing changes for the better. I bet Ed Powers lurks here, but look at his lack of effort to improve. I like his cute, fresh women; and I enjoy how his openings bring out the personalities and ethnic backgrounds of his models. But I despise his shoddy, unacceptable camera work. Yet his refusal to improve that aspect of his MDD series shows his complete disdain for the consumer.

Why not make an effort to convert a good product into an excellent product? Answer: he doesn't give a whit about what a dunderhead renter thinks. An interesting attitude in a consumer-oriented economy. The only producers with the courage to participate in this newsgroup are Rodney Moore, Paul Little, Jim Gunn, and Mike South. I have never seen a Mike South tape, a situation I will rectify shortly. Max aims a unique, in-your-face product squarely at a market niche that does not include me, so I am indifferent to him. I have zero interest in homosexual couplings (male/male or female/female), so I don't care about Jim Gunn. But I am 100% in the market niche that Rodney Moore serves.

Other than Peter North, no one else consistently generates copious amounts of semen like Rodney. But North can't ejaculate into an ocean, even standing knee-deep in one. So, given North's abysmal aim, I thought Rodney was my man. When I first encountered the Creme De LaFace series, I thought I had found heaven. It took around 15 tapes before I realized I was actually in hell and called it quits with Rodney's work. I mean, I tried. I want cum-shots directly into a woman's mouth that are swallowed. Not drooled or bubbled or smeared or snowballed into someone else's mouth. No shot or wine glasses, no shower curtains, no plates; none of that. Just swallowed. And the more copious the volume, the better. But the fantasy aspect of this fetish to me is ruined by unattractive women.

When this thread began, I was optimistic that Rodney Moore would use the feedback to retweak his product line to expand his fan base and recapture lost customers like myself. But the opposite has occurred.

Rodney has locked himself into an adamant position. He feels female talent falls into two, and only two categories: either his version of the girl-next-door or overexposed bleached-blonds with screw-on breasts. He uses the latter as his mantra to justify staying just the way he is. So be it. I think both sides should just declare a truce and move on. But it confirms my cynical theory that the adult industry has a filthy view of itself, it's employees, and its customers. And the public keeps on renting and buying whatever is churned out. So I guess we get what we deserve, n'est ce pas?

Subject: Reply to Rodney Moore (long)

From: Dithering@hotmail.com (Dithering)

Date: 1998/03/19 Message-ID: <rame.890336414p28631@bash>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

Moore <rodneymr@kincyb.com> wrote:> I had wanted to avoid any more posts on this subject, but I must respond> to this, since you have incorrectly stated my final thoughts on this > subject. First, I have in fact listened and responded. I have been> seeking out and finding better looking "natural" type girls. I'm going to> Seattle next week, and my first task is to find a good make-up artist or> make-over salon, not to make natural girls suddenly look plastic and> "hollywood", but to bring out whatever natural beauty they have.

This is a very helpful response. This thread is hopefully nearing the end of its life-cycle. Whew! Since your reply was thorough, I will do the same. I won't participate in this thread again. Forgive me if I summarized your position in a way that was inaccurate. Thank you for the clarification.

I am forever amazed by the power of makeup to create the illusion of beauty, both in my personal life and on film. I have thrice had girlfriends I thought were drop-dead beauties during the courtship phase. You know; the lunches, the dinners, the movies, and all that.

To my chagrin, the initial "morning afters" were underwhelming, to say the least. Each of those "beauties" were actually average or slightly above-average looking women. That after-the-fact realization did not diminish my attraction to them one iota. But it stunned me how big the gap was between natural beauty and make-up-enhanced beauty. I suspect one reason for your large following is most men tacitly realize that most women are average looking. Many of your models are just like the women we live and work with. But most men also appreciate the tasteful investment certain women make in enhancing their looks towards our fantasy ideals if they aren't inherently stunning to begin with. Either they are superficial for doing it, or we are superficial for quietly encouraging it. Who knows? Either way, it is a fact of life. So don't think for a second your investment in a make-up artist will erode your existing fan base.(Assuming, of course, make-up is not packed on like a high school paper-mache project). I bet your hard-core fans will be even happier, and many of the folks on the periphery will come into your tent.

Ø A perfect example of this would be Twilite Moon, who in Creme 21 wore no> makeup and looked somewhat plain, but when I shot her on my next visit in> Creme 22, she had learned how to do her makeup and I thought she looked> quite stunning. If I can keep the audience that is happy with my work> while adding those like yourself who have expressed dissatisfaction by> making a few subtle changes, it would make no sense not to make that> effort.

