Max Hardcore Trial Outtake - "You Look Better with Puke on Your Face"

[gonzo]

--Tampa Bay Online

TAMPA - A panel of jurors saw an extreme hard-core pornographic movie today and is expected to see many more as it weighs whether a California porn producer, who uses the name Max Hardcore, has violated criminal obscenity laws.

Today, U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew [pictured] decided federal prosecutors can show excerpts of the movies, rather than the DVDs in their entirety, as they put on their case. Defense lawyers for Max Hardcore, whose real name is Paul F. Little, argued that jurors need to see the entirety of the movies because the repetition of the acts is a necessary component.

"Over a period of time, the shock is blunted," defense lawyer Jeffrey J. Douglas said. "That is part of the presentation. That is part of the DVD."

Federal prosecutor Lisamarie Freitas argued that the defense is trying to "desensitize" jurors.

Defense attorneys decided they will show the jurors the remainder of each movie as part of its cross examination.

Little and his company, MaxWorld Entertainment, face five counts each of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and five counts each of distributing obscene material through the mail. If convicted, each charge includes a maximum punishment of five years imprisonment.

A federal indictment alleges that Little, through his entertainment company, distributed pornographic films to post office boxes in Tampa. It also alleges that Little and MaxWorld promoted the films via a Web site by transmitting over the Internet five obscene video clips as promotional trailers.

The prosecutors were flown in from Washington where they work for the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenities Section.

To determine whether the material is obscene, jurors will have to use a test set up by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972.

Jurors must determine:
Whether "the average person applying contemporary community standards" would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by state law.

Whether the work, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

For about 40 minutes Wednesday and for more than an hour this morning, the entire DVD "Max Extreme 20" was shown to jurors.

As the DVD began, the jurors sat mostly stone faced. Two women blushed and smiled slightly. One woman sat wide-eyed.

The DVD progressed, and the smiles vanished. Hands often covered mouths. Men and women fidgeted in their seats.

Expressions turned to concern as women onscreen screamed in pain during some scenes.

In one scene, Little slaps a woman repeatedly, curses at her and urinates on her. She vomits.

"That's OK," Little says in the film. "You look better with puke on your face."

As the rough sex continues, they discuss her fictional 12-year-old daughter. Little, playing the role of Max Hardcore, tells the woman he had sex with the "preteen."

In another scene, a younger woman says she is a virgin. The Hardcore character gives her a modeling job.

He grabs her neck and the back of her hair, and forces her into a sex act. The girl vomits.

Several of the jurors wince. One man rubs his closed eyes for several seconds.

During a sex act, the young woman begins to scream.

"I've got to move," she says. "Ow, ow, ow."

Hardcore slaps away her hands.

"Stop, stop, stop," she says. "Can we stop for a minute? Can we have a break?"

The scene ends abruptly but begins again and lasts for several more minutes.

At the end of the movie, Little interviews the woman, now clothed.

He asks her whether she did anything she didn't want to. She smiles and says she did not.

She says it was a difficult scene, but she thought it came out well.

"I'd love to work with you again," she says.

The screen fades to black.

[ali25extreme]

If the models are willing and they get into that kinda stuff I don't see what the prob is! It is too much for me to stomach but..I am not the buyer! In my opinion it could help some live vicariously from the videos..and using the same test from 1972? That does not seem to be fair!

[softball]

The Sweets around here did way worse than Max stuff and they beat the rap which made just about any kind of porn legal in Canada. And their stuff was way, way extreme.
That is the problem prosecutors face. If they fail on Max, then anything less offensive becomes legal.
I still think America is way too litageous. Its the only country I know of where you can beat a criminal charge and lose on the same charge in civil court. OJ comes to mind. The law can just beat you up.
I hope Max wins. I don't particularly like his stuff nor his methods, but the result would perhaps shut down some local DA's on stupid quests.

[DannyCox]

Max gets a lot worse than the Sweets ever have! The stuff he shoots for the Asian and some European markets is insanely gross and to me, not the least bit sexual. But, if everyone involved is a willing participant and of age, then I don't have a problem with it. My idea of censorship is to just not watch it.

