See also Religious Watch Forum

dancing monkey    [27001.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 08:09] View Near Messages
IanG, you are absolutely right - prior to 2000 (or 1997 if you include the brief dalliance with `medium-core`), the adult channels did broadcast R18-equivalent material. In fact, that was their USP, the fact that they were stronger than regular 18 rated videos. Of course, R18 up til then was pretty much of a dead duck, and was much harder to identify in terms of content - with no real sex in either category, where did 18 stop and R18 begin?

dancing monkey    [26999.   Posted 8-Jul-2010 Thu 06:52] View Near Messages
Shaun, you are of course right that customs now use R18 as a benchmark - not everything imported needs to be BBFC approved, but if the content goes beyond what is accepted at R18 - even if not strictly illegal - then they will doubtless seize it. I`m not sure what their policy for screeners and master copies being sent to distributors is - I guess they simplky don`t look at them. I have to say that I haven`t had a single package opened since 2000.

In August 2000, I was told that they didn`t give a damn what the BBFC were doing, they would still seize hardcore because they still considered it to be obscene. A few weeks later, they changed their tune. I`m sure the reasons Dave has spelled out are the reason.

Of course, customs always knew they were on dubious grounds. When I had a major run-in with them back in the 90`s, my solicitor told me that I would lose in court - because magistrates will simply rubber-stamp customs decisions - and then most likely win on appeal. But like most people, I couldn`t afford the legal costs, and it all ended in a stalemate.

My dealings with them suggested that the `lower orders` had no personal grudge against this material, but the higher ups were pretty evangelical about it. Go figure.

I was also at the R18 hearings. Fascinating to see the BBFC failing so miserably (though few of their staff seemed too upset at the result). I went to a couple of other VAC hearings, with less satisfactory results.

dancing monkey    [26993.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 14:11] View Near Messages
Shaun, I was answering a question raised by IanG about whether the EU had been informed of changes when hardcore R18 started to be passed. You obviously misread my statement, or didn`t read his earlier post.

And sorry, but you are wrong about customs. They seized porn - like other material - because they claimed it was obscene material. BBFC approval had nothing to do with it. Customs have been seizing porn since long before the VRA (legally enacted or otherwise). I`ve dealt with customs many, many times - including having solicitors involved - and never once was BBFC classification brought up as a reason for seizure. When the BBFC started to pass hardcore, customs originally stated that their rules would stay the same regardless - they still considered such material obscene (again, I know this from direct contact) and it was only when they realised just how many court cases they would be facing - and would almost certainly lose - that they backed down.

dancing monkey    [26990.   Posted 7-Jul-2010 Wed 05:30] View Near Messages
Shaun - yes, I know.

Sergio - yes it is. Customs are not (officially) allowed to seize items that are legally available in the UK.

Of course, as they have done with porn, and with horror movies, they can interpret what is and isn`t legal. They will still confiscate horror / violent films that they think are beyond the pale.

dancing monkey    [26983.   Posted 6-Jul-2010 Tue 05:36] View Near Messages
IanG, I happen to know quite a bit about the R18 situation, and you are reading more into it than was there.

The BBFC set the rules, not the government - indeed, Jack Straw looked at changing the law, so outraged was he by the relaxation. The Judicial Review that finally allowed hardcore was not a government thing, but a legal challenge to interpretation of the law. Therefore, the VRA was unchanged, so why would the EU need to be informed? They wouldn`t. Just as they didn`t need to be informed when former Video Nasties were passed uncut. The law hadn`t changed then either. `Hardcore` was not illegal by that time anyway - magazines etc had been openly available for some time.

The customs situation is simple. When the R18 rules changed, customs initially said they would carry on as usual. However, their lawyers pointed out that they were heading for trouble - they could no longer claim material was obscene when identical material was being legally sold - with BBFC approval - within Britain. They would probably be subject to court battles left, right and centre, from UK distributors if not individuals. Eventually, they saw sense in September 2000 (I know the date because I was abroad at the time the rules changed).

Overseas mail order is the same. The supplier is not breaking the law because they are not subject to UK law. The consumer is not breaking the law because it is only the sale by mail order, not the purchase, that is illegal. And as the material is no longer considered legally obscene, customs and the post office are no longer concerned with it.