Bravo. Odds are highly in your favor this will pay off. I have often traveled to the University of Washington area of Seattle.(Twilite Moon strikes me as one of those Seattle earth-mother names, sort of like Natty Dread. Of course, I am probably wrong). I would not rate Seattle women as appreciably less attractive than the women I see in New York City, but there is a small drop-off which is easily explained. The New York women are working in corporate headquarters enviroments. So, they are better dressed and better groomed (made-up) to begin with. And almost by definition, the usually non-native-born women who rise to the headquarters level in a national capital (as opposed to a regional capital), are of the better-looking variety. Sorry, but life isn't always fair. My long-winded point is that some fans will never be happy with your models, often because their environment exposes them to fantasy women you cannot duplicate. Simply write them off as outside your market niche.

Ø I can't speak for what Ed Powers does, he was in the right place at the> right time, being one of the first (along with Stagliano) to capitalize on> the amateur craze of the early 90's, and his space in the porn racks has> been secure ever since. One of my theories about his success is that with> so much crap out there on the market, at least with Ed you know exactly> what you're going to get, so there's not the major disappointment awaiting> one with most of the other tapes out there.>

I completely agree. Powers was fortunate with his timing, much like many of the current crop of marginal, cry-baby athletes who won the date-of-birth lottery. Sometimes that happens, and Powers has amassed a fortune. So he won, and by the time market forces (the so-called Invisible Hand) drive his revenues down, he won't care. In his mind, he got over on the teeming masses of unwashed, stupid, low-budget people who rent and buy pornographic films. And he has. All he really needs is professional camera-work to boost his MDD brand into the stratosphere. But he doesn't give a flip about improving his product. For what? A stupid stroke-off loser?

Two-Fisted posted an excellent analysis on the inertia of the rental outlets. They keep reordering Powers' tapes because it was a successful product-line in the past. They could care less if the current product is stale. But in doing so, they create a circular and misleading business model.

If the only tapes available to me when I am drunk or hard-up are MDD or some unknown brand that looks like a Leisure Time rip-off, then I will rent the MDD for the reasons you cite above. At least I know what I will get. But when month-end revenues are analyzed, guess what line was most popular? More Dirty Debutantes. So guess what gets reordered? More Dirty Debutantes. Those circular sell-through numbers tell Powers (or Black or whoever) he doesn't need to change anything. Two-Fisted's theory that the looming electronic marketplace will ultimately serve as the Invisible Hand is prescient.

As far as my saying that there are only two types of girls, skanks and> siliconed, I admit to a certain amount of defensiveness on my part. After> all, how much abuse can one person take? :) >

Agreed. Some of the comments masquerading as fan feedback were actually petty personal attacks, mine included. Those are counterproductive. Sometimes passions run high while sitting anonymously behind a keyboard, feeling Rambo-like.

> All I have said repeatedly is that I prefer a fresh and hopefully pretty> natural looking girl over a typical blonde big-boobed porn type. Again,> its not easy to find new girls who are pretty that are willing to do this> type of work. If I do what some want, then I will be turning down a lot> of girls that I may have shot otherwise. All I can do is try to > compromise, and try to make the new girls I find look as good as possible, > and not let how horny I may be at any given moment influence my decision. > But then again, isn't that what it's all about?>I don't think anyone could ask for anything more. Case closed. (Ihope).> As far as swallowing, again it is not something that most girls are> willing to do. If a girl swallows, I'll have her do it. For every guy> who wants a neat and tidy swallow shot, there's another who wants it messy> with bubbles and drool. All I can do is try to mix it up. I remember when> I used to rent porn I'd be happy to find one segment that really turned me> on out of 4-5 tapes that I'd come home with. (And how many times I'd get> nothing out of all 5 movies). I like variety, that's why I give variety.> Maybe I'd do better if I stuck with one format, like Max or Ed. But I try> to keep things interesting, mix things up, try different things.>

I completely understand the pressures you face in the "different strokes for different folks" arena. That is your call as the professional decision-maker. I must confess I am perplexed that women agree to this ass-to-mouth business, which strikes me as a hepatitis accident waiting to happen; yet are squeamish about ingesting semen. Or, for an actress to allow another actress to urinate in her face (a la Cumback Pussy 6) and pass it off as squirting. Maybe I just don't understand life.