[ali25extreme]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

Max gets a lot worse than the Sweets ever have! The stuff he shoots for the Asian and some European markets is insanely gross and to me, not the least bit sexual. But, if everyone involved is a willing participant and of age, then I don't have a problem with it. My idea of censorship is to just not watch it.

I have the same view...but it is hard to not look at gruesome things..couriosity can get the best of us!

[tony404]

for max to win it will take a miracle.

[softball]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

Max gets a lot worse than the Sweets ever have! The stuff he shoots for the Asian and some European markets is insanely gross and to me, not the least bit sexual. But, if everyone involved is a willing participant and of age, then I don't have a problem with it. My idea of censorship is to just not watch it.

You may be right, Danny, but living in Vancouver and working with many grads of Sweet U, I find that very, very hard to believe.

[MRock]

What happened to hot chicks looking hot? I must admit I have never even taken a "peek' at stuff like Max shoots. I don't want it burned into my brain ... may never shake it out ... might damage me for life, but hey, if that's your thing ...

[softball]

Originally Posted by MRock

What happened to hot chicks looking hot? I must admit I have never even taken a "peek' at stuff like Max shoots. I don't want it burned into my brain ... may never shake it out ... might damage me for life, but hey, if that's your thing ...

Hot babes are a minor component of selling sex. The internet has proven that. If the only mainstream porn you have access to is hot babes, like in the past with Playboy, Hustler, etc. then that is what you will buy. But if you have access to what really makes your motor run, then "hot babe" is relatively unimportant. Those who understand that do very well. Those that don't are denizens of the zoo.

Disclaimer: before anyone goes nuts, this isn't carved in stone and is subject to exceptions.

[Trixie]

It's bothersome that they're not showing the entire dvd, since part of the test is to judge the work IN ITS ENTIRETY. Jurors will either get bored of it . . . or get turned on. I wonder how that (getting aroused) would impact the average conservative juror's final judgement? Would their own arousal bother them so much that they'd judge it MORE harshly or would they realize even "normal" people can get aroused by extreme roleplays without it being harmful?

I'm not betting any money on the outcome. His shit is definitely obscene, I just think it's retarded to have laws against it.

[tony404]

from mike south's blog,it brings up a good point.

BT Writes About Max Hardcore On Trial In Tampa
By MikeSouth

Mike: I just read your post on the Max Hardcore trial in Tampa, and I completely agree with you. I also just reread the link to my December 2005 post on Rob Black on your site, and you know what - you and I were both right then in terms of timing and what happens next.

And, I stand by what I wrote then that someone will get one of these cases to the Supreme Court. I don’t know Sirkin, the attorney who is doing a lot of the defense work in these cases, but he seems to be a really smart trial strategist. I’m sure he’s itching to get one of these cases in front of the Supremes, as any lawyer would.

That could end up being one of those “be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.” Forget election year. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Bush, McCain, Hillary or Obama in office because the Supremes aren’t running for re-election. They’ve got tenure.

And you now have a majority on the Supremes that is more conservative than ever. I think they will say there are limits. And, I don’t think it’ll be five to four.

I’ve been reading Mark Kernes’ trial coverage on AVN, and Sirkin and his team are a lot smarter than I am when it comes to these things, but I think they’re making a mistake when they want to force the jury to watch hour after hour of Max Hardcore on the theory that his work has to be taken as a whole. He’s cited the jury in the JM Productions trial as saying they weren’t disgusted by all that stuff. In the end they were bored. I think he’s banking on the notion that he can desensitize the jury.

I don’t think that’s the case with extreme porn. I’ve seen my share of porn over the years, since I saw my first loop at about age 14 more than 30 years ago. And I still remember the first time I put one of Rob Black’s Cocktail videos in the VCR because I was a Jewel D’Nyle fan. No idea what was coming. So, there I am, happily watching Jewel, and suddenly I literally gagged and shut off the TV when she drank from a glass of cum and spit. Frankly, I almost gagged now writing that line. The memory still disgusts me. I don’t think you’re going to desensitize a jury at all. I think you’re going to disgust them. If you don’t, the streets of Tampa aren’t safe for old ladies, children and small animals!