I have no idea what is happening with OFCOM, but as far as R18, UK customs and mail order goes, there is no grand conspiracy.

dancing monkey    [26921.   Posted 16-Jun-2010 Wed 09:53] View Near Messages
What a lot of you don`t seem to realise is that not everyone wants to see hardcore. If they did, no-one would produce softcore in countries where HC is freely available, and no-one would run SC websites. I can`t see why anyone would want to sit through edited down HC, but stuff specifically shot soft - like the babe channels, like Playboy, like erotic thrillers, like Nuts and Zoo and Loaded and Front... that stuff is actually more popular than hardcore generally. There`s a big audience that wants sexy, not sex.

In any case, don`t expect the channels to demand the right to show HC. It wouldn`t make them any more money and they know it. Remember, it wasn`t licensed sex shops that were rallying for change with R18 - they were making enough money anyway. And Simcha, I find it odd too, but people have been phoning sex lines for a couple of decades now, so talking to a girl you can actually see at least makes more sense than an anonymous woman on the phone who probably isn`t hot, sexy and half naked in real life!

dancing monkey    [26910.   Posted 14-Jun-2010 Mon 11:20] View Near Messages
I would also say that Chuck Traynor was clearly a cunt of the worst kind, regardless of consent or otherwise, and living with him was, I`m sure, thoroughly unpleasant. But he wasn`t a pornographer (and the people in the industry all thought he was scum as well).

dancing monkey    [26909.   Posted 14-Jun-2010 Mon 11:19] View Near Messages
Deep Throat 2 was softcore, and I`m sure people would argue that Lovelace was still under the thumb of Chuck Traynor at that point. A more interesting argument is Linda Lovelace for President, shot in 1976, long after she`d split from Traynor - again softcore, but still entirely sexual in nature and trading on her fame from Throat. Her objections to porn seemed to come after her career was over - she didn`t have the acting ability to go beyond porn, and the adult industry had long since replaced her with sexier, wilder performers (who could also act). I remember reading - before Ordeal - that she had found religion.

Then of course there are the arguments that Ordeal is a cynical, overly-graphic account of her life, designed to push all the same buttons that `extreme porn` allegedly does. It`s certainly more explicit that it needs to be.

And of course Chuck Traynor later married Marilyn Chambers, who never accused him of anything bad, even after they divorced. Marilyn was known to be a real life sub, which could offer an explanation of the Lovelace story. She wouldn`t be the first person to lead a thoroughly kinky life while younger and then regret it all later.

dancing monkey    [26902.   Posted 13-Jun-2010 Sun 07:16] View Near Messages
Inside Linda Lovelace is a book, not a film, so I think that - plus all the other inaccuracies in that piece - show`s us what a well thought out article it was. Lovelace`s claims are dubious, and varied over the years. In her book Ordeal, she never suggests that anyone involved in Deep Throat knew about her alleged domestic hell, and she even suggests that the film was welcome respite from her abusive relationship. Certainly, she carried on trying to milk her porn fame long after splitting with her husband, and at the end of her life was doing glamour shoots and making public appearances where she would sign Deep Throat items.

If anything, she was as much used and abused by feminist anti-porn campaigners as by her ex-husband - something she herself bitterly acknowledged years later when she had ceased being useful to them and was left to fend for herself.

dancing monkey    [26648.   Posted 25-Mar-2010 Thu 03:50] View Near Messages
Re: Misty Beethoven. The R18 version was released in the UK by Joybear, who have released several adult classics - unfortunately often cut.

dancing monkey    [26546.   Posted 5-Mar-2010 Fri 06:19] View Near Messages
You know, Colin Warhurst almost had me until I read "Back then, the majority of indie film-makers may have been purveyors of dodgy horror, porn and other bad things."

So, horror and porn are BAD THINGS, eh? Not as bad, I wager, as your crappy £600 rom-com. There are many reasons to oppose the VRA, but saving you money isn`t really one of them. Piss off.

dancing monkey    [26446.   Posted 4-Feb-2010 Thu 07:35] View Near Messages
The Scottish proposals would not only outlaw prostitution, but all adult video prodution - including softcore, because it would still count as a `sexual service`. Not to mention phone sex, fetish clubs, swingers clubs etc. A very cynical piece of proposed legislation. Let`s hope it fails and doesn`t have any influence south of the border.

dancing monkey    [26146.   Posted 23-Oct-2009 Fri 13:40] View Near Messages
Ian, Straw Dogs was not refused classification in 1971. It played UK cinemas quite widely. You`re confusing the situation with the brief video ban.