Subject: Thesaurus for porn fans. WARNING--ADULT LANGUAGE

From: Dithering@hotmail.com (Dithering) Date: 1998/03/29

Message-ID: <rame.891212404p28604@bash>

Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

It seems like I encounter new words every week reading this newsgroup. Foolish me; I thought English was my native language. But I finally realized that it wasn't me. There is actually a parallel universe of words that "pornateers" must master or forever be in the dark. I am still confused by some words, so if the following definitions are inaccurate, please correct them. Please note this post is not for delicate, touchy, or politically-correct sorts. Females will probably take offense, but that's life in the big city. Also note that I am unaware of the vocabulary of the gay world. But I suspect some "gay" words have already migrated into the "straight" world's adult-industry language pool. This list, when finally complete, probably belongs on RAME's frequently-asked-questions list. I am only using verbs in their "-ingform" (i.e. gerunds). I am including the derivation and logic of the word, if I know it. This knowledge was accumulated over three decades of experiences in schools, locker rooms, sporting events, barber shops, urinals, go-go clubs, subways, airport bars, offices, watering-holes, trading floors, and Usenet newsgroups. It is provided free of charge and on an as-is basis. I am sure some enterprising sort will create a separate list of pure nouns. That list, of course, would be staggering. Just think of how many crude synonyms men have created for the word vagina. Pussy, cunt, twat, trim, beaver, stank (Ebonics word), bush (multiple-use word also meaning pubic hair), poontang, hair-pie, box, box-lunch-at-the-Y, vertical-smile, slit, nookie, clam, red-eye, booty (Ebonics word)cock-socket (Max Hardcore-onics) etc. Here goes:

1. Boinking--A synonym for f---ing. Derivation and logic unknown, but good to use on women you are trying to seduce. They think it is witty and clever, which, by extension, makes you that way--even though you are actually a boor.

2. Felching--The licking or sucking of semen from an anus. Derivation and logic unknown. (I think felch originated in the gay world, but I honestly don't know).

3. f---ing--The insertion of an (hopefully) erect penis into a warm orifice followed by enthusiastic in-and-out movements. The original verb to describe coitus; this beautiful word has spawned scores of copycat terms. Gladly, none of these pretenders can duplicate the elegant simplicity of saying, with pride, "I f---ed Nadia Nyce". Derivation is said to be from Victorian England in reference to men accused of patronizing prostitutes. Scotland Yard would trump-up charges titled "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge" (F.U.C.K.) against these chaps. (Of course, this explanation is most likely as accurate as 99.999% of Usenet posts in that it sounds like total bulls---).

4. 4. Queefing--I am not exactly sure about this. Queefing is the modern-day term for what was once known as pussy-farts. But I have seen one post describing the pushing of internally-deposited semen out of an anus as being "queefed". Derivation and logic unknown.

5. 5. Rimming--The licking of another person's anus. A slangy (or tangy)synonym for analingus. Derivation and logic unknown although I first saw this term in a Village Voice article on high-risk homosexual behavior.

6. 6. Shrimping--The sucking of a female's toes. It is said that well-formed feminine toes resemble baby-sized cocktail shrimp. (I doubt if Vanessa Del Rio's toes resemble baby shrimp, but that's probably a cheap shot that enables the moderator to reject this post under the umbrella of "trolling")

7. 7. Spooning--Sexual intercourse whereby a female, lying on her side, is penetrated by a male, also lying on his side. The logic (I guess) is the way two spoons fit perfectly together.

8. 8. Spurting--Synonym for male ejaculation. Spurting can run the gamut from a Randy West tear-drop to a Peter North water-main-break eruption.

9. 9. Squirting--A truth-in-advertising fraud hoisted upon ugly Americans. On-film squirting is female urination (pissing) masquerading as a female orgasm and subsequent discharge.

10. 10. Swiving--A synonym for f---ing. A bona-fide dictionary word, depending on how comprehensive your dictionary is.

Rog: REVIEW:> I hadn't seen a Vivid film with Dyanna Lauren in quite some> time until I grabbed Bad Wives last year. After being so blown away by > Dyanna's acting and sexual skills, she shot to the top of my list of> stars to watch out for. She is beautiful, can handle dialog and goes> beyond the usual stereotype of what a Vivid Girl will do. When it> comes the stars with the whole package, Dyanna is in the top ten> performers in all of porn. She is perfect for this sort of role that> requires a bit more than just a pretty face and a willingness to f---> on camera.> Dyanna plays a woman with secrets. After blowing off her date> (no, not blowing him.), she slips out to a sex club called The Zone.> There she watches all kinds of interesting sexual activity, including> Chloe masturbating while one guy sucks another off near by. Don't> worry, it doesn't last long and no one blows a wad. (I can just hear> the deafening sound of tens of thousands of squeamish porn fans all> screaming and grabbing their remote controls at once.) <A guy sucking> another guy's dick:the HORROR!>

Many thanks for the heads-up on a movie to avoid. There is something under-handed about a production company known for skimping on putting its actresses through the paces now sneaking in a scene of one man sucking another man's dick. Mind you, this is the same production company that can't show Janine sucking a man's dick. (Yeah, yeah; I know she won't do it, but yeah, yeah; don't offer her a lucrative contract. /Rant-mode off/).

