Graphic Sexual Horror, a documentary

September 8, 2009 11:01 AM

A new documentary chronicles the rise and fall of Insex.com, one of the early websites. (NSFW) Co-directors Anna Lorentzon and Barbara Bell look at Insex, the people behind it, and the forces that ultimately brought it down. The stuff that Insex did tends to make even hardcore kinksters flinch a bit. However, as one reviewer points out, they at least put the activities into context, showing the performers both in the scenes (which include drowning and suffocation--some of this stuff may really hit some triggers for some people), as opposed to the notorious anti-porn documentary, The Price of Pleasure, which showed sex and kink without exploration of the performers' lives offscreen. One of the most interesting aspects of the film is that they ultimately were shut down not by obscenity laws, but by federal authorities who used the PATRIOT Act to claim that hardcore porn funded terrorism.
posted by Stochastic Jack (99 comments total)

Little bit too much editoral above the fold there, Jack. But it looks interesting.
posted by The Whelk at 11:14 AM on September 8, 2009

I'm guessing it's a typo and you meant one of the early big-time BSDM paysites or something similar, because the article said the site went up in 1997. There were already big time porn sites that had been around for a year or more by then, although the dizzying array of far-out fetishes we have now wasn't available and it was mostly straight ahead male/female-penetration-moneyshot type stuff.

I guess I'd like to see this film, because the behind-the-scenes look at a top tier Internet porn company with full time staff and performers sounds like it would be interesting, although hardcore bondage stuff squicks me out. Handcuffs and ball gags are fun, but I don't want to watch simulated torture, even in a non-porn context that also shows the performers out of character. I don't look down on people that are into it, but it makes me uncomfortable to watch.
posted by DecemberBoy at 11:21 AM on September 8, 2009

9/11 chained everything.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:26 AM on September 8, 2009 [16 favorites]

Interesting. I've always secretly wanted to call "bullshit" on the whole idea of SSC. The point of BDSM is that it's not supposed to be safe, sane or (in some cases) consensual. BDSM is a means to explore the unsafe, insane and unconsensual sides of our sexualities. Also, the documentary seems to come down hard on PD for coercing his models into sex with the threat of firing. Well, how is that any different from the normal mode of capitalism that we all partake in every day? Granted, most employers aren't allowed to force their employees into sex to continue their employment, but why not? "Fellate me or you're fired" is practically the American motto, so why shouldn't we take it literally?
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 11:26 AM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

^^Eponystupid.
posted by Mister_A at 11:29 AM on September 8, 2009 [23 favorites]

eponywtf
posted by Burhanistan at 11:29 AM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

as opposed to the notorious anti-porn documentary, The Price of Pleasure, which showed sex and kink without exploration of the performers' lives offscreen

I thought the point of The Price of Pleasure was to interview porn consumers about how porn affected their worldview. How would "exploration of the performers' lives offscreen" be all that relevant to that? This critique seems like a bit of a non sequitur here.

(Note: I have not seen The Price of Pleasure, but am going by the film's marketing and press about it.)
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:29 AM on September 8, 2009

The point of BDSM is that it's not supposed to be safe, sane or (in some cases) consensual.

And yet, millions and millions of people disagree with you. H'm.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:31 AM on September 8, 2009 [11 favorites]

Ban TKPD.
posted by Pope Guilty at 11:31 AM on September 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Is there a movie or article on this theme that I can actually watch or read, or is this just a promotional fluff piece?
posted by cmonkey at 11:31 AM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I've always secretly wanted to call "bullshit" on the whole idea of SSC.

Well, there are plenty of people who OPENLY call bullshit on it. It's a quite popular debate in BDSM circles. Google "RACK" - Risk Aware Consensual Kink.
posted by desjardins at 11:32 AM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

federal authorities who used the PATRIOT Act to claim that hardcore porn funded terrorism.