My doubts about any award are simply based on the number of films that have claimed to be the winners of entirely made up awards and entirely made up events. But it hardly matters.

Anyway, I imagine we`re way off-topic for this forum.

dancing monkey    [26143.   Posted 23-Oct-2009 Fri 03:53] View Near Messages
Tarkus -

Good link! I doubt the 69 award was genuine - I have a catalogue from 1972 promoting this (and Slaves in Cages) as new releases. You`re probably right about IMDB confusing the two films.

I`m not entirely convinced that it`s actually a US film - more likely Frost picked up a few Danish films for release and things have become confused over the years. But who knows the truth in these situations?

Glad it`s cleared up as much as possible though. My copy was taped off HVC many, many years ago. It was also available as a `grey market` dvd double bill with Sleazy Rider at one point I believe, though I never saw a copy.

dancing monkey    [26139.   Posted 22-Oct-2009 Thu 04:49] View Near Messages
Tarkus -

The film released in the US as Slaves in Cages is a different film. Easy to be confused because of the original Danish title, not to mention the fact that both were released around the same time from the same distributor.

Everything the say about this film confirms it as The Captives. Which I have a copy of. The middle aged woman, the acid trips, the slogans... do you recall the characters calling the couple `Mr & Mrs Establishment`?

I can`t believe there are two early 70`s Euro films about four hippies kidnapping a couple in a Rolls, taking them to a cabin, torturing them,feeding them LSD and indulging in political sloganeering. So The Captives it is then.

dancing monkey    [26133.   Posted 21-Oct-2009 Wed 05:03] View Near Messages
Tarkus,

The film you are looking for is The Captives (Slaver i Bure), made in 1972. It`s a Danish movie, supposedly directed by American Lee Frost under the pseudonym Carl Borcht. There is no hardcore version. It used to turn up on the Adult Channel during its very early days and also on TAC`s parent cable channel HVC.
I don`t think it`s available anywhere - even Something Weird don`t sell it.

dancing monkey    [25905.   Posted 9-Sep-2009 Wed 04:02] View Near Messages
"However, the scale of the operation, even on the basis of a small percentage, would necessarily involve a large number of obscene DVDs"

Not necessarily at all. But I see they pleaded guilty. Crap defence lawyers no doubt.

dancing monkey    [25904.   Posted 9-Sep-2009 Wed 03:59] View Near Messages
Re: the two men convicted of selling `obscene` dvds yesterday. Perhaps I`m missing something, but surely the police, the prosecution and the courts should have looked at all the material seized, yet this doesn`t seem to be the case. They appear to have simply guessed how much material was obscene.

What sort of law is this? One where, if the police raid you, they no longer have to show any evidence that you were selling legally obscene material, but simply say that they think you were?

And no doubt this was all R18 or similar.

Insane.

dancing monkey    [25878.   Posted 2-Sep-2009 Wed 08:58] View Near Messages
Interesting story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6806382.ece

If the Equalities Office are taking submissions from groups who are discriminated against, surely Backlash and other SM groups should submit. After all, the BDSM community faces the loss of jobs, arrest, abuse and more... not to mention the ignorant comments from members of the government.

dancing monkey    [25824.   Posted 18-Aug-2009 Tue 02:53] View Near Messages
Re: Lesbian Vampire Killers - I suspect this is DVD label hype. I was in Asda yesterday where the cover was indeed stickered over... but the in-store radio had no problem mentioning the title during a promo. I note it is the distributor who has supplied these versions, and no doubt the distributor who has spread the story about the cover having to be censored, in a bid to help publicise their crap film.

dancing monkey    [25110.   Posted 31-Mar-2009 Tue 04:45] View Near Messages
I`d suggest more Ofcom complaints about this awful C4 sprogramme. After all, they upheld complaints against shows that didn`t show negative comments on porn as unfair, so surely this show - which is effectively trying to stop access to - and maybe even ban outright - legally available material should be equally censured. And as has been stated, it`s full of bullshit statements.
Channel 4 have form in this of course... remember the Dark Side of Porn series? Its a long way from the days of Eurotrash, The Red Light Zone and the Seymore Butts reality show.