So Vivid now lobs a homosexual scene into a "straight" video to refute the charge they aren't nasty enough? Is that their motivation? Is this for their "couples" audience? Damn, maybe I should join the "Maxbrigade", or should I now be on the look-out for Max now tossing in scenes of himself being used as a cock-socket, given his newly-alleged" AC-DC" status? I clearly belong in a nunnery. Anyone looking for a roommate in one?

P.S. Although 85% of R.A.M.E. is worthless, the 15% that is useful is truly helpful. Would an AVN review of this movie point out this gay scene? Not a flame but a question.

Subject: Re: New Gonzo Series: You tell me!

From: Dithering@hotmail.com (Dithering)

Date: 1998/04/04

Message-ID: <rame.891674404p32726@bash>Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

Ron Yamauchi <yammer@vcn.bc.ca> wrote: > I was thinking of that, actually. A dirty mind and an articulate voice> would go well with the "gonzo" aspect. Sarcasm and wit could provide the> appropriate distance to ironically appreciate the circus acts that we all> like to see....> > Mind you, my first choice was not you but Angela Summers. However, I> haven't yet seen any of your stuff. I guess I will now. > > Hm. This fan/performer forum leads to some interestingly awkward social> dynamics, doesn't it?

Yes, it certainly does. And I wonder if these awkward dynamics are a main reason so many performers have bad experiences in this forum. On one level, blame must be levied squarely at the one-line, cheap-shot-artists who are devoid of original thoughts themselves, but happily take shots at other people. We, the fans, are anonymous and invisible. They, the performers, are in a fish bowl, with every flaw exposed by high-beam floodlights (note the thread on who has the most freckles). And with a subject matter as intimate as sex in front of a camera, there is no limit to how nasty some comments can be. Case in point: when the subject of Asia Carrera's bit part in the Big Lebowski first arose, one poster advised her to stay away from mainstream acting and stick to roles involving a dick in her ass (his words, not mine). Although that remark was funny as hell to me, it was exceedingly tasteless, and I bet Carrera did not find it amusing. In real life, that poster would (should) have gotten his ass beaten.

Unfortunately, the anonymous "town hall" aspect of Usenet allows the dimmer lights amongst us to "dumb down" everyone else. That can't be avoided without over-empowering the moderators. Frankly, they don't deserve any more authority. With all that said, part of the problem lies with the performers. They magnify these bad experiences by entering this forum craving attention and wearing their emotions on their sleeves (or blouses). Many are accustomed to unmitigated fawning, and may even believe they deserve such adulation. I was amused by Hart Williams' post on Traci Lords where he said he was always astonished at "her high opinion of what seemed a nonexistent intellect" (his words, not mine). It seems some performers are addicted to "hero worship" and fail to realize this newsgroup is not exactly a congenial fan club gathering. They often draw attention to themselves by participating in threads ("well what about me"?) they should ignore. I'm sure the recent survey on the "Best Asian Actress" was tempting to Asia Carrera since her name was rarely volunteered. But had she jumped in to suggest herself, some blistering (and hurtful) remarks were forthcoming. To her credit, she stayed away from the topic. Too often, performers don't show such restraint, which creates the awkward situation you mentioned in your post.

This awkwardness creates tension, which leads to a rude comment, followed by a sharply-worded rebuttal from the performer, which then opens the gates of hell. The final step is when the performers storm away saying "the hell with those motherf---ers; they must not be getting any". (sound familiar?) Who was at fault, the self-serving performer looking for attention, the poster who made the original caustic remark, or the blitzing linebackers who attack after the play has started?

<torris@mindspring.com> wrote:

> The fact that all the tests were submitted as proof she's negative *but*

> the DNA makes me suspicious. The only negative that would count would be

> the DNA, much more over the other tests right? A negative Western Blot,

> Eliza etc. still doesn't cancel out a positive DNA would it? And my only

> concern about this is that I assumed this was for Nena's entry back into

> the business. She certainly made it clear that is not her intent. But the

> cynic in me wonders why is she intent on trumpeting her negativity; even

> in a recent AVN mention in Loose Lips. Is this greasing the path for a

> comeback. Testing the waters so to speak?

I can't speak for Nena Cherry's motives, Torris. I know even less than you since I don't read AVN. I have never seen a Nena Cherry movie that I know of nor have I seen her web-site. I have never seen a picture of her, so I don't even know how she looks. I am only aware of her from

lurking in RAME over the last two years. So my comments represent nothing more noble than rank speculation.

Your suspicious nature may have led you to the correct conclusions regarding Ms. Cherry. But deep-down, I hope you are wrong. I agree that the missing DNA test is revealing. If that test is the industry standard, you would think it would be trumpeted if it showed she was

well. Think of how good that news would be to her and her family. But therein may lie the answer. Let me try to explain.