I think I just found an opening to get single-payer passed. Step 1 is a little phone call to the FBI in re: Blue Cross....
posted by DU at 11:34 AM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

www.priceofpleasure.com
This page is parked free, courtesy of Killersites.com


Don't you people ever click on the links?
posted by twoleftfeet at 11:36 AM on September 8, 2009

I guess it should be www.thepriceofpleasure.com.
posted by lumensimus at 11:41 AM on September 8, 2009

"One of the most interesting aspects of the film is that they ultimately were shut down not by obscenity laws, but by federal authorities who used the PATRIOT Act to claim that hardcore porn funded terrorism. "

How MCMikeNamara Disagrees with Federal Authorities Example #532352: I think if shut down hardcore porn, the terrorist have won.

Have lots of other more serious opinions to say about the topics referenced above but since I'm not going to check out the articles while at work, I guess arguing will have to wait.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:44 AM on September 8, 2009

I just read the "Price of Pleasure" as the "Prince of Persia". I need to stop playing so many computer games.
posted by hnnrs at 11:50 AM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I guess it should be www.thepriceofpleasure.com.

fixed the link in the post.
posted by jessamyn at 11:51 AM on September 8, 2009

I think this is going to be a really difficult post for most of North America to discuss for about seven hours (allowing for the depraved, debauched San Franciscans to get home and settled in front of their screens).
posted by desjardins at 11:53 AM on September 8, 2009

DecemberBoy: You're right. It's a typo. My bad. I really shouldn't try to do this stuff without coffee.

TheWhelk: Sorry if there's too much editorial. It's my first link, and I'm trying to be interesting.
posted by Stochastic Jack at 11:55 AM on September 8, 2009

It is far too familiar to find that the Bush administration used anti-terror terminology and politically motivated prosecutions for far-reaching issues on a right-wing agenda. Yet pornography has long had serious ties to organized crime and I would not be surprised to find out that profits from porn ended up going to terrorist organizations. Let's not let disdain of the Bush Administration get in the way of the facts here (something the linked articles certainly don't bother with). Also, The Price of Pleasure is a provocative documentary that is summarily dismissed for no good reason both in this post and in the articles.
posted by allen.spaulding at 11:57 AM on September 8, 2009

And yet, millions and millions of people disagree with you. H'm.

I just enjoy exploring the intersection of sexuality and society at large, that's all. I mean, we live in a culture where starvation and homelessness are seen as right and proper punishments for unemployment and mental illness. We, as a culture, also believe very strongly that anal rape is an effective crime-prevention technique. I don't care how you cut it: safe, sane and consensual definitely does not describe the cultural and political attitudes of millions of Americans and their leaders. So why do we poo poo the porn king for only doing what comes naturally to any captain of industry?
posted by Tyrant King Porn Dragon at 11:57 AM on September 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Finally i have an excuse to discuss a post without clicking any of it!

THINGS ARE BAD
SO IS STUFF
INFORMATION WANTS TO BE CHAINED UP AND FORCED TO EAT CREAMED CORN OUT OF A SHOE
THIS IS MY FACTUAL OPINION

Just playing. Since I was curious I read the Insex.com wiki page instead. which is pretty interesting. but sfw :(
posted by Potomac Avenue at 11:57 AM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Sorry if there's too much editorial.

It was fine. Don't sweat it.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:59 AM on September 8, 2009

So why do we poo poo the porn king for only doing what comes naturally to any captain of industry?

because it's creepy and on video
posted by kathrineg at 12:02 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm getting all sentimental now.
posted by Theta States at 12:03 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Insex got out while the going was good:

www.maxhardcore.com (Now Suitable For Work)
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:06 PM on September 8, 2009

allowing for the depraved, debauched San Franciscans to get home and settled in front of their screens

I'm pretty sure most depraved, debauched San Franciscans will just watch it at work.
posted by GuyZero at 12:09 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

So why do we poo poo the porn king?

That'll cost extra, but I think we may be able to arrange it.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 12:12 PM on September 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

We, as a culture, also believe very strongly that anal rape is an effective crime-prevention technique.

No we don't. Don't be an idiot.
posted by OmieWise at 12:18 PM on September 8, 2009 [9 favorites]

"Little bit too much editoral above the fold there, Jack."

If there were ever a case of tits above the fold....

Is this something I'd have to be listening to a Genitorturers album to understand?

Meh, nice post. Interesting. Max Hardore is a psycho, but the Patriot act scares me more.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:19 PM on September 8, 2009

It is far too familiar to find that the Bush administration used anti-terror terminology and politically motivated prosecutions for far-reaching issues on a right-wing agenda.

