In 1974, Pat Riley saw his first X-rated movie - The Devil In Miss Jones. "I thought the acting was poor, the plot stupid and the production inept but it did deliver on the "things I had never seen before". Was it erotic? No. The women were ugly and the movie provided little build up. R rated movies were much better."

During the rest of the '70s, Riley saw about a dozen pornos. The only one he remembers is Fiona On Fire starring the "marginal" Amber Hunt.

"I got my first VCR in 1981… video stores charged membership fees, lines of 30 people to check in and out movies, near-fights over the latest release, the most commonly available series was Victory At Sea. After exhausting the mainstream potential, rather than go home empty handed, I rented the occasional porno. No difference. The women were still ugly, the plots sucked and the production values stank..."

Upon subscribing to porno review magazines including AVN, Pat noticed a problem. "For a scene that I would have described as "A butt ugly cleaning lady with tree-trunk thighs gets f---ed by a guy who looks like he's in the terminal stages of AIDS" the magazines would tell me "The delicious Ethel Pop-Your-Rocks is irresistible in her scene with handsome Fred Stud." Huh? Did they see the same movie? They also neglected to tell me that Ethel Pop-Your-Rocks also goes under the name of Big Boobs Freida so when I rented my next AAAAA volcanic heat movie, I had to endure another couple of scenes of Ethel/Big...

"I fired off a stream of letters to various publications bitching and moaning including one to Holliday which he answered by phone and then in his column. Naturally there was no change in any magazine's PC policy.

"Things looked up when Bob Rimmer, to whom I had written a long missive primarily about his inability to ID actresses, offered me a partnership.

"I despise most of what the industry produces. My function is to point out the few pornos that might be worth watching and tell you about how bad the rest are." (RAME)

Regarding AVN, Roger Pipe writes on RAME, "Keep in mind that they do not write for you and I. They write for video store owners, and for industry insiders."

Riley: "That's a cop out. If they really were doing that, they'd just review the box, the movie company, and how well or badly previous tapes of this line have done. AVN wants to avoid the hard work of describing accurately what goes on and discussing the quality of the people, so they pretend it's only for the video store owner and he wouldn't be interested. Why? Compare Variety's reviews which are supposedly for the theater market and note the superior quality. Try the movie industry publication Film Journal and see the difference. If we had the quality of these publications in the porno industry neither the "fans" nor the video stores owners would have reason for complaint."

Best Porn Years: Between 1970 and 1976, and 1983 to 1986. The early seventies because they were the flower children era. Girls who liked sex and did it with their friends, few enhanced tits, few tattoos, few piercings, high quality girls = middle class or better, few trailer park trash, pretty girls like Orita deChadwick, Kandi Jones, the entire cast of Swinging Sorority, plots that were sex related (still badly acted) like harem, rape, U/A sex, incest; fun movies not the going through the motions of today, people liked what they were doing; kissing, fondling, touching, girls standing up, walking around.

1983-86: good quality girls who didn't know what they were getting themselves into, pretty, few tattoos, few piercings, few enhanced tits; Bobby Hollander; fun movies; girls like Shauna Grant, Gina Valentino, Nichole West, Stacy Donovan, Angel--pretty, not slutty. Still enough plot to keep you interested. And for both eras, little anal--if there was it was plot-integrated, few facials…gang bangs; no felching, no spitting, no cum drooling between people, no calling the girls names; there was some emotional contact between the boy and girl.

BETTER PORN: Pat Riley on business-as-usual director jimgunn@home.com (Jim Gunn). Sarcasm mode ON.

Phone: "ring....ring..."Sony Pictures executive: "Hello"

Gunn: "Hi, this is Jim Gunn from Pleasure Productions. I just wanted to tell you you're making your pictures the wrong way."

Sony: "How so, Mr. Gunn?"

[Aside to assistant: "How did this crank get through to me?"]

Gunn: "You should make them like we do in the porno industry. For the tens of millions you invest in a picture I can make you 100--even 1000 movies."

Sony: "But that sort of money wouldn't be enough to pay the actors..."

Gunn: "You don't need actors. I've got plenty of strippers willing to give acting a whirl...they act every time they have an orgasm in my movies."

Sony: "...or the directors..."

Gunn: "Every performer out there is a director in the making. In the porn industry as soon as they know where the "record" button is on the camera, they're qualified to be a director or cinematographer."

Sony: "But these days directors spend four years in college..."

Gunn: "They don't need no stinkin' college degree. They can pick it all up on the job, and if they don't so what. Those mooks renting the tapes won't know any difference."

Sony: "Well, what about a script. Writers are expensive you know."

Gunn: "What writers? I write all my scripts on the back of an envelope over breakfast or make it up as I go along. Works for me. My "f----Me Edith" series is one of the most successful in the industry."

Sony: "And just how successful is that?"

Gunn: "We sold 10,000 units of #29 at $8 a pop. Can you beat that?"

Sony: "Well, we consider any videotape release that sells less than 300,000 units a failure and our unit price is generally greater than $30 and then there's the cable, TV, foreign, theatrical..."

Gunn: "Oooh...still, if you change your mind, just give me a ring."

Sony: "We sure will, Mr Gunn."

Phones: "click." Sarcasm mode OFF.

Now I realize neither Pleasure nor Vivid will ever be a Sony--for one thing at least 50% of the population will never watch a porno movie (most women, religious fanatics, kids, etc)--but they are all competing for the public's entertainment dollar. You can take your choice: compete for an ever-diminishing slice of the (tiny anyway) raincoater dollar with dozens of other two-bit companies or, as I think Vivid and Wicked (correctly) want to do, try to expand their market to include the rest of the mainly male population. Unfortunately, they don't do it very well. You complain that I have>absoultely zero common sense or >understanding of how anything actually works in a practical sense. which simply indicates your unwillingness to shift from the business-as-usual mode--the rut you're in. Some of my suggestions may indeed be impractical--they're quickie off-the-cuff ideas--but they address the problems I, as a consumer, see with Vivid (and the like) productions. If anyone has better suggestions...well that's the purpose of this NG. But your find-a-trivial-problem-with-each just shows a lack of vision.

Maybe you're content with low volume sales and an endless grind of look-a-like unerotic releases but this consumer isn't and I don't think Vivid (and the like) are. When you say>If you were to really follow these rules as the head of Vivid>or any other company, then you would not only be flat broke before you>started...you're just pointing out the serious lack of foresight and low capitalization of the industry. It's a phenomenon common to lots of small businesses (and occasionally large business) when faced with declining revenue. Instead of finding new markets, researching, innovating, etc they economize, cut back, and reduce product quality all in an effort to maintain profit.

Unless they wake up, the long term future is extinction or in the porno industry's case relegation to intense competition for a specialized segment, the raincoater market. None of this is new--even Fishbein seems to think along the same lines (of course he pussies around so as not to offend anyone)--and it's really just paraphrasing Business School 101. The real difficulty is to see what's happening before it kills you. I.e. get away from the problem of whether Sally takes one or two dildos up her ass in #34 and start thinking of where the company's going to be 10 years from now.

BLACKS: The last thing I want to get involved in is the inevitable argument about who's black. Adds nothing in my view and caters to just the wrong attitude.

Having said that, for current performers it's not too hard to find out their likely skin color. Just look at the movies they're in. Black this, Booty that, Sista something, or movies with "'ho" and "Yo" in the title indicate "black" movies and usually black performers. Also look at their names. Most black females seem to have difficulty acquiring a last name and seem to like first names that mean something. Examples: Obsession, Supremacy, Taboo, Toy, Venus, Persia, Dynamite, Princess, Cocoa, Chocolate. Or combinations: Spontaneous Xtacy (or some spelling variant), Menage Trois, Stormy Shores. Black males cater to the worst stereotypes--Rasta, Big Herc, Dark Knight--or have silly names: L.T. Dee, Tony Everready, Field Marshall Bradley, Devlin Weed.

I have no intention of being nice to some female appearing on a porno movie because she might feel wounded or might feel pressured to go on a diet or might actually stop doing porno movies. Nor in real life. The culture we're talking about is not black versus white (or Black vs European): it's Developed World versus Undeveloped, First versus Third. The "European" standard you refer to leaves out a very large chunk of the world's population: the Orientals. Seen any "hefty" "big"(or whatever term you prefer) Japanese outside of the Summo wrestlers? According to Time magazine about eight years ago, we're all moving towards a standard shaped body and face due to interbreeding. The composite picture they ran looked like a cross between an Oriental and Hispanic with darker skin and a small tight body. No place for the dead white Flame's or the hefty. And this "norm" is confirmed by the never-ending stream of movies, ads, TV shows etc pouring out of the media. I'm not as familiar with Ebony as I am with the non-black women's magazines, but every time I've looked at it I see girls who resemble their white sisters except for the color of their skin. I watch Soul Train (a black show for black people, no?) over lunch on Saturday for one reason: the cute, young, lithe-bodied, small-butted, small/medium breasted dancers. I guess some black guys must like them, too <g>. And then there's Vanessa Williams (bit old nowadays), Lisa Bonnet (well, Lisa Bonnet of a few years ago; don't know what she looks like today), Mariah Carey (does she count as black?)... Oh, it must be some white devil TV/movie/ad executive saying "Let's make it hard for the hefty"

And when wjeff@worldnet.att.net (JW) said:>If your ideal at the time was Twiggy, (or Kate Moss to cite a modern>equivalent) I guess you'd agree.

Not knowing what Kate Moss looked like, I had to do a search and yes, I think Kate Moss is pretty and has an adorable little body. Given the number of web sites and the number of covers she's been on, I suppose she's a "super" model. Geez, wonder why? Could it be there are others who think she's an ideal--a model. Isn't that what the word means?