I have read posts in RAME, including her own, saying Ms. Cherry appeared in around 200 movies, which means she is probably a very young (25-30), high-energy woman. I also recall reading she hailed from Houston, Texas and is a new bride and mother. So here is my crude, deductive

reasoning.

Whenever I visit Texas and those topless bars (yes I am swine, hear me roar), I always leave insolvent and dumbfounded how blazing-hot those dancers are. I assume Ms. Cherry has the looks, curves, and sexual allure of those Houston dancers. Therefore, I assume she has the ego of a pretty woman at the peak of her physical beauty.

Although I have never known anyone infected by the HIV virus, it strikes me as being worse than any nightmare. Just think, a 25-year-old (I'm guessing) pretty woman, with a pretty-woman's ego, learning she has 8 years to live, and with horrendous physical deterioration during those

remaining years. Mind you, this is a young woman who makes her living based on her good looks. Frankly, I can't think of anything more devastating other than being paralyzed in an accident.

So I am unjudgemental on her original rambles to this newsgroup. I assume at the very least she was heartbroken; at worst, she was suicidal. But even worse, when she read a supposedly-supportive, industry-affiliated newsgroup (RAME), she found the most lethal mistake of her life being broadcast by unseen strangers and with all kinds of

nasty quips. Bloody hell dude. How happy would you be?

As thin-skinned as I am, I get irritated by dork-like but harmless responses to my posts, so I can't fathom how she felt with those invasive comments on her illness. And don't forget she probably thought she would see kind remarks in this forum. I mean, with 200 movies, Ms. Cherry had gone through the adult-industry ringer, but now saw herself being disparaged as a nobody and a junkie. No human likes that feeling.

Especially not after the rough gangbangs and hard anals and D/P's and T/P's and what-nots.

So, maybe her re-entry in public may be for a simple reason. Her life is sunnier and her prognosis is upbeat. Ms. Cherry might just be boiling mad and wants revenge. And can you blame her? I don't know if she wants back in the industry she feels betrayed her, or just wants to

yell f--- YOU. Wouldn't you? Hopefully, idiots like myself (and you) will show restraint and stop posting to this thread and leave Ms. Cherry alone. There are lots of other topics to rag on. (Where the hell is Rodney?)

> If it's a case of hey I'm not sick, just wanted you to know. Right on;

> good for her. But getting Luke involved as her "HIV publicist" just makes

> me overly curious about the pomp and circumstance. For someone who

> purports to hate the industry with such vehemence why is she so intenton

> making the porn industry and marketplace aware of her negative status,

> unless she's looking to return.

See my above remarks. I don't understand the relationship with Scoop Luke, but I typically misunderstand Le Scoop, so what's new.

> Once again, why all the effort on this level unless she's looking for a

> way back into films. Isn't it enough to say, through the miracle of modern

> medicine and healthy living, I'm now negative. We'd all say, "good on ya"

> or "who cares" and that would be the end of it.

My vote is to allow anyone who has gone through this tramua some latitude to thrash around as part of their healing process. I am happy to leave her alone.

> See, the fact that you want to see proof makes me think that you suspect

> her looking for a way back into films too. Magic Johson claims to be HIV

> negative now too. But what that means is that the lack of the antibodies

> doesn't mean that they wouldn't come back if he quit taking his drug

> cocktail.

Don't forget these protease inhibitors (sp?) are extremely expensive. Nena Cherry has to reappear at some level to monetize her brand name. The HIV virus has an insidious habit of hiding out in lymph nodes and mutating into a monster. If Nena Cherry isn't 100% in the clear, she

has to earn enough to keep herself alive. We should stay out of her way. Let this thread die.

Subject: Re: Condoms in Adult Films From: Dithering@usa.net (Dithering)

Date: 1998/04/17Message-ID: rame.892824013p26766@bash

]Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.erotica

lysas@flash.net> wrote: > > You'd be surprised how many women in adult distribution hold executive > positions. Namely at Sin City, Wicked, Vivid, Heatwave, Seduction> Productions, Private, Odyssey, VCA, Metro, etc. This is the most gender> equal business I have encountered yet>

Then surprise me with some facts in your next response. How many people are employed by Sin City Entertainment? What is the gender breakdown? What is the gender breakdown at the senior (i.e. decision-making and high-wage) level? Who are the adult-film distributors (since you chose to highlight the distribution function)? What are their gender breakdowns at the high-wage and decision-making (executive) levels? Until I read your response, I would have naively guessed Avon or Revlon (i.e. the cosmetics industry) was more gender-equal than the adult-film business, but you have enlightened me. Please enlighten me some more. Your emotional assertion would be more believable if you gave hard data to support your statement.> On the performance side, the women make more than the men!> Agreed, and for good reason. The female contribution is more valuable than the male contribution. Why? Because men are the consumers.> Lysa Stone>

For the benefit of those who missed the original comment to which Lysa Stone addresses, I will repeat myself, with small point-blank enhancements. No subtlety intended and no disrespect to Lysa Stone meant. Pornography is overwhelmingly financed by men; overwhelmingly produced, directed, and edited by men, overwhelmingly distributed by men, and overwhelmingly consumed by men. And guess what? Overwhelmingly, it is men at the consumer level that will determine whether condom-only movies prosper. Not Shane, not Eden Rae, not Darklady, not Jenna Jameson, not Lysa Stone, not Candida Royalle etc etc etc. In the condom-in-adult-movies context, female opinions are just noise. Sorry. Let me be crystal-clear with my words if the above seems too obtuse.