Well, they didn't in this case. The Patriot act had nothing to do with insex.com's demise.

The wiki link for insex.com makes it clear that the FBI was undertaking an anti-obscenity crusade against websites with scat porn or extreme torture or S&M. This had nothing to do with the Patriot act. The truth is that insex.com shut down because they were worried they couldn't afford the legal fees to fight this in court, nor could they find a buyer who would operate the company outside the US (and therefore outside of the US govt's right to regulate interstate commerce).

The Patriot Act story was just a PR stunt for the rubes. It appears to have worked.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:29 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

We, as a culture, also believe very strongly that anal rape is an effective crime-prevention technique. I don't care how you cut it: safe, sane and consensual definitely does not describe the cultural and political attitudes of millions of Americans and their leaders. So why do we poo poo the porn king for only doing what comes naturally to any captain of industry?

My Leader's mood is sometimes a bit cross, I guess...and He does have some opinions about crime-prevention technique...sometimes I do have to call Him "Commander". Once I slipped and called him "Captain" and, sheesh... I won't go into it...
posted by hellboundforcheddar at 12:30 PM on September 8, 2009

The general sanity of the response here is reminding me of what's so great about MeFi.
posted by WPW at 12:31 PM on September 8, 2009

"Poo Poo the Porn King" would be an amazing story arc in Pooch Cafe.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:34 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Two poos, one Porn King.
posted by hellboundforcheddar at 12:36 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Well, there are plenty of people who OPENLY call bullshit on it.

Yes, and they're called PRUDES.

I hope they enjoy their missionary position, or whatever the hell it is they do for fun.
posted by Sloop John B at 12:37 PM on September 8, 2009

or is this just a promotional fluff piece?

"Buy now and get this fantastic promotional fluff piece for just $10/h!"

Seriously, how can anyone use the phrase 'fluff piece' in a thread about the porn industry and not get a single favourite? I don't care if it's deliberate or accidental - cmonkey said 'fluff piece'...! I'll have to go favourite it myself.

*sigh*

When did everyone get so damned mature around here...?
posted by twine42 at 12:38 PM on September 8, 2009

Yes, and they're called PRUDES.

They're not calling BS because they think BDSM is wrong or icky, they're calling BS because sometimes BDSM isn't safe and sometimes it isn't sane (although hopefully it's almost always consensual, no matter how many times one of the partners is yelling "No").

Also, way to generalize about people not in the BDSM movement. There are more ice cream flavors than vanilla and rocky road, you know.
posted by Deathalicious at 12:44 PM on September 8, 2009 [6 favorites]

Wow. Pretty crazy that people are still being charged with obscenity... you might find Paul Little disgusting, but as long as it's all consensual, where is the problem?

"In 2007 Paul F. Little and his company Max World Entertainment, Inc. were indicted by the United States Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section on 10 counts of federal obscenity charges relating to 5 movies[7][8] showing fisting, urination and vomiting."

Fisting, urination, and vomiting are obscene? What a fucking waste of money and resources.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:44 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Poo Poo the Porn King sounds like Cat Stevens' poorly conceived followup to Tea for the Tillerman...
posted by mosk at 12:47 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Yes, and they're called PRUDES.

In what world are people who advocate risky BDSM called "prudes"?

And note: the people who toss out the "safe" and "sane" proviso of BDSM still hold onto the "consensual" proviso. Advocating rape and other non-consensual sexual activity doesn't make you edgy and cool, it makes you kind of nuts.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:50 PM on September 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

Yes, and they're called PRUDES.

Wow, if this is what you think, you honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. The RACK folks are generally in favor of less restriction on BDSM than the SSC folks.
posted by desjardins at 12:52 PM on September 8, 2009

Ban TKPD.

Only if he doesn't fellate cortex.
posted by six-or-six-thirty at 12:52 PM on September 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Bring poo poo for the Porn King
Streaks from the bun
Whine for vanilla that made the prudes come
FBI hide our parts away
Cause when no sinners sin, our freedoms pay

Oh lord how they pay and pay
For that empty day, for that empty day
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:57 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

So why do we poo poo the porn king for only doing what comes naturally to any captain of industry?

