Path: not-for-mail
From: Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.stories.d
Subject: Re: {ASSD} Re: Stories/Video/Role Play
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 18:21:02 -0600
Organization: S.F.P.I.A
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <m1l1k3tt5vljq3rldqcpdc5csiv2pr9u4q@4ax.com>
References: <39f5fb01-bf66-4162-9eec-57648238476f@w34g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <vd9vj3133rsfjj8ums6lebnhoogv46j6nm@4ax.com> <14611.1195401116.altan1@bigfoot.DOnotSPAM.com> <8b121dff-da70-4c4e-8f25-cfb86557585c@s6g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <f0i1k3ph7t16t0kv7aelrqh6k9unmpcq7q@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
===================
In alt.sex.stories.d ArarghMail711NOSPAM@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:09:47 -0800 (PST), Tesseract
><HyperTesseract@hotmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>
>>"Deep throat" which I did see. It has a very thin plot but became well
>>know anyway for some reason.
>
>Part of the reason may be because it was sort of the first 'big
>budget' film with wide distribution.
>Another part may be because there was a big effort (in some places) to
>get it banned. I saw it during the period when an injunction (in
>Illinois) allowed to stay in theaters. I was wondering what all the
>hoopla was about. And I agree that the plot was thin, but it did have
>one.
>
The plot was so thin as to be nonexistent.
The sex was barely so-so.
However, as a sexual *comedy*, with full frontal nudity and yes, actual
SEX on screen, it was not only hilarious, but art enough to make the
loophole of *being* art so they couldn't legitimately ban it just
because it *did* have actual sexual intercourse and blow-jobs in it.
Deep Throat paved the way for more real sex-movies. For a while they
(or at least *some*) had plots, and <Gasp!> even acting! Thus they
whittled away at the Puritan Position that a sex-film had nothing to
offer other than "prurient interest" until just about everything and
anything could be shown on the big screen.
Since then, of course, the Puritans have been attacking the porn-movie
industry from the *opposite* direction; finding fault with specific
instances or types of porn (Like the "Taboo" series dealing with
Incest") until about all that's left that's legal is the very type that
they originally claimed all sex movies were: Just SEX, and nothing else;
no plot, no direction, no aim; nothing but pricks, cunts, and assholes.
Anything that makes sex different from man and woman having
missionary-style coitus in bed with the windows blacked out is verboten.
I suspect, now that they've reduced porn to that level, they'll soon use
that state to (again, and with more evidence) claim that *all* porn is
purely for prurient interest, and not art at all; and thus should be
banned completely.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_