There is a "norm"--an objective definition that can be shown by example at least--for "good looking" or "beautiful" and if your personal tastes don't conform...well, just keep saying to yourself "Kate Moss is adorable. I want to screw Kate Moss. Kate Moss is..." until you get with the program <g>. In the meantime you can continue to appreciate (as Roderic Kym Cofer <rkc0006@jove.acs.unt.edu> does when speaking of Ebony Ayes) "Those big juicy titties! That nice round black ass!"; just realize your definition is not the same as the rest of us. Speaking of definitions, I'm not using words that aren't in the dictionary. "Fat" is a person who weighs more than the norm. "Pudgy" is generally a small girl who has visible excess flesh in places she shouldn't--usually her belly. "Hefty" is a female who has a large framed body--man-like--usually with excess poundage. An "Amazon" also has a big frame but doesn't have excess weight. A "beastie"...well, imagine a female version of Frankenstein's monster: "Clomp...clomp" as she thuds down the corridor on tree-trunk thighs.

All of this is perception of course. The TV screen gives you a distorted two dimensional image of the girls so in real life they might be svelte hard bodies but I wouldn't bet on it. Scottmcf understands the meaning of the words but objects to their use anyway:>5. To call some women "fat" just because they're not as unnaturally thin >as some others is pretty insulting. But it's not "unnaturally thin" that's the problem; it's the deviancy from the cultural "norm". Nothing unnatural about it. And even if, for the sake of argument, we go along with your objection and call the deviants, "full-figured" or "zaftig" or "differently-sized", people soon get used to that terminology and do a quick translation into the old word or simply apply a pejorative sense to the new one.

There is another alternative: don't describe the females at all or call them all "cute" or a similar innocuity. [This is the course followed by AVN and one of the main reasons I write porno reviews--so blame them <g>.] Unfortunately, while that might be justified in talking about (say) Supreme Court Justices, it doesn't work with porno stars. The controlling factor in most guy's choice of movie is something to do with the looks of the female; this very thread is proof of that.

CENSORSHIP: Don't confuse "doing" in real life with the fictional "doing" we see in the movies. Although many of the items one sees in the movies may lead to an increase in actual real-life doing (the seventeen year old screwing the fifteen year old for example) others are prevented by other laws and/or the internal understanding that these things are non-desirable. Personally I reject any and all externally imposed moral codes but internally I won't kill you because:

1) Something might go wrong and you'll kill me

2) It won't really benefit me enough to overcome the cost in time and effort.

3) I don't want to constantly watch my back so I pay society to do it for me but society won't do it for me and not you (equality).

Most outright and long-standing legal prohibitions fall into a similar scenario, thus "morals" are not necessary (unless you call these "morals" but I prefer to call them "practicalities") to prevent society's ills from becoming the norm. Most people who tout "morals" as a reason do so from either an imprinted belief usually acquired in childhood or from a desire to control others. The way to deal with the imprinting is to constantly ask the question "Why shouldn't I do this?" and if you can't come up with a good rational reason you're probably just marching in lockstep to an imprint you received (usually) as a child and you should reject it.

Your response to the necrophilia question is a good example of imprinting. At some time you have accepted a prohibition against sex with the dead and although you swing wildly against it even bringing in the complications of incest and an orgy which were never mentioned in the original, you bring up no real reason against it, just a uneasy feeling of "It's wrong" (this is not your words but my interpretation of your response). Regardless of your feelings however on necrophillia, there are people who get off on the idea and who would presumably like to see movies depicting such activity. One party does not have to be dead to create a fictional scene to satisfy this desire so in such a movie there is no actual transgression of your imprinted code nor of any practical code I can envisage. We are left with just a desire to control what other people think, a right you don't (or shouldn't) have in any reasonably free society.

I don't agree with your contention that there aren't any snuff movies in existence but of course I can't prove it. But that's really beside the point. If one gets off on watching someone being killed while having sex, is there some reason you have the right to say "You can't think like that". If someone is actually kiled in making a movie on this subject we have more than adequate laws to deal with the murder (probably a copy of the videotape would be good evidence). And so on with your other "Ooops, pull back from this" because you don't approve of (conflicts with your imprinting) or it doesn't correspond with your sexual urges. Of course my remarks about matriarchal control are generalities (stereotypes) and sexist. Have you recently looked at the group you're posting to? This is not alt.neuter.movies. The difference between males and females is precisely that: sex. Any remarks about the difference between males and females can always be labelled "sexist" but to do so is not an argument against the issues raised which I notice you don't address (perhaps correctly since they dwell on the reason for censorship rather than censorship itself).

Dr. Otto's argument for maintaining censorship (in some form) was that it was necessary to preserve a civilized society. My argument was that we have plenty of uncivilized activities presented in mainstream movies without a notable decrease (difficult to decide where one should draw the baseline however) in civilization and also that some activities that appear uncivilized to some and at certain times become part of the general mantle of civilization provided free speech is allowed. It's depressing to see such a lack of vigorous defense of free speech in a group that presumably likes watching something the mainstream majority regards as dirty and would quickly eliminate if they could.

It may be that in the real world we have to settle for something less than a perfect censor-free environment but to accept up front that such a result is ideal is simply to play into the hands of the other side. As an aside, if you look at the beliefs of NAMBLA (not that I'm in agreement) as presented by them, you will (or at least I do) come to the conclusion that the organization bears little resemblance to the demonized mob of perverts that is portrayed by the hysterical gutterpress.

Child Sex: Anne Rice's position on the matter: "Today, by not acknowledging that teenagers have reached full physical maturity long before they reach legal maturity, we have created a class of young women of childbearing age who are encouraged to play at sex with young males of the same age who are by no stretch of the imagination ready to become fathers or husbands. This is a travesty. We must recognise that sexual maturity comes much earlier than in ages past and stand up for the rights of young people and reexamine outlaws..."

I wrote:>>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.

Roger:>I think his point is that he has a very young child, and he was referring to child molesters, not the boys she will date later in life. Or did you get that point are willing to say that if you had a six year old and some guy started diddling her, that you would NOT take the sharpest object you could find and start removing anatomical parts? Was that really his point? It didn't seem to be Howard Stern's point. When questioned further Stern emphasized that he would beat up (or words to that effect) anybody who laid hands on his daughter ever. Robin pointed out that most girls eventually do get laid which caused Stern to lapse into silence and then change the subject. I'm sure Jeff will tell us what he really meant. As to your second part Roger, we live in a rules-based society. Short of a breakdown in law and order of the nature of a riot where the police refused to do their duty (we've had a few of those) I don't believe individuals are EVER right in taking the law into their own hands or are EVER right in extracting vengeance. Certainly you have the right to defend yourself or another person with as much force as is necessary to stop the assault or whatever but when you seem to take such great pleasure in "start[ing] removing anatomical parts" that it seems you have allowed your emotions to overcome your undoubtedly normally civilized behavior. The third point has to do with the whole question of emphasis on children to the point that no one else exists, or so it seems. 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 specifically anti-male. Take a look at alt.true-crime on the Jon Benet 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 a lot. You response (and Jeff's original) is not proportionate either. If someone smashed your child's face in with a baseball bat requiring major reconstructive surgery and never getting the face really back to its pre-assault condition, would you have the same reaction? The baseball bat would cause the child immense physical pain whereas some flasher exposing himself or even fondling your child's genitals causes little physical harm. Oh but it's the emotional pain you argue. Except for this type of activity as a society we don't protect people against emotional harm--all those women who rejected me as a teenager should pay!--precisely because it's very difficult to assess what harm occurred. The reaction you evince here seems predicated on the notion that sex is an enormous horrible thing to be avoided at all costs, not just a normal part of life for most people and for the pre-puberty child, perhaps an unpleasant experience. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating screwing six-year-olds, just that we need to take a more balanced view and asking why you (or Jeff) can't.

First the boys. Apart from the issue of working in porno movies which I would say should be the same as for the girls, any boy of any age who physically can, should get laid whenever and however and with whomever he can, subject only to the normal precautions of disease, birth control etc applicable at any age. 14-year-old boys screwing their 30-year-old female teacher is fine by me. Good luck to him. Wish I'd have had half his luck at that age. I regard with horror a few recent cases of females being prosecuted for "raping" a high school boy; an unfortunate example of the law gone wrong. The rest of this only concerns girls.