Given that you used two pretty awful examples, I'd say that you shot your rhetorical question load way to early.
posted by ob at 12:58 PM on September 8, 2009 [3 favorites]

Wow, if this is what you think, you honestly have no idea what you are talking about here. The RACK folks are generally in favor of less restriction on BDSM than the SSC folks.

No, I was talking about the Porn Dragon dude, and the people who have a problem with BDSM and think that everyone who's into it is some kind of pervert.

I feel like it's one of those things that people think it's okay to talk trash on, only because people generally do it in private and are reluctant to stand up and say something about it in public.

Obviously I don't have a problem with the RACK people. (which I just looked up -- I probably should have done that earlier)
posted by Sloop John B at 12:58 PM on September 8, 2009

Wow. Pretty crazy that people are still being charged with obscenity... you might find Paul Little disgusting, but as long as it's all consensual, where is the problem?

The problem is not that the government is arresting people for engaging in consensual obscene sex. The problem is that a guy who was accused of rape was running a business based on it (raising the spectre that maybe it all wasn't as consensual as you think), which necessarily involves interstate commerce, and which the government has the explicit authority under the constitution to regulate. In other words, the government is not investing people because they were being obscene, they are investigating because people were selling obscene material.

Secondly, note that in first amendment jurisprudence, there is a difference between indecent material, which is protected under the first amendment, and obscene material, which isn't always. The law is very grey here, and the lines are shifting.

Yes, and they're called PRUDES.

No, they are called "People Raised With Clearly Defined and Well-Enforced Sexual, Physical, and Emotional Boundaries". You look at them and think they are boring because they don't want to push the limits of sex. But they look at you and don't understand why you want to push the limits of violence.

I look at both groups and see food.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:01 PM on September 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

Sloop John B, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense, beyond HURF DURF vanilla prudes. It's wrongly contextualized, responded to the wrong comment, and your explanation isn't helping. Yes you should have looked up RACK earlier, but you also should have put some thought into your initial post.
posted by jokeefe at 1:07 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

This thread is the best piece of absurdist art I've attended in a long time.
posted by oddman at 1:13 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

The point of BDSM is that it's not supposed to be safe, sane or (in some cases) consensual.

Somewhere in there you have a valid point, but it's hard to see past the big rubber troll suit.

I will tentatively agree (to the wrath of some, I am sure) that if you add enough "safe words", conditions and rules to anything kinky, it ceases to feel forbidden, dirty or wrong... at which point it's just not fun anymore.

Sometimes, the officially sanctioned best-practices for BDSM re how you're "supposed to" do it can start to feel as restrictive and boring as any vanilla sex manual left by the Mormons.

Shorter: kink without passion isn't, and if you have to ask your slave if she's feeling okay every ten seconds... it just doesn't work.

I won't go along with the non-consensual part of that, though. That's just stupid.
posted by rokusan at 1:37 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I have one simple rule, and I find it is all I need in thinking about sex: If it moves, fuck it; if it doesn't move, eat it.

I can't tell you how bad my life has gotten as a result of this rule.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:40 PM on September 8, 2009 [18 favorites]

Bring poo poo for the Porn King

That Cat Stevens is some good shit.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:40 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

I look at both groups and see food.

I think you want incannibalism.com, two doors down the hall, on your left.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:41 PM on September 8, 2009

In other words, the government is not investing people because they were being obscene, they are investigating because people were selling obscene material.

(Emphasis mine.) Is this statement legally accurate? From what I read (admittedly not much--a few newspaper articles), it seems that Max Hardcore would have been found guilty whether or not he charged for the material or not, i.e. it wasn't the sales of the material that made it illegal; it was the publication.

Not true?

The articles also said that they used Tampa as the site of the trial because some of the servers he was using were located there. That doesn't make sense to me if it is an interstate commerce deal. I think this is state/local obscenity law. But again, I am not a lawyer nor am I very familiar with the case.
posted by mrgrimm at 1:55 PM on September 8, 2009

The point of BDSM is that it's not supposed to be safe, sane or (in some cases) consensual.