Beyond that, the notion Max’s lawyer is pushing that you have to view a Max Hardcore tape in its entirety as a work of art is nonsense. He’s never heard the term fast-forward? Does he know that porn fans skip through all the stuff with the girls saying, hey, it was all make-believe? Does he know that they fast-forward to their favorite girls and could care less about the others? Or that they fast-forward to the part of the scene that includes the fetish that gets them going?

Porn ain’t about the whole. It’s about the parts. It’s the reason Max and every other pornographer films vignettes. It’s the reason there are chapters , cum-shot reviews and easy ways to jump right to the anal and DP even on Vivid and Digital Playground features. Who really cared about the storyline in Pirates? I wanted to see Janine take a facial.

But, as I wrote in 2005, at the end of the day, these cases aren’t about the trial court in Tampa. They’re going to be about the case that goes to the Supreme Court. And one of them will go because the standard is so confusing.

[softball]

Porn ain’t about the whole. It’s about the parts

[RawAlex]

Well, I don't know who wrote that post on Mike's blog, but I am sure glad they aren't a lawyer. The fast forward comment alone just entirely misses the entire concept of what is on the table here, a judgment system based on the work taken as a whole. It's the exact working of the law that is being used here, and it significant and important.

He may only be interested in fast forwarding to the cumshots (and I am sure a significant number of viewers would do that to any movie), but then again, there are people who go for the Mr Skin view of Hollywood movies too, fast forwarding only the parts of movies that show boobs, nipples, or "sexy" stuff. The end user's decision to view the material in any other order or to view only selected parts of a movie doesn't change the legal definition of "the whole".

That all being said, I have to say that I have a feeling that this case is not going to be a win for the porn industry no matter which way it goes. Let me explain:

If he is found guilty (and the material found to be obscene at least in that particular community) it will likely embolden other states and other AGs to take a stab at the porn beast. If Max's stuff is obscene, then there are plenty of other videos and plenty of other websites that could be considered obscene. Pretty much any site with gagging, fish hooks, choking, or any other similar material MIGHT become obscene. Guilty would throw the entire business for a loop, and the repercussions could be huge (for online businesses, Visa and Mastercard could come down and say "no fishhooks, no deep throat, no gagging, no choking, etc" and a certain number of sites would either get shut down or have to remove content.

Let's say Max wins. The jury doesn't find the material obscene. Suddenly it's a free for all and every other new website and video release will feature extreme gagging, puking, and verbal degradation. Pretty much everything up to that point will be "obviously not obscene", and the material might shift to that more extreme vein.

Either way, it is likely that both sides will ride this one right to the supreme court, and it could take YEARS for the true resolution to come out.

[softball]

Let's say Max wins. The jury doesn't find the material obscene. Suddenly it's a free for all and every other new website and video release will feature extreme gagging, puking, and verbal degradation.

I beg to disagree. That was what happened in Canada with the sweets (you should know this) and that free for all never happened. Case in point.
In fact the Sweets are not producing any more as far as I know. The only extreme going on around here (vancouver) is COHF.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Trixie

It's bothersome that they're not showing the entire dvd, since part of the test is to judge the work IN ITS ENTIRETY. Jurors will either get bored of it . . . or get turned on. I wonder how that (getting aroused) would impact the average conservative juror's final judgement? Would their own arousal bother them so much that they'd judge it MORE harshly or would they realize even "normal" people can get aroused by extreme roleplays without it being harmful?

I'm not betting any money on the outcome. His shit is definitely obscene, I just think it's retarded to have laws against it.

Tasty and I agree. Nothing illegal or offensive about obscene. However, where we part company is extreme violence. I wish I could believe that role playing is harmless, but where I live there is a gang war going on and I believe it is fueled by violent images and situations portrayed as "normal".
Around here, another crack shack murder, or targeted killing is daily news. Maybe I am just old and fucked, or maybe it is the wisdom of age, but I really do believe that life imitates art and we all have to keep that in mind in our business. It is our kids that will inherit what we have helped to create.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I beg to disagree. That was what happened in Canada with the sweets (you should know this) and that free for all never happened. Case in point.
In fact the Sweets are not producing any more as far as I know. The only extreme going on around here (vancouver) is COHF.