As far as working in porno movies, the age of 18 seems about right especially as it's the age at which most non-college bound people start their working life. I could be persuaded that 16 or 17 was OK too (but I'm not advocating it) and I could be persuaded that there was an exception for "emancipated children". [The concept of emancipated children currently exists and is particularly applied in the case of under 18 year-olds who work in the mainstream film business. Being declared an emancipated child allows them to enter into contracts and the like as though they were of age without having to get approval of parents etc. As I understand it, the court will take into consideration their ability to support themselves, where they live etc.] At the time of the Traci Lords problem I believe one of the defences for the producers that was touted was this question of emancipation and if you look at the early tapes of Traci you'll see that maybe she was 15/16 chronologically but looked and acted like a25/6 year old. The reasoning for support of 18 as the porno age of consent is that as a society we don't want children working--I'm also against the proliferation of part time jobs for teenagers outside of the porn industry--, and performing in a porno movie is a step with far-reaching consequences, in time well beyond the day of the shoot or the initial sale of the tape, and in impact far more serious than just getting laid for money. Even turning a trick on the street or working in the local nudie bar have less importance. Videotape is forever. Look at the questions on this group about WEHT. Well, someone knows. That guy down the block who has just watched a twenty year old tape is going to start thinking "Isn't that woman next door?" Same ear. Same nose. Same way of tossing her head to make a point. Once a porno star, always a porno star. Forget about elective office. Forget about any job which would put you in contact with children or in the public limelight. And what about your relations with a later husband? Most guys don't expect their wives to be virgins these days but there's a big difference between private screwing and taking on the team in "The Gangbang Girl #99". Frankly, with all those negatives, I don't see why anyone at any age would want to become a porno star. There's also the issue of exploitation, meaning, in this case, the ability of the producer to rely on the ignorance (notice I'm not saying immaturity) of the girl of those factors (and probably others) I just listed. He waves a wad of money in her face and just talks about the current and obvious things. It's the same reason we make 18a cut off for entering into contracts and it's reasonable to assume that below a certain age a person simply doesn't have sufficient knowledge to make a rational decision about these matters. When they can show they do we call them emancipated children (see above). So far I don't think I deviate much from the current system. Where I do have problems is with the penalties and with the current attempt to restrict dramatic license. Even though I waxed on above about the horrible things that would happen to a porno star in later life, let's also be realistic. Many porno stars are not exactly leading lives (other than porno) which would get them elected president. The impact on these girls of just that one thing (porno) is unlikely to make a horrendous difference hence the harm they suffer is fairly low and is balanced by (in most cases) a better-than-they-could-achieve-otherwise income. But it's still nothing we want to encourage. We also have to balance the "blame" to the producer. Did he know? How far below 18 was she? How emancipated was she? How exploitative was the deal? In the recent Ranz-disclosed Ali Moore question, presuming she was paid normal rate and the producer didn't know, Judge Riley would fine him a be-more-careful-next-time $100 plus court costs. The punishment should be proportionate to the damage caused (not much in most cases) and the likelihood of repetition by the person or others who might be tempted. What about the tape? Paying $100 for a gold mine; any producer would risk that. So you have to do something extra and here I have a real problem: you're punishing the use of an underage performer not the sale of a videotape but if you let the tape continue to make money the punishment becomes inadequate. I don't have an answer here but I do know that the current system of making possession illegal is offensive. Perhaps the answer is to make sale illegal and remove profit but giving it away or possessing it is fine. Of course you would have to confiscate any profits made to date by the producer. Regarding the dramatic license to use an adult and portray them as underage, Tim Evanson recently wrote a long post on the matter and I couldn't do better. This law is an ass and should be put to sleep (so should Orrin Hatch). There are a couple of little clarifications though <g>. The law doesn't actually say you can't use an adult, portray them as underage, and have them engage in sex. It says you can't advertise, promote etc the movie as having underage sex and you must be able to prove that the performers are of age. (Sex in this case includes simulated Hollywood style sex but where the mainstream gets into trouble is that they're often using underage performers--Fast Times At Ridgemont High is an example.) The promotion part is where movies such as Cherry Poppers have a problem. But now we come to the more emotional question of real underage sex and that word "emotion" is probably a good place to start. Never have I seen such emotion as on this subject. Mug your grandmother for her social security and you'll see a far more balanced reaction even if grandma is languishing in hospital with broken bones and other injuries that will probably cripple her for the rest of her life. You're not rushing out to kill the perpetrator, whack off his arms, or stick a gun in his mouth. And yet on this subject you seek to outdo each other--IRA's imagery of frying the perpetrator's balls for his dog, for example. And this without even considering the physical damage to the girl--probably none. Definitely the Al Bundy syndrome and something you probably can't explain. Deep wired into your brains, I suppose, and the reason why we can't get any rational thought on this matter. Ah but you say it's not the physical injury but the emotional damage to the girl. Well, fathers of daughters (FOD), if there's any emotional damage that's your fault; you and this society. Sex is a short term physical activity, like eating. It's not love, it's not commitment, and above all, it's not for the purpose of making money in whatever shape or form. Like eating, after a good meal [screw] you lean back and say "Wow, that was great, let's eat here [do it] again sometime". What "emotional maturity" is necessary for a good meal? You FOD's and we society make far too much of sex; it's a recreational pleasure. [Disclaimer for the really pedantic: Sex should be loving, caring, and romantic as I've said in numerous posts in the past, not "take that, bitch" wham bam thank you ma'am. This doesn't deny its short term nature.] Moreover in what other area do we deal with protecting people from emotional damage? If we applied this to males, shouldn't we be punishing the females for the emotional harm they cause when they reject them--often brutally? We've got some very twisted males on this NG who've doubtless been brutalized by their parents or their peers in their youth. Shouldn't someone be paying the price for that? Oh, no; they're males (not your darling little daughters) and undeserving of protection; they should just get over it. In practice it's nearly impossible to assess any emotional pain. In the case of the mugged grandmother some will get their house covered with bars, get an expensive security system, be terrified of leaving the house, and sleep (if they sleep) with a loaded gun; others will just shrug it off and go about their business. Is it the mugger's fault he chose the sensitive grandmother? Consent. Jeez, I thought I was a nitpicker. "He meant the dictionary definition;" "No, it was the legal definition;" or in Taylor's case, whether the guy said he'd call her in the morning and never did (I'm exaggerating). Or even "a girl under 18 can't give consent period"--i.e. no discussion is possible. Wrong. Not only is discussion possible, society's rules should continually be examined, discussed, dissected, and challenged. We should never take an attitude "It's the law and it can't be changed" and talking about it does serve the useful purpose of making people rethink their position even on such a touchy subject.

Somewhere I seem to remember reading about the right of the people to petition the government. And how do they get to make those petitions? They assemble. And how do they know or want to assemble? They discuss the matter. Would that have something to do with free speech ?

I agree with IRA that there's no point in deliberately breaking the law unless you're prepared to pay the consequences and in this area disobedience is unlikely to result in anything other than a long prison term. Ineffectual way to cause change. So in my view, is a girl under 18 able to consent to sex? Of course, just as she can consent to a whole lot of other things: getting a punk hairdo, getting her ears pierced, going out with that yahoo with the motorcycle, chillin' at the mall instead of doing her homework. You (FOD's) might not like her doing these things but that's YOUR problem with HER. What constitutes consent (regardless of age)? [This is my opinion, not some legal definition; it's what I'd use if I was sitting on a jury hearing a rape case--screw the judge's instructions.] Basically that before the act, the girl agreed to have sex. Note, not after; whether the guy said she was a bitch and booted her out of bed afterwards is immaterial. It just indicates she made the wrong choice of male.

Things that would make me think she didn't consent: - There was force applied or threat of force or someone in her position could reasonably anticipate she had no choice and would face physical compulsion or punishment if she refused to agree.- She was covertly drugged or covertly made drunk or she couldn't reasonably be expected to understand the physical effects of a drug or alcohol and the guy was aware of her non-understanding.- She couldn't reasonably be expected to understand the nature of what she was doing. This concerns the physical biology involved and the question of pain/pleasure--more than just a classroom lecture on the mechanics but not some touchie-feelie rubbish. Most post-puberty teenagers can be presumptively assumed to understand this but not so pre-puberty persons.- The nature, place and circumstances of the act itself were such that it would be unlikely that any similarly situated and experienced female would agree. This has to do with the three guys and the doberman pinscher taking their turns, the gang bang by the football team, or anyone screwing Ron Jeremy <g>.- That she had no reasonable motive to have sex. I would like to say "she could not reasonably be expected to gain pleasure from the act" but sadly there are far too many females having sex for money, dates, prestige, or some other premium. Whether they collect the premium has no bearing on consent. They might have an action for theft of service though <g>.- Her past history indicates she had not done this sort of thing before. Yeah, I know I wouldn't hear evidence on this due to the feminist pressure (and I'm sure they hate me for even raising it) but especially in the case of rape where consent hinges on the female's state of mind, it seems an important issue. The guy with the gun to the hooker's head still isn't going to get away with it.

Some of the posts (particularly those from FOD's) seem to imply or state outright that they don't have a problem with a girl of sixteen or seventeen screwing some guy around the girl's own age but they do have a problem if the guy's over 18. I think the Director was most honest about this when he said that he might have a problem if the guy was Ron Jeremy. So let's take this slowly. These people have no problem with their (presuming age of consent is 18) underage daughter screwing in general; they just want to choose the male. Sorry guys, you can't. That went out with arranged marriages.

But couldn't sex with the football jock be just as emotionally damaging as sex with Ron--let's stop using Ron as an example--an ugly 40ish fat male? Even more so because she expects more from the jock? Ah, but what about the exploitation angle? That forty year-old could get her for a candy cane? (Highly unlikely based on my albeit limited knowledge of 16 year-olds; they'd require at least a fur coat <g>.)Well, if he could get your daughter for anything--i.e. any material payment--you've raised a hooker, not very well if she'd sell herself so cheaply, and you want the state to step in and allow you to fix the price. But this is not real world. It's like letting the tail wag the dog to set public policy based on such exceptional circumstances. A more normal situation goes like the case a couple of years ago in NY state. I don't remember 100% of the details but the essential facts are correct. A 24 year-old unmarried teacher was screwing a 15/16 year-old girl (might have been one of his students; I don't remember) and her mother found out about it and objected, first I believe to the girl who said that no way was she giving up the relationship; she was in love with him <Riley raises eyes skyward>. The mother persisted and threatened to call the cops so the couple fled to Missouri (somewhere out there). The mother eventually did call the cops and complained of statutory rape of her daughter so the cops got in touch with the police in Missouri who located the couple who returned voluntarily(sure) to NY where the guy was thrown in jail. The girl, however, refused to testify and some feminist group took up her case. The last I heard the DA had refused to prosecute and the guy was released. Happy ending except for the mother who can fry in hell for all I care. I was trolling one of the police NG's about a year ago and I came across a police chief from some little town in (I think) Virginia talking about this very subject. His view was (surprising perhaps coming from a Southern state) that most of these statutory rape arrests are sad cases and he hates dealing with them. According to him they are instigated by the father who finds out that some still young but over 18 guy has been screwing his daughter. There's no 40 year old dirty old man, no coercion, no candy cane, and no "emotional damage" other than that which must surely occur when these cases are brought to trial, not to mention the ruin of at least one person's life.

So what should be the age of consent? I don't think there should be one. It's a lazy prosecutor's way of avoiding having to prove the lack of consent and the FOD's way of controlling their daughter's sexual activities without actually controlling the daughter. The sicko who can only get it up for the five year old--if he does anything about it--is going to get caught by lack of knowledge on the part of the girl, not to mention physical coercion. Every case should be treated individually; there's even a place for the old guy, young girl. I wouldn't convict a (must be) 60 year-old Bernie Confeld for screwing a then 17 year-old Heidi Fleiss--all that's allegedly of course. Nor Buttaf---o (whatever the guy's name is) for poking 16 (I believe) year old Amy Fisher--another allegedly. In both these cases the girls knew what they were doing.

No one says the girls should be getting pregnant and producing babies. In fact put me back on my proverbial jury and I'd say the absence of contraception was an indication that the girl didn't know what she was doing. I hope your 14 year-old is all contracepted-up <g>.