The rank, explicit, hard-core pornography industry exists because men overwhelmingly consume that product. Just as jails are overwhelmingly full of men and military conflicts are overwhelmingly decided by men, the world is the way it is, and facts are facts. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean it isn't true. And that statement also applies to females reading (and hating) this post. Sorry.

If you want to observe the workings of supply/demand curves outside of classrooms and directly in free markets, just force condom-only movies on the American marketplace. Stand back Ms. Stone; you are in for a show. That giant sucking sound won't be Linda Lovelace (can you say off-shore production and distribution jobs). And that boom won't be the Concorde achieving supersonic speed (can you say thundering hoards demanding Private tapes).

Subject: [Straight] Is male homo/bi-sexuality the norm?

From: Dithering@usa.net (Dithering)

Date: Thu, May 7, 1998 22:29 EDT

Message-id: <rame.894598803p15070@bash>

X-No-Archive: Yes

This last interview by Scoop Luke F-rd of Earl Slate pushed me over the edge with my bewilderment of male talent in heterosexual films. From various r.a.m.e. posts, it appears a fair number of males in heterosexual porn also have homosexual tendencies. And of course, the

public story is always one incident, just like Ervin (Magic) Johnson got infected with HIV by a woman. Funny how conveniently things work out sometimes, huh?

Let me state my opinion clearly before going any further. A purely heterosexual adult male does not get his jollies from sex with other men. Any voluntary deviation instantly puts one outside the category of "purely heterosexual". Whether the proper label is "purely homosexual", "bisexual", or Marv-Albert-like "experimental", is better

explored in alt.sexuality. I neither know nor care. But purely heterosexual men don't interact with other men as sexual partners. And please spare me the whole incarceration or boarding-school flimflam. I

am explicitly discussing voluntary behavior between adult males.

In the past two years reading this newsgroup, I have read at least eight examples of so-called heterosexual male talent doing things that violate the notion of "purely heterosexual". So what does that make these men?

(1) Earl Slate--Per Luke F-rd's expose, Slate shags a male transsexual in the ass, but asserts that is not gay sex. Huh?

(2) John Stagliano--In a state of inconsolable grief, Buttman goes to a third-world nation (Brazil) with third-world hygenic practices, and allows a male transsexual prostitute to zoom him in the ass without a

condom. What? Stagliano asserts that barring this one occasion, he did not indulge in gay sex. I believe you, Big John; that was your first gay experience. Who's zooming who?

(3) Marc Wallice--Desperate for money at the beginning of his porn career, Wallice asserts he did one gay film(a). Subsequent commentary(b) suggests Wallice was on the receiving end of a dick in his mouth and ass on more than one occasion, and took a facial(s). Man-oh-man. Who's zooming who?

(4) Peter "I'm Not Gay" North--Peter asserts he is straight as an arrow, but the film record shows Lord Matt Ramsey both giveth and taketh(d). Oh my.

(5) John Holmes--According to the recent thread, Holmes did gay scenes both early and late in his porn career.

(6) Tom Byron--Byron has a penchant for being on the receiving end of strap-on erotica. His joyful participation in these girl-f---s-boy scenes makes me cynical. Call me whatever, but my male intuition tells

me that being "the receiving end" is something Byron does off-camera.

Mad-Max Hardcore was point-blank when he suggested Byron travels this unlit road.(c) Another poster(b) mentioned Byron's participation in a gay jack-off film early in his career (whatever a jack-off film is).

(7) Jake Steed--I can't recall the specifics, but I have seen several references to Jake Steed in gay jack-off films; whatever jack-off films are.

(8) Mad-Max Hardcore--In a stunning case of art imitating life (or maybe, Simple Justice), one poster with a record of thoughtful and non-vitriolic posts(e) asserted Mad-Max also travels that dirt road.

For those good at pattern-recognition, does something in the preceding paragraphs jump out at you? For reasons beyond my comprehension, a number of males participating in the heterosexual adult-film world live androgynous (at some level) lives. Does getting so much pussy so often

from so many women lead men to search for other thrills? Or is it that the dick-for-hire-type is inherently androgynous? Maybe I just don't get it.