The Sweets won, but it wasn't all that you think it was (I spent a fair bit of time speaking with all involved including their lawyer, who is a pretty sharp guy). In the end, it really wasn't a judgement on the content itself, as the original complaint was a confused websurfer who though they were really holding a slave girl in prison and abusing her (as opposed to being characters on a website movie). I was with the Sweets in Amsterdam when they were in the process of moving everything out of Canada during that time, at one of Little C's enjoyable events.

There wasn't that much extreme stuff being shot in Canada before, there are still significant rules and regulations in place that make it very hard to distribute and sell in Canada, and honestly, with the shift in the exchange rate, we aren't a cheap place to shoot porn anymore. That seems to have fallen back to the US at this point.

[bluemoney]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

But, if everyone involved is a willing participant and of age, then I don't have a problem with it. My idea of censorship is to just not watch it.

I agree.

Personally I've never found him or his material appealing. Kind of like a cross between The Marquis de Sade and Hoss Cartwright.

[Hammer]

The thing that bothers me the most is what sort of individual watches those kinds of movies and actually likes it? At what point do we say, "You know what, you're a fucking sick individual that needs counseling and we're not going to provide you with the garbage you want."?

I know I'm in the minority in this business with some of my opinions and I'm well aware of the "slippery slope" argument but it just seems to me that in any civilized society there have to be rules and those rules should be based on a certain amount of common sense. Murder is illegal. Rape is illegal. Stealing is illegal. But why? I mean if we take the slippery slope approach to everything, at some point you end up all the way back at the top of the hill and have to say nothing should be illegal.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The Sweets won, but it wasn't all that you think it was (I spent a fair bit of time speaking with all involved including their lawyer, who is a pretty sharp guy). In the end, it really wasn't a judgement on the content itself, as the original complaint was a confused websurfer who though they were really holding a slave girl in prison and abusing her (as opposed to being characters on a website movie). I was with the Sweets in Amsterdam when they were in the process of moving everything out of Canada during that time, at one of Little C's enjoyable events.

There wasn't that much extreme stuff being shot in Canada before, there are still significant rules and regulations in place that make it very hard to distribute and sell in Canada, and honestly, with the shift in the exchange rate, we aren't a cheap place to shoot porn anymore. That seems to have fallen back to the US at this point.

Its a pretty inexpensive place to shoot porn. The value of talent dropped along with the value of bandwidth and profits. I know the people that opened up that Amsterdam thingy and it seems it never flew. They were still producing serious shit around here up until a couple of years ago. As for the case, whatever the argument Mr. Snowell made, it still opened the door for extreme production that I don't see happening. As for distributing and selling in Canada? I could care less. Our market is the world. It is the ability to produce product without worrying about bubba knocking on the door that makes this a comfortable place to work.

[DannyCox]

There is still content being produced here for the Sweets. Most of the bukkakepee.com content is shot here in Montreal with local girls. We've helped Marie (who shoots it for them) with "Talent" on both the giving and receiving side of things.

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Tasty and I agree. Nothing illegal or offensive about obscene. However, where we part company is extreme violence. I wish I could believe that role playing is harmless, but where I live there is a gang war going on and I believe it is fueled by violent images and situations portrayed as "normal".
Around here, another crack shack murder, or targeted killing is daily news. Maybe I am just old and fucked, or maybe it is the wisdom of age, but I really do believe that life imitates art and we all have to keep that in mind in our business. It is our kids that will inherit what we have helped to create.

While I don't think obscenity & violent role plays, etc. should be illegal, I'm not saying I think they're *harmless* (and obviously as a feminist and a woman, I do consider extreme porn problematic, at the very least, while as a perv I concede that some of it gets me hot; for example, I'm turned off by stuff that looks painful in Max Hardcore films, but ummm . . . the taboo role plays, filthy talking, crying & gagging girls, etc. totally get me off). Great literature isn't harmless, either. True crime shows on television aren't harmless (and give plenty of sexually violent ideas and tips to would-be criminals as to make them every bit as appealing to a prurient interest as staged snuff porn, etc. -- "go to A&E to see more images of the dungeon where this violent sexual predator held girls as his sex slaves against their will for years! Get more interview footage online with this depraved lunatic!"). It's ludicrous to think that porn should be judged BY THE LEGAL SYSTEM more harshly simply because it's accompanied by graphic VISUAL sexual images. The point is that all of it needs to be protected as free speech. No one should be prosecuted for a thought crime or held responsible for how someone else responds to it. The best way to combat people getting inspired or improperly brainwashed by the bad shit is to have better education, media literacy, and teach people to, you know, have empathy and give a shit about other people. Basically to brainwash people to be smarter, nicer, etc.