And some factual information from the Merck Manual (15th Ed pg 1681)as to puberty in females (mean age in parentheses):Breast bud (11)Onset of pubic hair (12)Growth spurt peak (12.25)Female body habitus (12.25)--I presume that's the .70 rule. Menarche (first menstruation) (12.5) Axillary hair (12.5)Adult breast (14.25)They don't say when puberty ends and I seem to remember something about the closure of the occipital bones. I would also dispute IRA's contention about the menarche not indicating nubileness at least in the sense he means it. It's my understanding that the menstrual cycle (and thus the release of ova) can occur prior to the menarche, the latter indicating the end of the cycle with the shedding of the endometrium. When the female ovulates, pregnancy is possible and therefore she's nubile.

EVOLUTION: I'll argue that murder and rape are normal but as seems obvious the question of what is normal is all in the definition of the word. If one accepts normal as being a standardized set of genetically built impulses common to humankind and stemming from our natural selection over the entire period of time humans have been a distinct species (i.e. our built-in instincts) humans appear to be a particularly nasty (from our "civilized" perspective) group. And that makes sense, after all we've evolved into the most powerful predators, able to wipe out any other species at will and control most of our environment. We didn't get that way by being nice guys. Of course any "proof" here is based on assertions by various authors which in turn is based on what they think was likely to be the most successful behavior particularly in the pre-historic times from which of course we have no direct evidence. So you're free to disagree, the only ruling factor being "Would it have been logical for pre-historic man to act in this manner". Pre-historic BTW because the vast majority of our existence as a species was in the pre-historic times; the historic (primarily agricultural) era is tiny and probably has very little influence on our impulses.

The bottom line is successfully getting your genes into the next generation. Anything else is mere preparation or assistance to that activity. If you don't do that your gene line dies. The Shakers might have been great guys (I have no opinion) but they forgot this little fact and are no more. Any instinct they had not to copulate died with them. Gays (as long as they remain exclusively gay) are going to die out, presuming this is instinctive behavior and not the operation of some random gene sequence or something that is society mediated. For the pre-historic savannah-dwelling living-off-the-land tribe what would be the most successful way to organize sex so as to achieve the propogation effect? The pair bond concept we have today, popularized in the cartoons by the cave man dragging the female into his abode? Doubtful, to do so would restrict the male to one female (not in his genetic interest) and the female to food provided by that one male. If anything happened to him or he simply wasn't in on the latest kill, she and her genetic offspring wouldn't eat. So probably not in her genetic interest. Plus there are other clues.

The male penis is longer than any other mammal proportionate to weight. The current theory (or fact, depending on who you read) as to why the male produces so much sperm is that the vast majority of those sperm are not designed to impregnate but to perform a blocking effort to frustrate any other sperm that might enter afterwards. The long penis simply puts the sperm closest to the cervix so on orgasm the female can "upsuck" the nearest sperm. (Reason why the female should have her orgasm AFTER the male ejaculates. Those guys who are "quick on the trigger" actually have the right idea provided they bring the female to orgasm afterwards.) These things wouldn't be necessary if the female was monogamous. The most logical sexual organization was promiscuity for males and females, only settled agriculture rendering this impractical. Now the question arises as to what form of promiscuity. Would the female sell sex or just like getting laid a lot or would the males simply grab the nearest female and bend her over the stump. Probably all three (the anthropology people are very PC and it's hard to get a definitive statement here). I suspect that given the male bonding that must have occurred in the process of the hunt, the males simply used the females when they wished but the females didn't necessarily object in the same manner as they do today. Thus the concept of "rape" would refer to the carrying off of females to another tribe (as much later in things like the Rape Of the Sabine Women) not to compelling the female to have sex within the tribe.

To summarize: man's testosterone-driven urge to impregnate overrides any objection from the female thus rape (as we would see it today) is perfectly "normal". And, the penis length and sperm blocking probably indicate that gang bangs were common but not "normal" in that they wouldn't be the best way to propagate an individual's genes. As to murder (or homicide, not implying any guilt) would the more successful male be one who killed if he thought it in his interest? Absolutely, therefore "killer" males will get their genes into the gene pool and their victims will not. Thus it is "normal" to kill.

Preamble: Not all het porn viewers are enamored with group sex and many of us--myself included--find it distasteful and wonder what the attraction is. However there is a body of current evolutionary biologist/psychologist thinking that says that gang bangs and multiple male couplings may in fact be reproductively advantageous. The reasoning is connected to the discovery of the different types of sperm--blockers, killers, and egg-getters--in the last few years. Previously blockers, for example, were simply thought to be defective sperm that provided bulk but had no function; they are now considered to provide the very useful service of preventing impregnation by a second would-be sperm injector by gumming up the canals in the cervical mucous. Similarly, the evolutionists were taken by the fact that man, unlike other animals, doesn't generally fight other human males for access to females and in particular lacks the large canine teeth of apes (for example) used to attack and kill other potential suitors. The rationale was thought to be cultural because the sheer killing power of the human was such that the species could not have survived (in a social milieu) the ferocity and cunning of even an average male. The canines were lost because, with very heavy cultural suppression, they had no function. As with most of these evolutionary things it's now thought that the killing takes place alright but internally within the female after two (or more) males have deposited their sperm. The type of sperm known as killer sperm do the fighting for us and their work, together with that of the blockers, allows the egg-getters to do their function of lying in wait for the ova as it travels down the fallopian tube. Of course it would be better for any given male if the killers and blockers had nothing to do but that wouldn't help nature's task of improving the gene pool. So imagine a situation where there are few nubile females and lots of randy males. The males overcome the females' defenses or are actually welcomed by the females in the case where the tribe generally supports the future generation as a tribal responsibility. Multiple males copulate with one female and internally their sperm fight it out for the right to impregnate her. If a male doesn't participate he has no chance of getting his genes into the next generation hence the vestigial urge today to gang bang. It's more complex than that, of course, with one question remaining as to which male is going to get the prize. The last one? The first one? The one with the greatest sperm production (hence perhaps the interest in the quantity of Peter North's ejaculations)? The one with the greatest distance (in the rough and tumble of a prehistoric gang bang each male is not necessarily going to be in the ideal buried to the hilt position when he ejaculates--again Peter North)? The one with the biggest penis (more likely to put his sperm in the end of the vagina--John Holmes, perhaps).There's also the question of when? Just as females find males attractive who are in demand by other females, so males, on seeing that a female is desired by another male are likely to say "She must be fertile, let me get my turn."

But what if you're in a tribe where there's no lack of nubile females--a not unlikely situation in case of a tribe where the males have been decimated by war? In such a case the males would have no interest in allowing their sperm to compete and any advantage to the male of the minor input that one female may be "in heat" would be negated by the risk of competition.

Similarly in a pair bonded society, the males would guard their female(s) and the females would resist multiple male impregnations. The residual urges and the biological functions to compete still exist to some degree in all males--perhaps necessary to adapt to changing circumstances too--so when the "competitive" males watch porn they are applying this competitive desire. Don't forget that porn displays females as being available--plus or minus--to all comers. They're "loose" women who fit much more into the mold of the gang bang scenario than the faithful pair bonded "wife".

>As an avid consumer of both gay and straight porn, I have long been perplexed by the way male homoeroticism is simultaneously expressed and denied in the straight videos. Comments from rame posters have highlighted some of these issues. Although straight men often formulaicly point out how disgusted they are by sexual contact between males, there's a huge market for films in which two or more men have sex with one woman. One straight poster recently listed "big dicks" as his number one priority in het porn.

As explained above the two males/one female might appear homosexual but in fact there's no desire for the other male in most cases. Each is in competition with the other and it's just the exigencies of the moment that require them to share the female. On the other hand, I don't think everyone is pure het or pure gay; we all exist on a scale somewhere between the two extremes. I'll personally admit to finding achingly hard, very erect penises as contributing eroticism to any scene--I have no time for limp-dicked males no matter how big, including John Holmes--and I'll also admit to a possible erotic interest in young (too young for today's porn) hairless males but I suspect the latter is because I see them as substitute females.[On topic ramblings] In the early eighties I remember seeing a loop(on tape and perhaps one of the Collection series or similar, probably foreign) where there was a three way (2M1F) where one male screwed the girl (no cum shot) and then the other male took over while the first male waxed his very hard dick while watching. Eventually, without cumming, the second male abandoned the female and sucked off the first male (no facial--in mouth CS which dribbled out) while the female looked on in increasing anger. The male who got sucked off was almost certainly about 14 and relatively hairless. I suppose the concept of denying the female her pleasure was also satisfying.

The reason for the vociferous rejection of the homosexual side of each male's nature is simply cultural in my view. The guys who are more interested in the competition are more basic people who feel threatened by their feelings. I.e., homo = bad; females = danger; boys together is a way of overcoming that danger but not to the extent of violating the cultural precept, homo = bad.

FACIALS: Why would you want to pull out from the female's vagina (or asshole in your case) and rush around to her head and madly jerk off on her face? Big flurry of activity at exactly the point when you (well, perhaps not you <g>) wish to savor the pleasure of those final thrusts.

>Have you ever had a good BJ? From the fact that you asked the>question, I'm going to have to guess no. On a more serious note: it>feels good, it's different/novel, etc.

That's a rather personal question but since you give me the opportunity the answer is absolutely not.

1) Despite the fact I gave XiCube a hard time about his rotten teeth argument, I think he's on the right track (but he doesn't draw the right conclusions). While the female's not going to bite anything off, she could cause some painful abrasions to a very sensitive part of the body thus reducing my future reproductive ability...

2) Sex is something you do TO females. Their only contribution is to do a convincing job of pretending to enjoy it (or, maybe really enjoy it but I'm just as cynical in my private life).