To me, this is sort of like saying the point of feminism is to teach women how to hate men, or the point of Islam is to kill infidels. I don't think the people intimately involved in the BDSM lifestyle would appreciate an outsider, who clearly has less-than-accepting view of it, define for them what it's "point" is. Especially since those people probably have differing views on what exactly the point of it is for them personally, although I doubt many of them would claim that it is truly about unsafe, insane, or non-consensual practices (barring, as Sidhedevil pointed out, the nutjobs, who exist everywhere in every group).

I am involved in what I and my partner consider to be a BDSM relationship. If someone on the far vanilla side of the spectrum were to peek in on our bedroom activities (which, just to pre-emptively clarify, isn't something we're into!) they might well classify what we do as disturbing, or inappropriate, or borderline-abusive. If someone on the more hardcore side of the spectrum were to do the same, they would probably consider our activities to be fairly soft and precious. BDSM encompasses a huge variety of activities and preferences, and not everyone involved in BDSM agrees with everything everyone does.

So when you say you want to call bullshit on the principles of safe, sane and consensual because you see here what you think may be activity that infringes on it, you're really painting with too big a brush. I wouldn't call you a prude, but perhaps it was a hyperbolic response befitting a hyperbolic statement?
posted by hegemone at 1:56 PM on September 8, 2009 [5 favorites]

rokusan: Sometimes, the officially sanctioned best-practices for BDSM re how you're "supposed to" do it can start to feel as restrictive and boring as any vanilla sex manual left by the Mormons.

I think the officially-sanctioned best-practices that you read about are really useful for new practitioners who really could injure or kill someone if they don't know how to do kink in a safe manner. I think there absolutely should be flashing warning signs about some of the stuff we do because it's not so safe. Over time you get to know the physical and psychological limits of you and your partner and you can figure out your own rules. For new people, NO DRINKING OR DRUGS WHILE PLAYING is a good rule to have because they don't yet know how intoxication is going to affect their perception of pain. You can break the rules once you're comfortable with them. Some people never, ever imbibe while playing, but I know what I can do after a glass of wine, just as I know whether or not I'm capable of driving.

Also, if you have to ask your partner every ten seconds whether he/she is OK, either you're neurotic or it's an unsafe activity.
posted by desjardins at 1:58 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

Not everyone involved in BDSM agrees with everything everyone does.

Ain't that the motherfucking truth. I ran a BDSM social group for a few years, and it was like herding cats.
posted by desjardins at 2:00 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

SSC? Same sex couples? I think I'm missing something here. It could be really important.

Or is it the Swedish Space Corporation? They're quite liberal the Swedes.

Spitzer Science Center?

_{I'll go now.}
posted by surrendering monkey at 2:00 PM on September 8, 2009

Vanilla Sex Manual was our school band name at ol' Mormon High.
(After that I went to school at Pencey Prep with this guy who had a lot of hang ups. I think his brother died as a kid. He was attracted by beauty, in fact, impaled on it. Had a thing for his sister. (Sort of a phony Coeus - Phoebus thing going on) I felt sorry as hell for him.)
posted by Smedleyman at 2:02 PM on September 8, 2009

I have one simple rule, and I find it is all I need in thinking about sex: If it moves, fuck it; if it doesn't move, eat it.

ALL RIGHT I'LL MOVE ALREADY ENOUGH WITH THE A1 SAUCE.
posted by nicwolff at 2:03 PM on September 8, 2009

SSC = Safe, sane, and consensual
RACK = Risk aware consenual kink
posted by desjardins at 2:04 PM on September 8, 2009

I was going to make a cogent well-thought-out comment, but I see that hegemone has done so for me.
posted by rmd1023 at 2:05 PM on September 8, 2009

nsfw images on those links!
posted by desjardins at 2:05 PM on September 8, 2009

it was like herding cats.

Commence hilarious mental picture of a herd petulant cats in leather/latex gear....... nnnnow!
posted by hegemone at 2:06 PM on September 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

you might be a masochist if you want to try to put latex gear on a cat.
posted by desjardins at 2:11 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

The wiki link for insex.com makes it clear that the FBI was undertaking an anti-obscenity crusade against websites with scat porn or extreme torture or S&M. This had nothing to do with the Patriot act. The truth is that insex.com shut down because they were worried they couldn't afford the legal fees to fight this in court, nor could they find a buyer who would operate the company outside the US (and therefore outside of the US govt's right to regulate interstate commerce).