There is shit on Oprah's book list that is just as violent, sexual and horrifying as Max Harcore and of course you can flip to those pages and jerk off to it to, if you want. I know because I've done it.

I do think there are serious consequences to having so much extreme porn out there, I just think there are better ways to deal with it than criminalizing its creation and distribution. There were plenty of people committing horrifying sex crimes and hating on women BEFORE extreme porn came along.

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The thing that bothers me the most is what sort of individual watches those kinds of movies and actually likes it? At what point do we say, "You know what, you're a fucking sick individual that needs counseling and we're not going to provide you with the garbage you want."

Ummm . . . plenty of regular, nice, normal people get off on "sick", twisted fantasies. Do you know how common rape and incest fantasies are? FANTASIES! Sometimes people get off on things *because* they are bothered by them; it's a pretty natural and even healthy thing, to be excited by things that scare you or make you feel guilty or speak to your dark side or are forbidden. That is human nature.

I agree that a lot of people who like extreme porn are sick fucks, and that there *are* a lot of sick fucks out there in general, and that a lot of people are dangerously incapable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality, but it's unfair to color everyone who gets off on *fantasizing* about depraved, fucked-up shit with the same brush.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

There is still content being produced here for the Sweets. Most of the bukkakepee.com content is shot here in Montreal with local girls. We've helped Marie (who shoots it for them) with "Talent" on both the giving and receiving side of things.

In part, because in Montreal you can go into adult video stores and buy or rent watersports videos, which isn't something you can do in, say, Regina. Although we don't have the same community standards crap that haunts the US system, there is still a varying levels of tolerance in different parts of the country.

My own personal concern on extreme stuff has little to do with taste (people are turned on by all sorts of things we would consider weird or downright depraved), but more the question of how the lifeblood of the online world would react to some of it. Yes, Mastercard and Visa are key components of the online world, and if they say "you cannot process pee" then pee doesn't get processed, at least not via US accounts.

Discussions have been had on other boards at other times about the same thing: obscenity is only of the issues that limits the type of content that can be produced commercially in ways that can actually make money. Without the ability to make money, most of the extreme stuff would disappear, with only the true fetishists of the material continuing to produce stuff for their own enjoyment, without concern for income.

The levels of freedom of speech in the US far exceed the levels of tolerance from the companies that make this financial possible. A guilty verdict against Max would give those companies a chance to tighten the strings even a little further.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Ummm . . . plenty of regular, nice, normal people get off on "sick", twisted fantasies.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I think there's a big difference between rape fantasies people have in their heads and people that watch rape scenes and get off on them, unless they are bland scenes in which the girl resists a little at first and then give in. IMO, violent rape videos and videos of men pissing in women's mouths and making them puke don't appeal to nice normal people. Unless of course your definition of nice normal people is considerably different than mine.

[gonzo]

Great debate once again. My hat is off to you all without making personal attacks to make your points.

I will contribute this.
We are all in the business of selling fantasy. People get off reading or seeing some of the taboo things on video. How much is too much? How far is to far?

Its hard to say.

There is a huge debate for instance on bareback sex specifically in gay videos. The argument is that the industry condones and sanctions bareback sex admist the danger with the gay community.

I believe that we sell fantasy and people watch what they should not and can not do in normal life. If you look at the numbers specifically with bareback vs nonbareback the consumer WANTS to see the bareback sex a LOT more than with a condom on.

Im certain this is prevelant in straight sex as well.

Maybe we need to start putting up a disclaimer like Jackass does before those episodes to say do no try this at home.