3) I work on the basis that if I wouldn't like something, everybody else wouldn't either and if they say that they do there's some other dynamic at work. So if I wouldn't like gooey sticky stuff all over my face, no one else (including females) would. Exception of course for biological differences but I haven't noticed any concerning the female's face or mouth that would have a bearing on this and enough porno performers are in raincoater terms, "cum dodgers", to make me think the others are just better actresses. (has to do with survival, treating people equally so they'll treat you the same--the goldenrule)

4) Following the principle of (3) the only thing that goes into my mouth is food and the utensils that transport it. (Let's not get pedantic: I have no difficulty with blowing a whistle or similar.) A dick and cum are neither food nor utensils. Hence if I wouldn't like anything but food and utensils the female wouldn't either. For me this is an emotional question and not merely a preference--i.e., it's not just I don't think it's right. I actually gag on brushing my teeth and going to the dentist is a nightmare. In this latter extreme reaction I recognize a personal aberration/dysfuntion/irrationality but my personal extremes don't alter the general principle and after all in the scenario we're talking about I'm not the one sucking dick.(more survival argument)So the upshot of all this is that if some female's mouth, no matter how sexually attractive the female, approached my dick there would be instant shrinkage--well, maybe if the female was Jane March and she really wanted to <g>. The question of swallowing or facial would never even arise.

>And I don't freak out when I contact it myself. Hell, I'll come on somebody then lick it off myself (fair is fair). It's my fluids, after all, and I don't find ME disgusting in the least. (I'd quote a little Walt Whitman here, but it'd go right over your head.)

Really? You doubtless pick your nose and eat the boogers, scratch your asshole and say "What a wonderful smell", smear your earwax lovingly over your lips, and rub under your armpits so you can lick up that great salty taste. Sarcasm aside, there an interesting scene in The Cement Garden (not a porno) where the young guy (a chronic masturbator--well, we can all relate <g>) sets up a mirror in the bathroom so he can watch his dick while he masturbates. He doesn't jerk off thinking about some girl, he jerks off thinking about himself. Maybe that has something to do with this question. A narcissistic view of sex--it's me (or my cum) that is satisfying, not the female...[I'll leave that dangling; I'm just thinking out loud]

Semen comes from an organ of the body most frequently used for elimination and closely resembles snot but of course someone who's "into" playing with feces or bathing in urine wouldn't see anything wrong with licking up cum. I'll leave it to your imagination as to where the majority of the population stands.

>And despite what Patrick Riley (figures) says elsewhere, it's not that unusual. I've never had to ask any partner to take a facial or anal penetration-- they've asked ME to do it. I'm not self-delusional, and I'm certainly not touting myself as anything special.

Yeah, sure. Just where do you meet these girls; "Oh, X-Nico, please take me to the motel, f--- me in the asshole and give me a gorgeous facial." Maybe you're Brad Pitt in disguise? Or maybe they're some drug-addicted Roseanne Barr look-a-like who'll do anything for human contact.

I don't accept it because I see no (or minimal) evidence for it outside of the porno movies and the raincoater element on this NG. In looking for some will o' the wisp fragment that might indicate a hidden activity that has yet to rise to the social surface, I checked out "The New Our Bodies Ourselves"--lesbian oriented and politically correct to be sure--and "It's Your Body". "It's Your Body" talks about in-mouth cum shots and "advises" spitting out afterwards and does talk about anal sex--usual recommendations that have been discussed here at length. "Our Bodies" harps on the dangers of HIV with anal sex and mentions fellatio in passing--a much bigger section is devoted to cunnilingus. Both books talk at length about positions, premature ejaculation, contraception, even withdrawal as a method (a perfect place to discuss it) but neither even so much as mention facials (by this or any other description). Now if I could just find my kids' schoolbooks on sex education...

FEMALE EJACULATION: >I am convinced that so called female ejaculation is simply a way to disguise watersports. The WS fans rent them, enjoy them, and keep quiet so as not to blow the cover. Unfortunately, some overly credulous folks have been taken in.

While that may be one of the reasons, I think there are others more important: 1) With the advent of the sexual revolution and the women's movement in the sixties it became extremely important for females (at least the vociferous ones) to prove they could do everything a male could do, generally better. Most females recognized that there were biological peculiarities to each gender (men can't have babies, females menstruate) but there were some who were determined--and remain so today--to prove that everything but the most obvious differences were cultural and usually examples of phallo-centric oppression. Thus we had silliness such as female urinals and this question (female ejaculation).

2) Many males go along with the idea because, being more visual than females, they see orgasm as equating to ejaculation and, they reason, if you can't see it happen, it didn't occur. You can tell them about the biology involved until you're blue in the face but deep down they can't relate.

Necrophilia: >> What's wrong with necrophilia? You're dead or the other party's dead. No feeling, no emotional distress, nothing. Can't personally see anything erotic but "different strokes for different folks". "Snuff" films? We have a version all the time at least for the death part. They're called regular Hollywood adventure/action movies. Plenty of people get killed. Why is it so different if you're getting screwed at the time? Dead. Really dead. Departed from this mortal coil dead. It's your wife or daughter dead. Cold feeling running through you yet?...

No, quite warm thank you! It's not your wife or daughter dead. The moment they died their body becomes a putrescent inanimate object, not a human being, not a person, a piece of disposable organic matter being consumed by maggots, bacteria and other disposers of the refuse of life. Unless of course you're an enviro-freak aiming to start a "Protect the Bacteria" group <g>. Not only do I not care if someone humps that rotting flesh that used to contain my wife, I don't care if "butch" decides my ass might be just the thing (provided I'm really dead). It's strange that this topic creates so much heat. Most state laws treat the corpse as property devolving automatically to the next of kin without any special protection. (I say "most" but my information comes from the news articles at the time of Jeffrey Dahmer. Maybe you can find state or country laws which are different.) The laws regarding the dead are generally directed towards public health issues which might be something for your personal consideration if you got into necrophilia on a regular basis. Similarly on the religion front, Judaism emphasizes burial within a short time and Catholics that the soul has left the body on death although it's possible that so mere-incarnation group would think differently. Certainly the religions have a "respect for the dead" component but this seems a very weak basis for such a reaction. Notable necrophilia movies for those who might be wanting to give it ago:

Corruption 1983 VCA where Jamie Gillis screws a girl in a coffin.

Satin & Lace 1994 Wicked. Steven St. Croix plays a mortician who comes to collect suicide victim Lacy Rose and screws her. Unfortunately (depending on your viewpoint) she's not really dead and responds halfway through.

Belle De Jour 1967 where Catherine Deneuve plays a hooker who lies dead in a coffin imitating the male's dead sister (my memory is a little vague here...it's a simulated sex movie but I don't remember if he simulates screwing her.)and for the really perverted:

Nekromantik #1 (1987) and #2 (1991) from Film Threat Video. These are two German movies which come very close to explicit (erect penises shown but no close ups of insertion) with excellent special effects, so good that one has a sneaking suspicion they are not really "special". The general idea is that a guy takes a job as an assistant mortician collecting corpses from road accidents and takes his work home. His girlfriend is also into this and when he's killed she exhumes the body and brings it home for continued "enjoyment". Includes cannibalism and things like swinging a cat in a garbage bag against the bathroom wall until there's blood oozing from the bag. Strangely these videos are available in almost every large video store I go to so there must be a reasonable demand.

Porn Star's bodies:

1. Pubic hair...A triangle of pubic hair is OK on the top but please clear out the underbrush between the legs and around the labia. If the girl is very young looking she can and should shave it all off but most porno stars can't make this level.

2. Any surplus poundage is unattractive. It's far more the lumps of fat that make the flesh look like that of a crocodile--all bumpy--when the girl clenches her muscles or simply the flab that shows up in girls who are far too young to have flab. Take a look at Lexi Leigh's butt when she's riding cowgirl. Personally I don't see the cellulite on Missy that Max Volume keeps referring to--I do notice her too-thick thighs though.

>Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

Ah, yes, another truism. But the eyes of the beholders are very much the same across the land and across cultures. Like it or not, Rog, there is a standard for beauty and at the risk of repeating myself it's very easy to see. Just look at the womens' magazines that populate the supermarket checkouts; there's your standard (and don't come back with the one issue Cosmo had with fat...oops, full figured...models--we're talking the norm).

Ø But for me, as much as any facial feature or killer body, a good self image and a strong mind are the sexiest things on the planet.

You're entitled but given that most guys can get off on a picture of a girl in a magazine about whom he has no knowledge of her "self image" nor "strong mind", you're probably a pretty small minority. Besides we're talking porn here, not marriage prospects. You're not going to live with them, just vicariously screw them a few times.

Since when has Max said (or does anyone know that he is) he's a porno performer? Max might look like Bill Clinton, Ron Jeremy and Danny De Vito rolled into one for all I care or for the relevance it has to this question. He's expressing his views as to what female porno performers should look like, not saying anything about your looks, Rog, and certainly nothing about those of your wife(unless there's something you're not telling us <g>).No way should a porno viewer have to look good. The idea is that the ugliest guy in the world can screw (in his fantasy) the most gorgeous, prettiest, most beautiful, most self-imaged, strongest-minded (the latter two for Rog <g>) girl in the world or at least the best the industry can come up with.

PURITANICAL: > That someone thinks that any practice between two consenting adults CAN be wrong or unnatural is obviously still hung up by their cultures puritanical belief system.

The "culture's puritanical belief system" as you put it, is there for a reason, mostly nothing nefarious, but usually an attempt to inculcate practices that are of long term benefit to society or to the individual that may not be immediately apparent. In your PC statement you presume consent which may not, in the sense of equal desire, in fact exist and you ignore society's interest totally. As an example of the former, does the cum dodger (a useful raincoater term) really desire to have her face/eye/hair splattered or is she only doing it for the money or in real life to retain a b/f. The "consent" you assert is merely acquiescence to exploitation. Is it in society's interest to even have porno movies? IRA has proposed that they make the male, saddled with a deteriorating female, more willing tolerate his lot in life. A valid and perhaps advantageous reason for society in my opinion. But the same surely does not apply to a single unattached male. Bluntly, if he's watching porn, he's not out there trying to get real women and there's a consequent economic effect--he's not spending money on dates--and a reduction in the female's (and his) opportunity to pair bond. Disadvantageous from society's perspective at least until we suppress the institution of marriage. Now if we could only restrict porno-watching (but not, of course, porno-performing) to the over 30's<g>.

>Female orgasms aren't very common amongst animals either, in fact, a fast ejaculation time is a pro for most animal males. . Should we all go back to the time when it was man-on-top-get-it-over-with-quick? Remember, the brain is the best sexual organ.