I don't follow this. From the context link, it clearly states the following:


In one of the more outrageous chapters of Bush-era censorship, federal prosecutors were able to use anti-terrorist laws to enforce their version of sexual morality. A creative strategy was used against Insex—rather than go after them for obscenity, it came up with a story that extreme porn funded terrorist networks. Lacking a case that would hold up in court, the government confronted Insex's credit card company with the allegations, and promptly got them to stop processing payments. Suddenly lacking an income stream, Insex folded very quickly.


So not so much with the "worrying about future legal fees" and more with the "federal authorities bypassing courts and shutting down their income stream."
posted by lazaruslong at 2:11 PM on September 8, 2009

Don't be too credulous of anything you read on wikipedia. I'm not saying that isn't what happened, but wiki is far from a definitive source.
posted by Mister_A at 2:16 PM on September 8, 2009

So not so much with the "worrying about future legal fees" and more with the "federal authorities bypassing courts and shutting down their income stream."

This happened to a much lesser degree with bondage.com, before they were bought by Various Inc (which also owns Alt.com and AdultFriendFinder.com). Basically, members with hardcore pictures in their profile were told/made to take them down because the owner's credit card processing company threatened to pull the plug.
posted by desjardins at 2:29 PM on September 8, 2009

Metafilter: It's my first link, and I'm trying to be interesting.
posted by ODiV at 2:32 PM on September 8, 2009

Metafilter: I'm trying to be interesting.
posted by keli at 2:39 PM on September 8, 2009

MetaFilter: I'm trying
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:40 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

See what happens when you post NSFW links in the middle of the (North American) workday?
posted by desjardins at 2:44 PM on September 8, 2009

Oh well.
posted by stinkycheese at 2:58 PM on September 8, 2009

desjardins: Fortunately, looking at stuff like this is part of my workday.
posted by Stochastic Jack at 3:05 PM on September 8, 2009

All I know is, there are a lot more NSFW pictures on Wikipedia then I thought!
posted by delmoi at 3:23 PM on September 8, 2009

rokusan: Shorter: kink without passion isn't, and if you have to ask your slave if she's feeling okay every ten seconds... it just doesn't work.

I just have to say, huh? Because the entire point of having a safeword is so that the top can proceed with his/her dastardly deeds with the freedom of knowing that it's all good until the bottom says something absurd, like "aardvark" or "mushu pork."

But, certainly I'd agree that there is a certain level of pressure within the kink community to go faster/harder/deeper before safewording.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:24 PM on September 8, 2009

The problem is that a guy who was accused of rape was running a business based on it (raising the spectre that maybe it all wasn't as consensual as you think)

This is somewhat misleading, I think. AFAIK, the incident refers to a clip in a British TV documentary, in which a wannabee porn star from the UK goes out to California to try and get some work, is being interviewed by Max Hardcore for a shoot, and Max starts having sex with her -- in his usual Max Hardcore fashion, so it was probably kinda degrading and pushed a few buttons.

However, she was accompanied by a British TV crew and her manager/agent while said 'rape' was going on. No charges were ever filed. Had it been a real rape, it's unlikely that it would have been screened on British TV -- and it was.

Dr. Sharon Mitchell, the founder of AIM Health Care has gone on record as saying she's got no doubts that all of Hardcore's shoots are consensual -- and for Christ's sake, why wouldn't they be, given the risks in their not being so? And I have to say, I'm more inclined to take her word in such matters than I am the FBI.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:26 PM on September 8, 2009 [4 favorites]

"you might be a masochist if you want to try to put latex gear on a cat."
Picturing Foxworthy with the cheesy bad guy stache in leather chaps.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:29 PM on September 8, 2009

If you're "Picturing Foxworthy with the cheesy bad guy stache in leather chaps," you... might just be a masochist.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:32 PM on September 8, 2009