In the end Iwould go with doing what I think is the right thing. I sleep well knowing that I know the difference between right and wrong and do not factor in the economics of the situation when making the decison.

I cant say the same thing for many others in this business.

[Hammer]

The whole bareback argument is ridiculous. How many straight videos do you see with no condoms? What's the difference?, you can get HIV from straight people too. Why is it any less important to show safe sex in straight videos? We all know most of the models aren't married or monogamous.

[softball]

Unless of course your definition of nice normal people is considerably different than mine.

I have a feeling mine is......

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Unless of course your definition of nice normal people is considerably different than mine.

Yeah, I think we've already established that, you and I.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The whole bareback argument is ridiculous. How many straight videos do you see with no condoms? What's the difference?, you can get HIV from straight people too. Why is it any less important to show safe sex in straight videos? We all know most of the models aren't married or monogamous.

As I read all threads, including this, I keep thinking...So?
I don't care for Max's stuff. But the point is, I DON'T HAVE TO.
It's not about having to like it, it's about THE CHOICE.
I Choose NOT to watch Max's Stuff. But how does that make it Ok for me to stop some other dude that likes it?


And I think if he is found not guilty, we are gonna be in worse trouble. This isn't Canada. We over-react here. It will get all the good right wingers all wound up and pounding out last minute laws for their president to sign before he leaves.

(Sorry Hammer, mostly Not aimed at you.)

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The whole bareback argument is ridiculous. How many straight videos do you see with no condoms? What's the difference?, you can get HIV from straight people too. Why is it any less important to show safe sex in straight videos? We all know most of the models aren't married or monogamous.

People don't want to see condom sex.
With regular testing, why is this such a big deal?
We are selling fantasy here, not "safe sex education."


If everybody wants to be safe, it's real easy. Use our machine. Can't catch a disease there, now can you?
See that? I just saved the world.
Aren't you all very impressed?

[Trixie]

I am opposed to mandating condoms, no matter how irresponsible I think it is to have condomless sex. Testing is nice, but it's not foolproof. Plus it does nothing to test for HPV which causes cancer, not just of the cervix but of the anus as well. It'll be cool when the vaccine is taken by everyone, but I don't think we'll see people doing that or being able to afford it unless it's made mandatory and paid for by the gov't.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

People don't want to see condom sex.
With regular testing, why is this such a big deal?
We are selling fantasy here, not "safe sex education."


If everybody wants to be safe, it's real easy. Use our machine. Can't catch a disease there, now can you?
See that? I just saved the world.
Aren't you all very impressed?

Someone still doesnt hear the oncoming storm.

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

People don't want to see condom sex.
With regular testing, why is this such a big deal?
We are selling fantasy here, not "safe sex education."


If everybody wants to be safe, it's real easy. Use our machine. Can't catch a disease there, now can you?
See that? I just saved the world.
Aren't you all very impressed?

But sticking an organ in your machine is not having sex. It is kind of irrelevant to this discussion. I don't say that because we don't get along, I say that because I mean it. Having "sex" with your thingy is like having "sex" with a milking machine.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Trixie

I am opposed to mandating condoms, no matter how irresponsible I think it is to have condomless sex. Testing is nice, but it's not foolproof. Plus it does nothing to test for HPV which causes cancer, not just of the cervix but of the anus as well. It'll be cool when the vaccine is taken by everyone, but I don't think we'll see people doing that or being able to afford it unless it's made mandatory and paid for by the gov't.

You can never mandate condoms. Testing is pretty good and really lowers your risk. If you are in the porn business, it really is not a huge issue. I am sure being a clerk in a 7/11 or a cab driver is a riskier occupation. Its kind of like wearing a hard hat and steel toes, it won't necessarily save your life, and you do have to take some risks to pay the rent. How many people die or are disabled every year in the porn business. Not a lot, Scott.

[Trixie]

Yeah, but years from now a lot of girls are going to die from cervical cancer. Seriously, I have seen some horridly wart-riddled twats even in shiny, pretty porn and without having health insurance chances are many of them are not getting regular pap smears to catch things. I agree that testing is great and helps a lot AND there are many way more dangerous professions, but it's still risky, especially for anyone taking it up the pussy or ass.