Animals are not always a good model for human behavior and your point about female animals (other than humans) rarely having orgasms would get some dispute from the biologists/anthropologists. Although no one really knows, similar external signs of orgasm have been noted in other primates. Even if they didn't have orgasms, invert the argument: since female humans do have orgasms animal sex must be unnatural because they don't. Doesn't make sense! Why do you presume all sex in the past was of the "get it over quick "nature (I'll presume you have nothing against the missionary position in general)? Are you seriously proposing that man, in the last 30/40 years, has found some better way of having sex? If you really think the brain is the best sex organ why is it that the constant refrain from the raincoaters is "We don't need no stinkin'plot"? Not some overextended example of porn trying to imitate real movies but any sort of caring or emotional connection between the parties.

Sex vs. Violence: >The USA also has laws against murder but not against showing images of it or any other kind of violent behavior, only sexual behavior. This is what intrigues me. How can a culture justify censuring images of sex but not violence? Why don't they also censor images of violence?

The answer here is very simple. The images of violence are shown within the context of a morality play in which the good guy (sometimes it's hard to tell but he's at least debatably the good guy) always wins. Try setting up a story where the bad guy wins and watch the bitching and moaning. Porno movies on the other hand show the bad guy (the stud) and the girl getting away with doing what bluenoses hate. If you made it so that the girl got AIDS and the guy got hit by a truck and included anappropriate amount of touchie-feelie moralizing there'd probably still be some clucking about "They didn't have to show her pussy in excruciating detail" but the movie wouldn't cause nearly the same adverse reaction.

In another thread Michael Paul, replying to my comments about the erotic value of Cameron Diaz in the opening scenes of My Best Friend's Wedding said:>And "erotic" isn't exactly how I'd describe that scene (took my >niece to see it.) It's more "amusing"; giving you a chance to see >someone do something different than normal. Sure, she was nice and >all, but EVERYTHING in life about women isn't supposed to give you a >hard-on, is it?...

In other words (my take on the last sentence): You don't evaluate every woman in every situation as a potential sex partner, do you? Sure I do. Doesn't everyone? The latter isn't intended flippantly; it's a serious question. I get on the subway and the first thing I do is check out every female in the car. If I see one worth screwing I'll spend the journey mentally undressing her, checking out her body language, and fantasizing about a quick roll in the hay. In meetings (particularly the boring kind) I'll try and position myself opposite the best looking yuppette with the translucent blouse and try to work out if her bra is front or rear opening...if she shows panty lines when she gets up, etc. Same with TV. I actually watch Ally McBeal with the wife (she's a fan) until the anti-male sentiment gets to me. Very cute actress. The scene with her, clad only in a bra, looking in a mirror imagining her tits getting bigger was a real turn on. Diane McGuiness (Bloomberg TV) is also gorgeous--I have no idea what she says and don't care but I'd screw her in an instant. I troll the Spanish stations and the Japanese and Italian programs (I speak none of these languages) just to find a cute girl. I'll repeat the question: Doesn't every male do this all the time? Obviously Michael Paul doesn't.

These are the sort of things one generalizes from one's own experience (or urges) without even thinking there might be some variation in the population, which brings me to the porno movie connection (moderator breathes sigh of relief that there actually IS a porno movie connection <g>).Without getting into the beautiful vs ugly question, why is it that there are so many posts about WEHT some porno actress? It's nice academic information that she's peddling her crack-addicted butt on Hollywood Blvd or that she's scanning groceries in Oshkosh WI but from a sex point of view who cares? Performers who appeared before say 1987, given their lifestyle, are almost certainly shagged out by now. Even if you adopt a PC attitude that it's worth screwing someone over 30, these particular specimens of the human race have been so well used and hardened, that I can't imagine anyone actually getting it up for them (without payment anyway). Why would anyone want to see them back? And yet there's the evidence of posters (presumably sincere) on this group. Are these guys, aberrations? On the opposite side you have a wealth of evidence for both regular and porno movies that older females have lots of problems getting work. Someone must be on my side of the fence here. Then there are the guys who must see every foot of video of a particular performer even though she's been in hundreds of movies. Why? You screwed her the first time you saw her...the second...the third...and so on until maybe the tenth time if she's gorgeous; a couple of times if she's mediocre, and once if she's marginal (real dogs are just FF material even the first time). I like Dee (the black girl) and I screwed her in MDD and in half a dozen movies (don't tell Rob <g>) but she's reaching the end of her one-handed welcome. Maybe I might be interested if she was in a plotted movie playing the cute little girl in high school getting de-virginized but I have no hope of finding such a plot these days so as far as I'm concerned her career is about finished. Whether it's Dee or Johnnie Black (trying to find someone who's 180 degrees away) and inserting your favorite plot, doesn't everyone think somewhat like this? Maybe some insight can be obtained elsewhere.

A couple of months ago, I read the autobiography of Klaus Kinski (B movie actor from about 1950 through his death from a heart attack in the late eighties, father of Nastassia) which is really one long account of his sexual exploits. This guy was ugly in the same sense as Mick Jagger is ugly (i.e., macho type, not soft) but judging from his account he probably screwed more girls than Peter North. Sure some of them were, by his own admission, butt ugly and old, but there were also the gorgeous. Youknow what Nastassia looks like? Her mother, Biggi, was better, and according to Klaus he met her in a glove shop where she was a sales assistant. She quit her job on the spot and went back to his place and screwed him. But, of course Klaus tired of her after a while, and although still married to her, moved on to screw an Italian movie actress and then the daughter of an Italian multimillionaire, and then...[you get the idea]. Wouldn't you like to live this life? Maybe without his early privations and in a more settled environment. Isn't this every man's dream? Isn't that what you're doing vicariously when you watch pornos? But of course most of us (myself included) can't do this because we lack the looks, the boldness, the ability to pull the women,...so we're forced into the next best thing. But the guys who fixate on one actress aren't doing this. They're acting more like they wanted to marry the female...to stay with her permanently. Isn't this a contradiction?

I don't believe that "love" in the sense of a caring altruistic

relationship can actually exist between a male and a female at the height of their reproductive years. The reproductive imperative creates a parasitical (for the female) and an exploitative (for the male) need so the relationship between the two of them is more like that of the capitalist buyer and seller of goods. Each one is trying to get the maximum for the minimum. What we see as "love" is actually a combination of romance (a nice warm but temporary feeling enjoyed by both sexes--except guys who hate women) and another weapon in the arsenal of (particularly) the female to bind the male to her. Love in

the deeper sense probably only exists between parents (primarily the mother) and children and between people and their pets (who stand in place of the children). For adults, love requires equality and as long as the female is free to exploit the male's consuming passion for sex, that equality can't exist.

In popular culture the term is used so frequently it becomes meaningless.

We exist purely for reproduction and we need to survive to reproduce. No different than other animals in essence. There have been a couple of interesting posts on sci.bio.evolution suggesting that most people have a protective mental block about this; if they didn't the world would be an even more depressing place when they realized the ultimate futility of their personal lives.

Critic Pat Riley opines on RAME:

Jen Teal: Gorgeous back in NFHB #15, and acceptable in the few movies she did before Vivid but then at Vivid she became g/g-only which in her case is like doing non-sex. She simply wore out her welcome and, BTW, thickened around the waist violating the 70% rule. Not worth watching today.

Serenity: Originally no boys. Supercilious, Too good for the guys. Cantaloupes. Condoms now.

Jenna Jameson: OK back in Up And Cummers--in fact wonderful--and in a few of her non-Wicked movies but then was attacked by siliconitis.

Wicked gave her the opportunity to show the shallowness of her acting skills.

Asia Carrera: OK back in her first few performances (like Up and Cummers) but then spent too much time at the pastry store raping the 70% rule. Also caught siliconitis.

Chasey Lain: Her first movie, The Original Wicked Woman, was her only passable performance, probably because she was unknown but halfway through shooting caught the dreaded "S" disease. Later movies showed a distinct lack of ability to convince anyone she wasn't bored out of her mind.

If you summarize this, and convert it into some sort of general statement, the contract girls:

Have vastly outstayed their welcome. Back in one of my earlier volumes I opined that for a gorgeous girl in both looks and personality, the maximum number of performances she should do is about 30. I've since revised my thoughts and would now contend that 6 is a more reasonable number. After that, it's the glue factory <g>! There is no place in porn for the aged. It's not a career! You don't improve with age and the sex act is much the same, time after time. Since Wicked/Vivid/VCA continuously use the same old girls, they suffer.

Are not good looking and/or don't have a nice personality. The good looks--or physical attractiveness--are conflated with the overstaying their welcome problem. Of the girls you mentioned all have thickened over time and lost their appeal. The 70% rule, if you're not familiar with it, is not my invention but actually the result of academic study, and says that the most attractive females have a waist that is 70% of the diameter of their hips. Most (all?) runway models are between 69% and 72%. But in porno movies, because the girls spend so much time on their backs, it's even worse. They have to satisfy a 70% WIDTH, not diameter, a requirement that only girls like Dee and Margo Stevens can manage. And then there's the cantaloupe problem. Not only do they look ugly but they say "I'm a sex worker, just doing it for the money".

As to their personality--I'm referring to their public persona not what they're like in real life, although I suspect it's probably not much different--can you imagine sitting down with one of them to watch TV (just the news or similar) and stealthily putting your arm around them: "What do you think you're doing, you low-life scum", "Keep your filthy paws to yourself", "I wouldn't screw you if you were the last guy on earth", "That'll be $500 if you want to go any further", etc.

Frankly, hard pushy women (Brandy calls them "strong") have the same effect on me as a cold shower with an added "fight or flee" reaction.

And then we have the plots of Vivid/Wicked/VCA. I'm all in favor of plots but they have to do two things: set up a credible sex-related scenario under which these two people would want to screw and make me believe I would, within the story, want to substitute for the guy. I haven't seen a movie in a long while that satisfies these criteria.

Most plots are pretend-plots: Heart & Soul is an example wherein we see Missy's fantasies. It's not a story--a plot--it's just a device so they can call it a feature and get some couples to watch.