In any case, given the current hysteria in the adult-film industry about HIV infections, try being comprehensive. Instead of labeling Devereaux and Cherry and Ashley and Caroline as "party-girls" and dismissing them

as sluts, how about affixing a cold-eyed particle-beam on the dick-for-hire "experimental" types who jeopardize everything and everyone. Somebody needs to give Peter "I'm Not Gay Nor Am I Matt Ramsey" North a PCR/DNA test straightaway, and without remorse. And don't stop with him. Do it without remorse to everyone mentioned above

and all their buddies. And, by the way, do it without "Playpen In The Damned" imagery or whatever that horses--- is.

(a) Per Luzdedos1 <luzdedos1@aol.com> 4.26.98 post.

(b) Per X-Nico <XNico@XNICO.com> 4.28.98 post.

(d) Per M10JM <m10jm@aol.com> 3.29.98 post and other posts not cited.

(e) Per A.B. Mac" <krisbamNOSPAM@thecia.NET> 4.1.98 post.

darklady@spiritone.com wrote:

> I was at a swingers club last night and my partner and I were> watching some of the porn on the video screen when I noticed that the guy> in the video had on a condom and it was shiny. It occurred to me that the> shininess resembled what a man's cock looks like if a woman has gotten him> wet from her own juices.

I can only presume the smug reference to visiting a swingers club was to alert readers how hip, freaky, with-it, experienced, and knowledgeable you are about sexual matters so your theories will go unchallenged.

Did it occur to you that a shining condom, covered with artificial lubricants, acts as a beacon to certain male viewers predisposed to hating their presence? Simple me, I would have thought an inobtrusive, nearly invisible condom is a more palatable way to include condoms in films? But I guess my view is less insightful since I am not hip.

Maybe the condom should have been fluorescent aqua so it really lit up, looking wet and shiny and cute.

> Maybe if guys would stop thinking "s---, he's got a condom on. That > sucks" and think of it as "Man, he's glistening! She must really be > having a great time" they'd be able to deal with condom porn more easily.

Luckily, r.a.m.e. does not fine people for wayward logic. The "glistening" is KY-Jelly or whichever lubricant is used on porn sets.

It is foolish for me to lecture women on how they should think and feel about wearing bras, since I am male and I don't wear bras. Since you are not a man --allegedly-- maybe you should stop thinking you can speak for how men should fantasize about condoms in adult films. Although I am truly grateful for the hint, you merely illuminate yourself as a target for attack. And then you slither away to rearm yourself with increasingly bizarre logic before reappearing to lecture us non-swinger men all over again, and with the same end result--a volley of missiles.

This becomes circular and counterproductive. Doesn't it make your head hurt?

5/13/98:

The transcripts posted by Scoop Luke F-rd of his interviews with W. Margold indicate in no uncertain terms that W. Margold considers me a dunce because I use the Internet as a business research tool and for recreation. W. Margold's astute depiction of me as a fool has shaken me to my shallow, uninformed, undereducated core.

Unlike W. Margold's upper-echelon life, my work environment and social circle consist of part-time prostitutes, strippers, runaways, dropouts, druggies, societal outcasts, parolees; and self-destructive underachievers incapable of realizing their day-to-day actions --including tatoos, screw-on breasts, and body-piercings-- doom them to

lives of demeaning stereotypes in mainstream society. Even worse, some of my best buds allegedly fake HIV tests and knowingly have unprotected sex with people who rely on the accuracy of those tests for their safety. You are right W. Margold, I suck.

Not only has my self-esteem plummeted in the wake of W. Margold's uncanny assessment of me, I am frantically searching for ways to prove I am smart. Although my wheels turn slowly, I considered five options.

First, I can establish a web-site that I tell everyone I created myself. That, in and of itself, makes me smart; correctamundo? On my web-site, I [Asia Carrera] can hint at my Mensa credentials, high-school honors and SAT scores--oh, never mind I can't finish what I start without running away or dropping out. (I had a troubled childhood, unlike anyone else in human history, so what of it, Jack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Second, I can chase down Scoop Luke, and show him documentation that I won spelling bees in high school. (He'll publish that s--- on the "net" and it will spread like wildfire.)

Third, I can manufacture acronyms to show how clever I am; acronyms like PAW, FOXE, or NFL. (f---ing brilliant, eh?) Better yet, I can develop nebulous terms for organizations like FSC (Free Speech Coalition) that bear no hint of the organizations' actual purpose. Who cares about

being taken seriously?

Fourth, I can generate one-time postings by sychophants from different domain names telling everyone I am sharp as a tack. Heck, I can even compose and post those accolades myself, but pretend to be a third person. (Smart, aren't I?)