[tony404]

if everyone used condoms on shoots and that's all that was offered.That's what they would jerk off too.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Yeah, but years from now a lot of girls are going to die from cervical cancer. Seriously, I have seen some horridly wart-riddled twats even in shiny, pretty porn and without having health insurance chances are many of them are not getting regular pap smears to catch things. I agree that testing is great and helps a lot AND there are many way more dangerous professions, but it's still risky, especially for anyone taking it up the pussy or ass.

My point is that there is always a risk when profit is involved. I think you are taking a bigger risk eating processed food that will rot your guts from the inside out. No offense, G, but Krispy Kremes will probably kill you and no one thinks twice. But hey, sex without a condom, well that is "dangerous". I kinda think we have our priorities screwed up here. I think you are better off choosing who you fuck wisely than hoping a condom will save your ass or pussy.

[Trixie]

I do not want people telling me I cannot have condomless sex with my partners just because I'm making porn. That's ludicrous, invasive, and just . . . fucked. Even worse than seat belt laws. Of course, I'm pro seat belts and think kids should have to wear them, but jesus.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Trixie

I do not want people telling me I cannot have condomless sex with my partners just because I'm making porn. That's ludicrous, invasive, and just . . . fucked. Even worse than seat belt laws. Of course, I'm pro seat belts and think kids should have to wear them, but jesus.

In New Hampshire, you only have to wear a seat belt if you are a kid.

Live free or die

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

In New Hampshire, you only have to wear a seat belt if you are a kid.

Live free or die

Shit now Vooman is going to be here looking for Big Vito.

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

My point is that there is always a risk when profit is involved. I think you are taking a bigger risk eating processed food that will rot your guts from the inside out. No offense, G, but Krispy Kremes will probably kill you and no one thinks twice. But hey, sex without a condom, well that is "dangerous". I kinda think we have our priorities screwed up here. I think you are better off choosing who you fuck wisely than hoping a condom will save your ass or pussy.

I do agree with you, really, that people's perspective on this matter is totally skewed and blown out of proportion. I am much more afraid of car accidents than STD's.

Whoever said in jest we should have warnings that "this is not real" like jackass, etc. I think is actually on to something. I have said it over and over again, that while I'm opposed to regulating or criminalizing content, I do think our responsibility is more to provide at least a little education, warning, and perspective/reminders to people that that what they're seeing is risky behavior, fantasy/acting, would be a crime if done in real life, would be physically painful, is fake, etc. That's where I get really pissed about extreme sites, when they go out of their way to insist everything is REAL, not staged, etc. That was the problem I had/have with the sleep assault site, etc. I don't have a problem with rape fantasies and role plays, but I do have a problem with people presenting them in a way that seems to condone real crime or wants customers to believe a real crime was committed.

While the Max Hardcore exit interview with the girl may have been motivated purely as a get-out-of-jail-free card, I think it's a great thing to do. I think it humanizes the girl and puts the fantasy into the right context (if it's presented to the customer). I think extreme porn (and porn with taboo or dangerous themes) should be presented with a reality check. I try hard to do that myself on our sites. If someone loses their boner because of a reality check then THAT person is the kind of freak I would label as Hammer does: a menace in need of serious help.

I have an interesting anecdote that relates to this, but we're about to eat and go to bed so I'll save it for later.

[softball]

Personally I think that the only thing that a porn site should do to kill a boner is to create an orgasm.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Whoever said in jest we should have warnings that "this is not real" like jackass, etc. I think is actually on to something.

Thanks- It wasnt in jest. Ill be using it right behind a 2257 statement from here on out.

[Hammer]

Funny Trixie but I can't help seeing your condom argument as contradicting itself. In one breath you say that testing is fallible which seems to indicate that a performer would be smart to demand condoms be worn if they had a brain and yet in the other breath you argue that you're against mandating condoms.

Are you saying that the laws we have in our countries are useless? Do you realize why we make laws and mandates? To protect the morons that don't follow the rules on their own. So, by not mandating condoms, you're condemning a lot of innocent people to death that have sex with performers who didn't use condoms because they believed their partners drug test was proof that they'd be safe.