And then we've got another little rule: don't try for a plot or part thereof unless you have the budget to do at least the minimum. For example don't put in a car chase unless you're willing to spend (say) $100,000 on that scene alone. Wrecking late model cars and closing down city streets doesn't come cheaply. PT's Bobby Sox comes to mind.

There's a supposed crowd scene in a small town so he rakes up a few people from the Vivid's shipping department and has them group together in the town square. Laughable! Try instead 200 extras from Central Casting @ around $200 per day = $40,000 or non-union in NYC @ $40 a day = $8000. And then there's wardrobe, food, transportation,...

And you can't do period movies (nothing to do with the female's menstrual cycle) with the current crop of cantaloupes and tattoo farms. Wicked's Conquest with 16th (?) Century cantaloupe-equiped Jenna comes to mind--how ridiculous. Or PT's Borderline set in a poverty stricken Mexican town where the waitresses in the cantina have cantaloupes, tattoos and piercings. Yikes!

As an example of both inappropriateness of the underlying story and poor execution we have Wicked's Flashpoint. They rented a fire truck and had Jenna as a firefighter. Gosh, something I've always wanted to do: screw a firefighter! Or screw on a fire engine. Watching that truck go down the street makes me rock solid--NOT! There's an underlying story in this movie that could have been OK--revenge of an old boyfriend--but the acting is inept and the standing f---s beside the truck (got to get their money's worth) or orgies on the truck (got to...) destroy any possibility.

I could go on...and on...but you get the idea. If you can't get attractive fresh girls and good sex-related plots, don't bother trying. And even if you can and do, I'll still reject 95% of them, just as I do with mainstream movies.

01/25/00

Pat Riley's latest book, "The X-Rated Videotape Guide VIII" is in stores now. Luke just got a copy in the mail. It's vintage Riley. He writes in his introduction:

The industry continues to dwell at the bottom of society's cesspool serving the gullible and easily aroused teenage and early-twenties male and the older misogynist with a plethora of mechanical and raincoater sex scenes loosely assembled onto long boring tapes. Anals, DPs, and facials are so common that if porno tapes are a reflection of society's sexual habits, on emust question the future viability of theh uman race...

Debutante tapes sometimes have the infrequent new girl who made a wrong turn at the agent's office and innocently thinks that she should be enjoying the sex but both Ed Powers and Randy West are getting very hard to watch due primarily to their advanced age.

Pure amateur suffers from the phenomenon of ugly forty-plus-year-olds wanting to show us their sexual activities and because of the lack of widespread distribution, finding the exception of the cute young couple is like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.

Luke F-rd's book, A History of X...finally made it to the bookstores in mid-1999. It offers some interesting insights into the making of the industry and takes some controversial positions on pornograpraphic movies generally. Well worth a read but if you want the latest gossip you really have to take the plunge and become internet equipped. His website at www.l-keford.com has a daily journal of industry minutiae together with expanded information about the past.

No PC rubbish, or as one person pointed out, kindness here [in the body of Riley's reviews]. Every girl in every movie should be young, fresh, pretty, and have a great body and nice personality; if she doesn't, why is she cluttering up my TV screen?

Riley reviews the 16th Annual Adult Video News Awards (1999 edition): "It's not the Oscars but they seem to be coming closer in quality and that's probably an insult to the Oscars more than praise for the AVN ceremony. The girls are dressed to the nines with trowel-level makeup and even the ones who look OK in their movies look whorish - and definitely trailer park trash - and are mostly unrecognizable. Alisha [Klass]... makes a poor impression with a foul mouth and futile attempts to arouse the audience. The parolees range from the over-dressed to the I-just-left-the-set-and-haven't-had-time-to-change with lots of them sounding inebriated."

Riley gives 18 and Nasty 6 and 7 a GOOD rating, largely based on TT Boy's ability to develop rapport with the girls in his interview segments before he screws them.

As for #7: "Sound is terrible, camerawork stinks, sets are primitive, interviews are inept, the girls don't wear makeup, and reproduction is just passable..."

As for Kris Kramski's film An American Girl In Paris: "Mr Kramski, previously responsible for the early Sexhibition series and such movies as Lisa and Models, seems to have decided that with Cape Sin and this movie he can just rest on his laurels and turn out glossy near-plotless efforts. Well, since Mr. Kramski's movies have been distributed by Sin City, the home of what must be the worst duplication plant in the porn business, the "glossy" is not really true."

A Sin City source: "This Pat Riley has way too much time on his hands. Sin City's duplication was pretty bad at one point but that was rectified over 2 yrs ago. This all goes to show that you can't please everyone. And right again, General Video will not sell any rough sex type of title no matter how or why the creation of such crap is rationalized. If some person of diminished capacity asks to be hit on the head with a baseball bat, should someone fulfill that desire? One has to make moral and societal judgements when it comes to this type of behavior."

Riley disses James DiGiorgio's Anal Fixation: "One could die of boredom watching VCA's attempts to appeal to the raincoater. This one is just five anal scenes with no set-up - oh, the girl does express her desire for anal sex to the camera..."

Riley on Back Seat Driver from Toxxxic Ent: "..wordless, emotionless, uninteresting, and and unerotica."

Jim Holliday's Brown Eyed Blondes: "The annoying thing about this movie is of course Jim Holliday and his pompous ranting about various aspects of the music industry which goes on forever. Jim, who cares?"

Jim Gunn's Canadian Stripper Search 2: "Performance-wise none of the scenes are any more than hookers going through the motions."

Canadian Stripper Search 4: "Since we all know that North of the US/Canadian border is one big sheet of ice and that apart from fishing through that ice and a few factories of US subsidiaries, nothing ever goes on in Canada one wonders why they have so many nudie bars?"

Riley gives Bryan Lambert's Carolina Girls from Center Stage Productions a GOOD rating. He also gives numerous Good ratings to Ed Powers Dirty Debutantes series and Joey Silvera's Fashion Sluts.

Fade To Black 2: "Vivid shoots porno movies so that with a trivial amount of editing the naughty stuff can be removed and "Presto!" they have a cable movie... Metro shoots stuff that with a trivial amount of editing...they have a compilation."

Bag Ladies: "Johnny Toxic...looks like someone you would cross the road to avoid for fear that a gust of wind might blow a fatal disease in your direction."

Farmers Daughters Do Hollywood. "Jerome Tanner is back. He's the guy who gave you the start of the special effects back in the mid-eighties, a tradition today carried on by such people as Robert Black. Like lots of the porno people his efforts in the real world didn't pay off and he returned to an industry where the struggle was less intense. Pity, because if this movie is any example of his abilities, he's just going to be another of the talentless hacks who competes to produce insomnia remedies."

Tabitha Steven's f--- 'Em All. "Another vapid female finds the record button and confirms the suspicion that she's brain dead. Hopeless. Tabitha responds to fan mail and acts out the suggestions from pathetic losers who need a life."

Little White Chicks...Big Black Monster Dick. "If you're black and you get off on the idea of "ripping the white bitches open" the movie will provide some satisfaction... The idea of the uncontrollable black male rapist seems to be catering too much to the real black male viewer who has a serious chip on his shoulder that those white bitches should be made to pay.

Pat Riley writes on RAME: I want them [girls] so they can sit on my lap and not crush me, so I can actually carry them, and so I can turn them over...and I suppose so I can actually hold them down if they become too bolshie. I should also point out I'm 5'9" and about 160lbs so a girl of 5'11" (high heels would make her 6'3"!) would tower over me (and might be able to punch me out ). Smallness (or petite-ness) is a characteristic of youth, too.

...There are three types of choices here: Things I like and in a porno sense consider potentially erotic; things I feel are neutral and are never erotic for me; and things that are not only never erotic but are repellent. The examples you give are all in the neutral category. To take the "cum on the feet" example, I personally agree and can't understand how anyone can see this as erotic but I don't see any wider societal implication. It's your problem and only yours if you like this sort of thing. Things that are repellent however present other problems for the microcosms of society that are the porn industry and porn consumer and even for society as a whole. They are no longer just a meaningless "choice".

...Let's rephrase Ridley's statement as: "I know there are sick bitches out there who get off on this s--- but the porno industry shouldn't be pandering to their twisted desires." or "When I pick up a tape in the video store I don't expect it to contain this sort of thing, just as I wouldn't expect to see copulation in a Disney movie (whether I read the box thoroughly or not)."

>I would be very surprised if anyone involved in this movie were >injured as seriously as thousands of athletes are every month.

PR: Ah, ah, ah. Naughty, naughty. As you well know twofisted, the complaint is not with the injury to the performers (although some people seem to take that tack) but with the more serious question of the sense/direction of the movie and the consequences of that.

...Zane must have finally heard the disparaging remarks about their couch. In Cherry Poppers (The College Years) #12 the old couch has disappeared and there are four different couches used, one for each scene. Not that it makes the quality of the movie any better!

Jeff writes on RAME: Pat Riley likes young women who are ready to bear children. Once they have born a child, they quickly lose his interest, since their singular purpose has been more or less fulfilled. (I hope I am characterizing this correctly.)

In this manner, Mr. Riley also pulls no punches. His Star Index books are sometimes considered harsh because he calls 'em as he sees 'em; regardless of the perceptions of the rest of the world. So, Riley digs into Cinnamon, er Sinnamon, because she doesn't do much besides prattle back the "normal pornstar interview fodder" and he also rips on Mr. Web Review because from where he sits it seems like Mr. Web Review has not met a porn movie or pornstar he hasn't liked -- when in reality most porn sucks hard and does not deserve glowing reviews it gets from some reviewers and most pornstars are far more haggard than their on- camera appearances allow them to be.

Riley's detractors don't like him because he states such things and there's no changing his mind. So people tend to get frustrated at his hardline stance and criteria for feminine beauty. Next time in you're in your local Barnes & Noble browse thru one of his books and you'll be able to make your own judgments. While I don't always agree with his assessments of beauty, I often find his candor refreshing.

Goddess writes: If the people in the X biz are so revolting to Riley, why does he continue to earn his money from them? He must be some sort of masochist to be watching videos of all these uglee (his opinion, NOT MINE) people. And let's not even get into how disgusting and revolting it probably is for him to cash all those paychecks from his publishers. Eeeww.

