|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Are fisting videos now legal in the U.S.? |
| 1-21 of 21 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 01-07-10 11:47am - 5463 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Are fisting videos now legal in the U.S.? For the first time in a long time I stopped in to an adult DVD shop (remember those?). One video that I noticed was titled "Put Your Hand in My Ass" by a studio called Sweet Pictures. The cover showed a picture of Julie Night being anally fisted. I'm not up on the advances in this area of porn, but the last word I remember is when Adam Glasser (aka Seymore Butts) was charged with obscenity for showing vaginal fisting in Tampa Tushy Fest. I'm making the assumption that this is a 'Made in the USA" movie because Julie Night and others are from the U.S., but this could be a European studio. Does anyone know if showing fisting in the U.S. is now legal? (I should also add, just in the interest of clarity, that I saw this DVD in a shop in eastern Canada. Canadian obscenity law tends to be more strict than in the U.S, so I can't imagine that it is now legal in Canada and not in the U.S.) | |
|
||
| 01-07-10 04:06pm - 5463 days | #2 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
There's loads of vaginal fisting at ALS Scans and ALS Angels, too. Anal, I don't recall, as fisting doesn't interest me (nor does it interest the writers of the Firefox spell checker, as I have just found out). If there are laws specifically written to outlaw fisting, they might be local ordinances or state statutes. Kinda like cell phone laws. Especially when the cell phones are set to "vibrate." ;) I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-07-10 06:39pm - 5463 days | #3 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
It's a good question - Wiki Answers says: Answer While the act of fisting is not illegal in the US, it is not typically shown in US porn due to varying obscenity interpretations and the risk of legal action stemming from the vagueness of what is considered obscene. I believe that this is the correct answer - certainly there are sites that promote fisting - ALS' sites, Clara G's site - but there are other sites that are very afraid of it. Go to a moderated cam show at CamZ or at Naughty America or Danger Live and start requesting fisting and you'll hear intense alarm and you'll probably be kicked out and run the risk of being banned if you insist on asking for it. | |
|
||
| 01-07-10 06:48pm - 5463 days | #4 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Fisting is not illegal nor do I think it has ever been illegal in the US or Canada. That is part of the problem with obscenity laws. The laws don't get into the actual acts or what is portrayed in the film. If that were the case then it would be real easy for any filmaker to avoid prosecution. Look at Evil Angel. Part of their accusation is a scene or I think it might only be a preview of a scene where a girl is squirting a milk like susbstance from her anus. The reason why fisting and anal fisting being considered much worse is that it's a fetish that's quite far on the fringe side of porn. Add the fact that it's much easier to get 12 people to agree that they think it's obscene. Seymore Butts was accused because he was an easy target. John Stagliano is ccused because he is an easy target. Whether these people are found guilty or innocent. They will still have spent large amounts of money to fight a cause that should never have gone to court in the first place. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-07-10 07:12pm - 5463 days | #5 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Well, fists are certainly OK, aren't they? I mean, showing a woman being beaten black and blue is not considered "obscene." I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-08-10 12:02am - 5462 days | #6 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I am pretty sure Sweet Pictures is a Euro studio, as you can find their DVDs in Euro online stores but not American ones. When I was living in Germany I spent plenty of time in porn shops and would see numerous "Euro versions" of U.S. releases. I believe this is what got Max Hardcore in trouble (though not necessarily over fisting per se), an online store had sold Euro versions of his DVDs to U.S. addresses, which just goes to show how prude and pathetic this country is. You can make it here, but you can't sell it here, at least not without some additional editing! Land of the free my ass--when oh when is this country going to grow up? Of course I come from a state where the very act of sex is illegal unless the two people (no more) involved are married (and only straight marriage is constitutional in the state, by the way), so I doubt "fringe act" porn is going to be made legal anytime soon. As far as ALS and all the other U.S. sites getting away with it must have something with their content not being on DVD. I have watched U.S. DVDs that have had content cut out and instead they put in some text telling me to go to their site to see the missing goods. My best guess (and this is an extremely rough guess) is that sites may not have to prove--or at least a prosecutor would not be able to prove--where exactly the material was produced and thus the acts were not necessarily illegal wherever they happened to be shot. Of course how they can still release it to American customers (we do give them U.S. billing addresses) is something I am really not quite sure about. My guess here would be that the law may not apply to digital goods, only to physical ones like DVDs, magazines, "personal massage" devices, etc. Where's Wittyguy with a good and angry rant when you need him? "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 01-08-10 07:36pm - 5462 days | #7 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
Max Hardcore started shooting 2 versions of his movies years ago. There was the one destined for the USand the one for the European market. The non-US versions had fisting among other things. I haven't heard of a single case where a site was being harassed for having fisting content. I'm about to review one that has a few of these and they don't seem to be in trouble. I think that for now the Government is unwilling to touch people that own internet sites. That might change but I would be surprised since the internet is pretty much a law onto itself. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-08-10 09:30pm - 5461 days | #8 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