I bet Foxworthy's safeword is "GITERDONE!" Yes - I know that wasn't his phrase. That was the point. Here's your sign, Tator!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:34 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Has anyone seen a citation for the notion that the Patriot Act was used to shut down insex? It isn't sourced anywhere on the wikipedia page, and although I understand that that's what "pd" is saying, and the producers of the movie, that isn't a particularly authoritative voice.
posted by OmieWise at 3:43 PM on September 8, 2009

Has anyone seen a citation for the notion that the Patriot Act was used to shut down insex? It isn't sourced anywhere on the wikipedia page, and although I understand that that's what "pd" is saying, and the producers of the movie, that isn't a particularly authoritative voice.
posted by OmieWise at 6:43 PM

The post is misleading. I will repost this again:

In one of the more outrageous chapters of Bush-era censorship, federal prosecutors were able to use anti-terrorist laws to enforce their version of sexual morality. A creative strategy was used against Insex—rather than go after them for obscenity, it came up with a story that extreme porn funded terrorist networks. Lacking a case that would hold up in court, the government confronted Insex's credit card company with the allegations, and promptly got them to stop processing payments. Suddenly lacking an income stream, Insex folded very quickly.


So they used the Patriotic Act to create a bullshit theory of porn supporting terrorism. When that obviously fallacious argument wouldn't hold water in court, they just took the bullshit story to the site's credit card company who then ceased processing payments. They shut down as a result.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:58 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

So they used the Patriotic Act to create a bullshit theory of porn supporting terrorism. When that obviously fallacious argument wouldn't hold water in court, they just took the bullshit story to the site's credit card company who then ceased processing payments

lazaruslong, I think OmieWise understood that assertion, but OmieWise's question is the larger "Did this actually happen? Is there independent documentation that this is how it went?"
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:02 PM on September 8, 2009

Sorry if there's too much editorial. It's my first link, and I'm trying to be interesting.

If you are the same Chris Hall who also writes for Carnal Nation, then it's a good idea not to link to them in your posts, as self-linking is against the rules on Metafilter.
posted by penguinliz at 4:22 PM on September 8, 2009

MetaFilter: to see past the big rubber troll suit.
posted by rdone at 4:29 PM on September 8, 2009

An awful lot of smaller porn websites in the states shut down around the same time, shortly after the notorious 18 USC 2257 laws came into being, which forced anybody without a studio they spent at least 20 hours a week at to place their home address on their website for anybody to see.

The climate around that time became very difficult for anybody trying to sell extreme porn. The credit card companies put a lot of pressure on payment providers to not process payments for anyone doing anything they considered too shady. Paypal.com got out of the porn game entirely, they announced a change to their TOS stating that using them to process payments for anything pornographic or related to sexual services was strictly forbidden, and enforced this in a few cases by completely emptying the accounts of a few webcam performers I personally knew.

Bondage.com were told that any mention of children on the website had to be removed. Difficult, for a site that revolved around a very busy forum where people talked about all aspects of their everyday lives. Posting something like "Damn, I really need to find a babysitter so I can go to this event!" became against the rules and eventually banworthy.

The final nail in the coffin for Insex as I understand it was when the shady foreign payment processor they had resorted to decided that they didn't want to pass on several hundred thousands of dollars that they owed them.

PD though, is still employing a small staff and producing content. Hardtied and Infernal Restraints are his (obviously very NSFW - well for most of you guys anyway ;~p) - Many of his old employees can now be found in San Francisco, making their living at Kink.com.

The good news (for the insane?*) is that recent rulings have made 2257 a little easier to abide by, and a few of the payment companies have now relaxed their rules a little bit. For example: If you want to, you can now pee on each other, film it, and sell it on a website in the USA. For a little while that seemed impossible, and several sites based on such activities disappeared as a result.

I missed the local screening of this movie, ironically because I had to make kinky porn instead. I'd love to see it though. Anyone got any idea where I can get hold of it? Apologies if I missed such information in the links, I didn't really RTFA that hard at all.

*Joke, guys! And one aimed at people just like me, so I feel entitled to make it. :~p
posted by TheTorns at 6:43 PM on September 8, 2009 [8 favorites]

Also, if you have to ask your partner every ten seconds whether he/she is OK, either you're neurotic or it's an unsafe activity.