Becky Carols writes on RAME: This is how Riley angers and humors us all. Pat thinks Marilyn Monroe's a fat pig. His ideal woman is that walking skeleton Alley McBulimic. I've never bought any of his books since they're written solely for porn addicts but, I hear they're good sources for smut info. However, since Pat hates girls with big breasts and round, jiggly asses (which is what the vast majority of guys lust after) he should stop giving us lists of anorexic girls in the jizz biz to keep an eye out for.

That being said, I'm sure Pat will agree with me when I say porn girls shouldn't even talk. That's not what they're paid to do. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to have sex in front of a camera. Most of these girls don't even have high school diplomas. If they did, they would have real jobs. Do a search on intellects such as Jenteal, Heaven Leigh, and Serenity for the proof. There are very rare exceptions to this rule though. Brandy Alexandre's a high school dropout but she's pretty smart. So are Nina Hartley, Candida Royalle, Gloria Leonard, Sharon Mitchell, and Tiffany Million.

Pat Riley reviews Perfect Pink 1: "The draw here is that this is the first explicit scene of popular Penthouse centerfold Bonita Saint who not only performs but actually does anal with her supposed SO, Steve. ALthough Bonita is pretty and has a nice body and appears very attractive from a distance and in the controlled environment of a magazine shoot, close up she doesn't look so good. Not only are the cantaloupes much in evidence but her flesh around her chest and belly looks aged. Like lots of these "famous" starlets, she has left it too late to appear in porn...

"The other girl of note is Devon Davis who has a passable face, cantaloupes, long straight blonde hair with black roots, and a nice little butt. Really though, I couldn't get a good look at her because reproduction is pooor, the video "artsy" which means in this case poor camerawork, and lots of her scene is behind sheer curtains which surround the bed."

Pornogothic starring Serenity, Shanna McCullough, Asia Carrera, Missy, Katie Gold, Stephanie Swift, Rebecca Lord, Sydnee Steele, Azlea... "Guys, these women are too old, too used up, and too overexposed to have any appeal left. No matter how great the music, the editing, and the artwork, if I don't want to poke the girls what's the point?"

Private: Castings 15. "They haven't changed much. Still the same old grunge: ugly passionless males, ugly sex emphasizing anals and facials, and women who are not worth fantasizing about."

The Return of Tori Welles. "Tori now looks like a blimp with tattoos."

Rocco's Crazy Hotel: "Since I recently learned that Rocco is herpes-infected and doesn't seem to care if he infects others I don't want to see any movie with Rocco anymore."

Search For The Snow Leopard: "One becomes fed up trying to find nice things to say about movies that had lots of money invested in them... Let's face it, the writers, directors, and producers of these bid-budget extravaganzas are just inept. They should find another line of work. One rumor has it that Adam & Eve paid $500,000 for the movie but if they did they were raped. Not only is this a total failure on the erotic front but there are errors, plot lapses, unbelievable sequences, poor camerawork, poor editing, and bad acting galore."

1980's Sex Boat. MUST SEE. "This movies, and to a lesser extent F and Ultraflesh mark the beginning of the end for the old hookers and sleaze queens held over from the Deep Throat era and the start of the age of quality whichlasted from approximately 1980-86."

Sex Stories. GOOD. "Pat Myne...is really a disgusting looking guy with lots of tattoos and very short hair... He reminds me o fthose guys in foreign countries that prey on tourists, offering to show them around or get them a bargain in the souk..."

Sexy Nurses 3, directed by James Avalon. "Maybe I should set up a new category for "pretentious." You can recognize them by their directors who can't seem to learn that hte purpose of the plot, or at least the surrounding of non-sex parts is to give the viewer the feeling he might want to be screwing the girls. It's not to show him how close you can come to imitating Ingmar Bergman or to see how much you know about symbolism. We have a dead fish. Is this symbolizing... The mortality of the human existence? The Mafia? The smell of an un-douched whore? Only Bergman...er, Avalon, knows for sure..."

Size Matters 2 directed by Metro GM Greg Alves, a portly man. "Fortunately I missed out on #1 in this series. The idea is to flash some screens of silly statistics pointing out how women love men with big dicks and then give us a wordless sex scene after each one. How innovative! Maybe nnext time they could do a series with "How ugly fat guys with the personality of fence posts can't get laid unless they pay for it" as the theme. Alves should know something about that."

Sodomania 28. "Jon Dough looks like he is in the last stages of AIDS."

Sugar Walls 10: "I like the black girls spunk. They're strong and in control...seem to be saying, "I know you want sex but you be polite about it" and then afterward "There, don't you feel better now?"

Very Naughty Angels. "...[Jim] Holliday irritatingly trying to show how smart he is and having Jill suck up to him all the time even to the extent of prompting her to cmment on his wardrobe (a black velvet suit)... He tells us how much better he and Jill are than mainstream people who have to use teleprompters and the like and shows a little playlet with him and Jill wherein he plays the wonderful director Jim Holliday and she plays a composite bimbo starlet who is willing to put out for a part. Naturally he resists and comes out with the old hoary line that in the porn industry the girls don't have to screw to get parts. Screwing is the part. Oh yeah; how about Regan Senter, John Bone, Wesley Emerson?"

Virgin Stories 2. GOOD. "...Packwood, reading from a script, asks Chantay what was the last book she had read. She basically had no answer leading one to the conclusion that he rreading skills or interest are less than expansive. He also asks where she sees herself when she's 30 and this creates a lot of obvious mental confusion. She hasn't thought of aging and answers that she supposes she'll be doing what she's doing now... There's lots of talk about their home life...and it seems that...the others came from female-headed families."

White Trash Whore. "These are so good that I look forward to watching each new installment, not for the sex mind you..but for the comedy."

Young and Anal 10. MUST SEE because of first scene with JJ Michaels and Kelly Dean.

Rough Sex Debate

Jim Gunn writes on RAME: DESPITE how reprehensible a movie like "Rough Sex" may be to anyone's sensibility; DESPITE how volatile or negative attention gathering a movie like this may be, these guys still have a right to produce it. In other words, the possibility that actors may willingly get hurt during the production; the possibility that the movie may bring an end to the entire porn biz as we know it; or the possibility that the movie may indeed cause the complete undoing of cilvilization in a huge explosion and wipe out all life on planet earth is at least theoretically IRRELEVANT to the question of whether should it be allowed to be produced in a free society.

Patrick Riley writes on RAME: Jim, the usual porn apologist, says that you shouldn't blame the entertainment industry for the actions of individuals who might be tempted to enact or otherwise be persuaded to engage in illegal activity as a result of watching a movie and in response to Slouch's example of The Money Train, Ultra essentially makes the same point. The concept is that we all have free will and we all should be responsible for our own actions, suffering the consequences of illegal acts without blaming an entertainment work that perhaps gave us the idea.

What both fail to recognize is that the point is to avoid the acts occurring in the first place. IOW it's small comfort to the token booth clerks burnt by the miscreants that the perpetrators are punished and individually held accountable for their actions. To rely on the police powers of the state to prevent such happenings is impractical. Ultra continues in his post to point out some excesses of enforcement (profiling, metal detectors, etc) but fails to acknowledge that that is the logical conclusion of what he and Gunn are advocating. In order to attempt to prevent the Money Train occurrences, society has to widen police powers considerably, in this case increasing the security at each token booth by allocating a cop 24/7 to each station, erecting even more impenetrable barriers, and providing emergency fire extinction apparatus. We exchanged a freedom to see an innovative method of robbery for a considerable increase in cost, a much more intrusive police presence, and just another little reduction in communication with suppliers (the token booth clerk). Pretty poor trade off IMO.

As one of the old fogeys on the group I might point out that in addition to tramping five miles to school each day through blinding snowstorms, I can remember a time when every person handling money was not surrounded by Lexan and when you could actually talk to the cashier without screaming, not to mention the days when bus drivers made change and there was some level of trust of riders. We've sure come a long way in this cultural improvement, twofisted and Xenophile.

The difference, and the only practical way to prevent the actions patterned after the Money Train and indeed the sort of behavior to which Rough Sex gives permission, is the inculcation of a level of morality in the population and, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, that requires convincing people it's the right thing not to set token booth clerks on fire nor to beat up women--or anyone for that matter. This is not just something that occurs under the age of eighteen but a constant learning experience throughout life; demonstrations of immorality or counter-propaganda make the task immeasurably harder and perhaps impossible.

And lest you think it's only a question of the physical violence refrain we hear from the libertarian side of the aisle, let's take the question of lies. Was a time in the not too distant past when lying was a shameful act and being caught in a lie was one of the most embarrassing things that could happen to a normal person. Today, we have the example of the first raincoater (thanks, Ridley) telling bald-faced clear lies on national television and when caught, waffling about semantics.

We have the same in the porno industry: boxes with scenes that don't appear, movies that are cut between their VHS and DVD releases, girls who have their "first time" multiple times, girls who in a non-fictional interview assert that they're 18 but are really 25, compilations masquerading as original footage, amateur movies containing seasoned professionals, features that don't have a plot, and one that I saw the other day, supposed porno movies that don't have sex, not even simulated.

Doubtless, Gunn and Ultra would argue that the answer is to sue the producer for recovery of your rental fee or to persuade the local authorities to prosecute for fraud, both totally impractical suggestions given the nature of the product and ones which when employed outside the porno area lead to enormously costly (to society as a whole) class action suits and profit only the parasites in the legal profession.

The answer again lies not in the overuse of the court system and the police powers of the state but a return to the inculcation of those much-derided moral values, in this case of truth. Enough of the movies showing liars profiting from their untruths; no more excuses that "It's just porn" or It's just advertising" or "It's just politics" and no more acceptance of the waffle such as we had here on the subject of professionals being passed off as amateurs where the excuse from the editor was that it was just amateur production values.

And Ultra or may I call you "junior", far from being a chimera, the morality of the fifties did include, for Mr. Average, prohibitions against the sort of anti-social behavior displayed in these three examples and was a better society for it. Fortunately, as Guiliani exemplifies, society is getting sick of the grand and morally bankrupt experiments that started in the sixties and seventies and is starting to rein in their more exaggerated proponents. Let's hope it continues for all our sakes.