I'm not arguing for mandating condoms, I'm just pointing out that arguing two sides of an argument with yourself is kinda funny.

Personally, although I hate watching videos with condoms, I think any performer that doesn't wear one while they have sex with a complete stranger (test or not), is a fucking moron.

[RawAlex]

The condom issue is actually a pretty funny one, and something that the porn industry needs to get use to if it ever gets the status of "acceptable". It's called Occupational Health and Safety. In the same manner that city workers have to wear reflective vests, highrise construction guys have to be tied off so they can't fall off the buildings and so on, condoms in porn may in end up being one of those rules of life.

Quite simply, if the government's don't act, they risk liablity for providing an unsafe workspace. More importantly, they risk financial ruin if someone gets sick on a porn set because no OHS rules were enforced.

The day porn becomes legit, this will all get more difficult (and much easier to regulate)

[softball]

The day porn becomes legit,

A day that will live in infamy.

[softball]

you're condemning a lot of innocent people to death

Are you sure about this? How many? Just a ball park will do and no jokes about filling one. I say this only because a lot of people toss this argument around like a mum and apple pie kind of thing.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Are you sure about this? How many? Just a ball park will do and no jokes about filling one. I say this only because a lot of people toss this argument around like a mum and apple pie kind of thing.

I don't know an exact number, let me start polling some HIV patients and I'll get back to you on that one.

Remember these cases? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7348.php

Darren James had unprotected sex with 13 female performers while shooting in Brazil in 1999 and he's just one performer and what about all the other non industry women he had sex with? And how many of those 13 women ended up getting the virus and passing it on? When he returned to the US he passed the virus on to another performer, Lara Roxx who then also tested positive and hit the news. How many men did she give the virus too? Then Jessica Dee became the third porn star to test positive and started a massive scare in the industry during which time 53 performers were quarantined.

How many of those 53 performers actually ended up contracting the virus I don't know but even if it was only a few and those few along with the original 3 had unprotected sex with several non industry partners that we don't know about and those partners had unprotected sex with other partners, it doesn't take a math genius to realize that that could add up to a LOT of people. Maybe you could eventually fill a ballpark with the people that got the virus from the trickle down effect.

Sorry about the trickle down part.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I don't know an exact number, let me start polling some HIV patients and I'll get back to you on that one.

Remember these cases? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7348.php

Darren James had unprotected sex with 13 female performers while shooting in Brazil in 1999 and he's just one performer and what about all the other non industry women he had sex with? And how many of those 13 women ended up getting the virus and passing it on? When he returned to the US he passed the virus on to another performer, Lara Roxx who then also tested positive and hit the news. How many men did she give the virus too? Then Jessica Dee became the third porn star to test positive and started a massive scare in the industry during which time 53 performers were quarantined.

How many of those 53 performers actually ended up contracting the virus I don't know but even if it was only a few and those few along with the original 3 had unprotected sex with several non industry partners that we don't know about and those partners had unprotected sex with other partners, it doesn't take a math genius to realize that that could add up to a LOT of people. Maybe you could eventually fill a ballpark with the people that got the virus from the trickle down effect.

Sorry about the trickle down part.

That is exactly the mum and apple pie argument I was addressing. You just can't "argue" it. Many feel that way about abortion and Iraq.
However, when I mentioned earlier about choosing your partners, dude had been to Brazil fucking trannies as well. That is tantamount to a crime. This is not the norm.
There are many industries with worse occupational hazards. How many sex scenes do you see in movies at the cinema where the hero pulls out a condom before they roll in the hay....albeit under the covers....but certainly not reaching for a condom.
That girl that got aids also did a double anal dp. Young and foolish and all that. However if you want to ever get old and foolish like me, you better be young and smart like I was.

[Hammer]

Like I said, I am not arguing for mandatory condom use, I used that as an example to point out the seemingly 'have your cake and eat it to' post Trixie made. It just sounded strange to me for her to make a case for using condoms while at the same time arguing against making it mandatory.

I think the argument that people would make about Hollywood not making a big deal about using condoms in sex scenes is that we all know they're not really having sex. On the other hand, since the performers actually are having sex in porn videos, some people get the wrong message.