Heh. I picked on safe words as low-hanging fruit (they annoy me) but after dinner and some lovely salon conversation inspired by this thread, I think I can refine my position slightly: it's not safe words in particular, or rules, or guidelines that I find rob sex of sexiness.... it's planning.

If planning has to happen, it needs to be way, way removed from sex for me. Preferably by several days. Otherwise my head gets into completely the wrong mental space.
posted by rokusan at 8:00 PM on September 8, 2009 [1 favorite]

Wait, I can't post links to websites on which I've had articles published, even if those aren't the articles I'm linking to? That's broader definition of self-linking than I thought was in play here.

And if that's the rule, damn. I should probably be retroactively banned, because I must have done that at least a few times over the years.
posted by rokusan at 8:07 PM on September 8, 2009

And I have to say, I'm more inclined to take [Sharon Mitchell's] word in such matters than I am the FBI.

I was nodding as I read this, because yes, of course, so would I... and then I realized: how fucked up is this country, exactly?
posted by rokusan at 8:09 PM on September 8, 2009 [2 favorites]

SSC: banned in Texas, twice.
posted by ryanrs at 8:16 PM on September 8, 2009

it's not safe words in particular, or rules, or guidelines that I find rob sex of sexiness.... it's planning.

Lots of people object to condoms on the same principle.
posted by hattifattener at 9:13 PM on September 8, 2009

it's not safe words in particular, or rules, or guidelines that I find rob sex of sexiness.... it's planning.

OK, I agree with you there, although it is nice not to have to yell 'GODDAMNIT WHERE'D I PUT THAT PIG SLAPPER' in the middle of a scene.

Funny story: me and an ex were at a farm supply store buying rope, vet wrap and a pig slapper. The cashier had to call for a price check on..."what is this thing exactly?" she asked us as she idly slapped it against the countertop.
posted by desjardins at 7:00 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]

You know, I keep reading these criticisms, now shifted from SSC and RACK to planning and I'm wondering about the kind of weird ideas are floating around about BDSM scenes. Like do people really think that kinksters script and storyboard each scene? IME the planning involved little more than some frank discussion regarding turn-ons and turn-offs, and scheduling a date on the calendar for some time that's not interrupted by work or family.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:22 AM on September 9, 2009 [1 favorite]

lazaruslong, I think OmieWise understood that assertion, but OmieWise's question is the larger "Did this actually happen? Is there independent documentation that this is how it went?"

That's exactly right. Everyone involved with the website, or the film, has good reason to propagate the most sensational version of the shutdown. Certainly the extra-judicial use of the Patriot Act counts as that. But did it happen? This isn't a question about the relative morals of the parties involved, but certainly we don't have to accept advertising copy simply to show our the-Feds-are-the-man,-man bonafides.
posted by OmieWise at 8:08 AM on September 9, 2009

Like do people really think that kinksters script and storyboard each scene?

Some things do need to be planned fairly well, though. For example, I was involved in a "kidnapping" scene (on secluded private property) that involved directing people, explaining their roles and the "victim's" limits so no one got hurt.

For more "mundane" stuff, you're right, it's pretty spontaneous IME. Most people I know establish their relationship to each other - top/bottom, dom/sub, owner/puppy, whatever - and things fairly naturally flow from those roles.
posted by desjardins at 8:21 AM on September 9, 2009

Metafilter: I didn't really RTFA that hard at all
posted by mrgrimm at 1:14 PM on September 9, 2009

The language of kink can be so entertaining. Folks talking about stuff using generalized terms designed to leave no clue as to what they really are about. Fun stuff! I like to put it this way: The relationship is very equal: I do what I want, and he does what I want. Simple and elegant.

The porn industry is fascinating. I have an ex that worked in it, decades ago. Different stories then, equally adventurous. Trips to/with the police were not uncommon.
posted by Goofyy at 1:25 PM on September 9, 2009

I do what I want, and he does what I want.

I am SO getting this on a T-shirt.
posted by desjardins at 1:35 PM on September 9, 2009

You know what I hate about BDSM people? The persistent campaign to besmirch the beautiful, subtle and amazing vanilla bean.

(*sobbing in front of silk curtain) LEAVE VANILLA ALONE!
posted by lumpenprole at 3:23 PM on September 9, 2009