Fifth, I can adopt a speaking and writing style where I use lofty, sage-like platitudes that mean nothing, but sound profound. Let's see; how about "Recess is over in the playpen of the damned" as a starter phrase? That will rock someones' small world. Better yet, what if I proclaim that "Halloween is 366 days a year on the internet". Boy, if

I speak like that, even an imbecile knows I got game.

Rather than limiting myself to only one of the above options, I will do all five. Maybe then, I will be a wunderkind to the adult-film powers-that-be, rather than a coward wearing a dunce cap sitting behind a keyboard--using a pseudonym no less. Now if I can just get Scoop Luke to tell the world how smart I was in high school with my spelling bees and s---...

6/12/98

Roger, unless I am mistaken, this thread is an outgrowth of comments Carerra made about r.a.m.e. posters in her chat channel. Apparently, one of her chat regulars took offense and introduced her comments into this forum. In that sense, this thread isn't true "piling on". (Per my referee manual, the yellow flag stays in my pocket when/if the aggressor winds up on his/her ass. I view the concept as Simple Justice.)

Not that you asked, but let me go further. Like downtown, if you don't mind.

It seems whenever I check r.a.m.e. after an absence, there is some new hubbub over Carerra. Well, I think I finally understand why, and the answer won't sit well with many. It has to do with appearing pretentious in a f----and-suck-orientated newsgroup.

I, like you, am tired of this back-and-forth nonsense. (Didn't someone just post she has retired? She can now attend medical school and over-achieve, rather than blather about what could have been. Or pull a Careena Collins thingie and take the law school route. Isn't a LSAT test date coming up?)

A month or so back, a fan posted a query on Carerra's anal scenes.

Another poster, for unknown reasons, took it upon himself to defend her dearth of anal scenes as if he were her soul-mate. (His theory was she did not like anal sex.)

Oddly, she embarassed him -- an apparent booster-- in public, saying neither he nor other fans were qualified to judge whether actresses enjoy on-film activities. They are paid professionals, she said.

Carerra then proceeded to open her large mouth much wider by informing him she was paid "exponentially" more than $500 per scene by keeping her anus off-limits except for selective auditions.

Now, either Carerra is inept in math or smugly thought everone else is inept, but another poster quickly corrected her. ($500-squared equals $250,000. Those damn exponents, don't-you-know?) Was that poster "piling on" as well? Her trying to use the word "exponential" rather than the correct word --"multiple"-- got her jammed. My point is that Carerra creates problems for herself by misusing (or misunderstanding) cyberspace.

Eden Rae is a much more frequent poster to this newsgroup than Carerra. Having read the writings of both Rae and Carerra, Ms. Rae is a sharper knife. Eden Rae also expresses sharply-worded opinions without hesitation. Haven't you noticed people don't launch hostile posts in her direction? And why is that, my friend?

Is it because Eden Rae appears secure in herself and her career, and feels no need to bamboozle people into believing all kinds of who-gives-a-f--- things? Why do all these mean, insecure men attack poor, sweet, vulnerable Asia, but leave Ms. Rae alone? Huh? (By the way, I have no affiliation with Eden Rae.)

By many accounts, Rae is a bright light. So, shouldn't all those r.a.m.e. bumblef---s be intimidated by Rae, and seek to tear her down?

Aren't male porn consumers intimidated by smart women? So, why in the f---ing hell does no one "pile on" Eden Rae? Huh?

The answer is obvious. Eden Rae adds value to this newsgroup; and is an impressive young lady. She is accomplished, and makes no attempt to put bassoons (or harps or cellos or whatever pretentious bulls---) into porn films. She also uses this forum to build her fan base. Smart (and cheap) business strategy, if you ask me

Why does no one "pile on" Ms. Muffin? Muffin writes impressive tirades against no-condom theories that probably irk some male readers. (They sometimes irk me.) But her postings are insightful, and when people disagree with her, they do so without venom. Why is that? Is is somehow related to Ms. Muffin coming across as sincere and secure in her life choices?

Jackie Lick often makes truly bonehead comments in this forum. But people disagree with her in civil ways. Once again, why is that?

R.a.m.e. is, on balance, a smart forum. There are some extremely stupid people posting in this newsgroup. Extremely. I guess one should expect that in an anonymous, pornography-related forum. (One might consider me extremely stupid.)

But there are also some people (gay and straight) whose posts' consistently sparkle. Pretension does not sit well with humans; whether Usenet or r.a.m.e. or real life.

This is an amazingly easy forum for porn performers to use to build their fan base. Why has Eden Rae (as sharp as she is) done so well and Carerra the opposite? Why do people (my opinion) pull for Ms. Muffin and Jackie Lick and Tina Tyler and Kalina Lynx (sp?) etc. but jam Carerra.

Is everyone an insecure loser, or is something else happening?