The last frontier--enjoy it while you still can... "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 01-08-10 11:48pm - 5461 days | #9 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
"Of course how they can still release it to American customers (we do give them U.S. billing addresses) is something I am really not quite sure about. My guess here would be that the law may not apply to digital goods, only to physical ones like DVDs, magazines, "personal massage" devices, etc." I'm sure many of us could get fairly apoplectic about this topic without shedding any actual light on the subject - this is an interesting topic and it's too bad that we don't have an attorney in the forum - that I know of. If Rick or Khan or any of the webmasters that post in the forum have an informed understanding of how the law treats one form of media (physical) vs another (digital - over the internet), I would definitely be interested in hearing about it. Here's one thing that I'm very curious about - having watched Family Business and from other sources, I'm aware that porn retailers will not ship material to certain states where they feel in danger of prosecution - in one episode of Family Business, Seymore blew a gasket - definitely an angry rant - because his cousin Stevie wasn't enforcing the restrictions about where they were shipping their product. Paul Little/Max Hardcore was very clear that he wouldn't have shipped the material where it was shipped because of concern about prosecution for obscenity - it was his distributor, Jaded Video, that shipped it there. What about internet businesses? Does ALS Scan or Videobox - just for example - have to restrict who can join their site so that they are taking reasonable precautions to not be broadcasting offensive material to certain states? Edited on Jan 08, 2010, 11:53pm | |
|
||
| 01-09-10 12:12am - 5461 days | #10 | |
|
hodayathink (0)
Active User Posts: 312 Registered: Mar 27, '09 Location: Illinois |
I'm pretty sure there are some websites out there that won't let you subscribe if the zip code for the mailing address for your credit card is from a certain area. | |
|
||
| 01-09-10 06:09am - 5461 days | #11 | |
|
rearadmiral (0)
Active User Posts: 1,453 Registered: Jul 16, '07 Location: NB/Canada |
Thanks for all the good information on this. PinkPanther - your point about the reluctance to ship to certain zip codes reminded me of a documentary I saw a while ago and would highly recommend. It's called "U.S v. Tommy Chong" or "a/k/a Tommy Chong." It's well worth watching. The specific issue isn't porn, it's drug paraphenalia, but the primary story is how Chong was entrapped by the feds for selling bongs. Chong owned a company that made artistic glass bongs. He knew that some states would give him problems so he refused to ship to certain states. A federal agent posing as a customer from one of those states tried to order and Chong refused. The agent persisted and finally told Chong he was a retailer and he wanted $40,000 worth of bongs and he would drive to California to pick them up. So based on that Chong's staff made up this massive order, and then the agent said he couldn't make it to California so the items would have to be shipped. Chong faced a significant financial strain because of the size of the order and finally relented and shipped the product. The feds raided him right away. So the lesson is that some states must be off limits for physically shipping some things. But the internet has to be treated differently – at least until someone figures out how to regulate all us reprobates. Here in Canada our border service bans hundreds of porn titles a year for being obscene. Our obscenity laws are similar to yours in the U.S., but probably a little more wacky. But of those banned titles, I have many of them digitally. All I do is go online and buy them as a download. And I’ll keep them until the government pries my J.M. Productions titles from my cold, dead hands! (With a wink to the late Charleton Heston, of course…) This also reminds me of a story in a book by Allan MacDonell who rose to be Larry Flynt's right hand man. The book is "Prisoner of X: 20 Years in the Hole at Hustler." This is a highly entertaining read for anyone interested in the porn business. MacDonell makes the point that the feds tried for years to get Flynt on obscenity charges but never had much luck. The difference was that back in the 70s and even into the early 80s the religious nuts who the feds put on the juries still believed that they had no right to impose their view of morality on anyone else. That alone is probably the biggest shift in the business of prosecuting on victimless morality offences like porn and drugs. These days I suspect you'd be hard pressed to find a fundamentalist who DIDN'T want to impose his or her values on me, you and everyone else. Maybe the moral of the story is best summed up by Frank Zappa when he said (noting that many Christians use the fish symbol to advertise their faith) “Beware the fish people, they are the true enemy.” | |
|
||
| 01-09-10 09:21am - 5461 days | #12 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I can't speak for websites but there are certain states, Florida being the one that comes to mind, where shipping porn is a less than safe thing to do. You can ask Paul Little/Max about it. I think that the problem is not the content per say but the cross state selling of said content. I think that you can get Max's hard stuff in Florida but ordering it from another state is where the danger arises. Of course I'm not 100% sure about that. Someone from Floridaq could probably confirm if video stores have on their shelves some of Max's movies. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 01-09-10 08:57pm - 5461 days | #13 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I have never seen or read any warnings for potential subscribers of sites based on their address, the only real warnings concern age verification (both subscribers' and models' ages) and I think once they have your money/CC number they really don't even give a shit how old you are. Ordering DVDs can be quite different. I have browsed numerous American sites that sell Euro versions of DVDs and their lists of off-limit states and districts are usually pretty easy to find and shamefully long to boot. I live in one of these dead zones and a lot of sites won't even let you complete your order once you enter your address. The responsibility seems to be mostly up to the seller more than the buyer so Seymore Butts' anger is understandable given his legal history and how easy it would be for some community to cry foul and have him put out of business or thrown in jail. Euro sites selling their Euro DVDs to Americans leave it more up to the buyer, telling customers to understand their country's import/customs rules regarding potentially 'obscene' material and that if an order is seized then it's out of their hands. In these cases the customer could get in trouble and I highly doubt the U.S. would try and prosecute or extradite someone from another country over some dirty movies...at least until we elect another member of the Bush family. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 01-09-10 09:05pm - 5461 days | #14 | |
|
PinkPanther (0)
Active User Posts: 1,136 Registered: Jan 08, '07 Location: Oakland, CA |
I don't know how different things really are these days, much as significant sections of the powers that be try to change things - for instance, with the jury that convicted Paul Little/Max Hardcore, the prosecution made the point to the jury that it didn't matter what they thought the law ought to be, they just had to follow the law exactly as it was written on paper and reading what was on paper they had no choice but to convict - and a number of jurors were very uncomfortable with that but felt that they had no choice but to go along with it. | |
|
||
| 01-09-10 09:17pm - 5460 days | #15 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Ahh, creating a crime where none existed before--don't you just love America's system of 'justice?' Lesson learned: if at first you don't succeed, try try again! :) (Gee, I wonder if the manpower could have been better spent on other crimes like, oh I don't know, terrorism?) Interestingly enough Chong could have gotten in trouble in a few states if he owned a company that instead made artistic glass dongs. No joke, because in a few parts of the U.S. it is illegal to sell sex toys, or at least devices purposely made as sex toys (so you can still buy all the fruit and vegetables you desire). Too bad the founding fathers didn't put an amendment in the Bill of Rights about the right to keep and bear, uh, 'medical devices' like they did arms. Just think there could be a National Vibrator Association (would probably be closedly connected to NOW) as well as the NRA. ;) "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 01-13-10 10:40am - 5457 days | #16 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:49pm | |
|
||
| 01-13-10 12:30pm - 5457 days | #17 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Yeah, they'd rather stick their own fists up our butts. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 01-13-10 01:50pm - 5457 days | #18 | ||
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I am thinking it's because legislators, despite their love of debating and defending inane subjects, really don't want to talk about fisting, or even facials, creampies, body fluids, etc. At least they don't want to debate this in a public forum, as there have been some genuinely creepy sex scandals in the last few years, stuff that makes my viewing preferences seem downright boring and mundane but still very legal.
Barring the fact that sex or sex toys are not even hinted at in the Constitution as I mentioned earlier, it stills seems very crazy to me that there are places that allow you to buy a weapon that can put hot lead in somebody's body but you still can't buy a toy to put hot sex (or at least creative sex) in your marriage or relationship. They are still enforced by barring sex shops from selling toys and counselors and online retailers from offering them as well, all while allowing possession. It's kind of like fireworks laws, and I guess in the wrong hands both can hurt people in one way or another--though hopefully only fireworks involve fire! "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | ||
|
|||
| 01-13-10 03:03pm - 5457 days | #19 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 20, 2023, 01:49pm | |
|
||
| 01-14-10 02:48pm - 5456 days | #20 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
I once read a letter to an editor by the president of the NRA in response to a recent article and in the letter he said that the 2nd Amendment was more important than free speech (1st Amendment). No, I'm not joking. My problem isn't the defense of gun rights--it is in the Constitution after all--but the sole defense of gun rights over absolutely every other freedom imaginable. Take the last few years after 9/11 and the rehash of that age old idea of trading a 'little' freedom for the illusion of increased security; freedoms of speech, press, right to a fair trial, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, plus multiple other basic freedoms--except gun rights, I guess because you need them in order to defend your home/business/family/militia from terrorists. No other amendment has this kind of lobbying power, political influence, and sheer amount of money protecting it. Some call it their patriotic duty to stand up for the 2nd Amendment over everything else, I call it misguided, ignorant, and just plain selfish. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 01-14-10 06:09pm - 5456 days | #21 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
You are probably 100% right in your statement but how many people want to start a debate with people that think that carrying a concealed weapon is a good thing and their God given right? You could come out with statistics out the wazoo stating that most gun owners died with their own weapons or that most children killed by guns were those owned by their parents or themselves and you probably wouldn't sway a single person who belives the above statement that owning a gun is their God given right. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 1-21 of 21 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
