I am 99% sure of it.
But I could be wrong.

I wasn't there.

But all my experience says it was completely staged by Max Hardcore to enhance his reputation and give him "cred" amongst his fans.

Claudia Marie was in the first season of "Gigolos" on Showtime.
Watching the show, you are led to believe that she is a singer in a band who is lonely on the road and hires a male prostitute and the whole thing is shot "documentary" style.

Before the scene was shot...she had to sign an NDA to never reveal the reality of that "reality" show.

I didn't sign any such agreement. There were about 50 people on set. Multiple cameras filming the entire thing. 100% scripted. And Claudia Marie was the one getting paid...not the "Gigolo" (meaning she didn't pay him anything of course, he was paid via his salary with the show).

It's showbiz.

Max Hardcore himself had to sign off on that footage in that vid that was posted. Don't you think he would have said "no" if he thought it wasn't good for his business?
And why would the girl sign off on it if it was "real"?

As I said, we weren't there...maybe Max went out of his way to get a "real" reaction out of the girl, and then afterwards when the cameras were off he and his crew explained to her what they were doing and everyone had a good laugh, got paid, and the footage was able to be used.

I don't know. And neither do you.

And if that girl signed an NDA...she won't be telling anyone either.

It's called "SHOW BIZ". But I know you won't even consider that possibility.

That is because women don't tend to bust out their credit cards and pay, not because women have less varied sexuality than men do.

this is so stupid. if women are forced to be abused, or have abusive sex, its a crime. the abusive stuff that is in porn, IS NOT A CRIME. it is consenting.

people are entitled to dislike mysogyny. some guys get off on it. obviously the OP secretly likes it because he created this thread. nobody finds abuse content by accident. when i see a guy-guy image or video, i dont click. simple as that. but some of you haters need to look inside why you need to hate. your not on set, you have no idea what happened.

stupid thread.

Amelia...you are a naughty, naughty...and dare I say...SPOOKY girl! :pimp

The point is the "line" is totally arbitrary and is really more about business than morality

I don't like a lot of the Kink BDSM sites. But I would never say they cross the line because I am not aroused by their content. Just as I wouldn't go to the power exchange in SF and tell hundred of people that they are "sick" for doing BDSM

Visa shit canned sleep sites and basically anyone who shot those scenes would say the hardest thing about the shoot was keeping the girl from smiling when they were "asleep".

Lying.... ooook. There are several conversations & tangents going on in this thread, now you're just taking shit out of context.

For the record, if it's legal material & if the girls are getting treated well behind the scenes, fine. Again that Max Hardcore doc reinforces some questions whether the latter's always the case. I might think that whole genre is kinda misogynistic and in a large part caters to dudes who have issues with women, but I never called for it to be banned or whatever.

The only shit I implied in this thread could actually stand to be limited from a legal censorship angle is "grisly videos showing every cruelty" (Joe's term) real-life scenes of criminal violence which Joe had stated should also be legal. And even that has gray areas IMO. I wasn't even talking about porn there whatsoever there, in fact made a point to say that.

So whatever, lots of strong opinions but the thread's gone off the rails a bit.

That's the truth. We're all getting angry at each other for nothing.

It's hard times...

if i were on the front lines fighting for my 1st amendment rights in a court, i would very much want an attorney with joe obenberger's view and zeal on the matter fighting with me.

I thought you meant my scene. My mistake & I apologize.
Best-
Duke

That statement from Manwin was bullshit. You really believed that was the reason? They knew they were about to be out under the microscope & wanted a squeaky clean image. Read between the lines man.
Ds

I'm pretty sure I saw that whole documentary a long time ago (not sure if it's all on Youtube). As I recall, and to put it into some context, it's about a single mom from London who wants to do porn in LA.

The guy doing the documentary seems pretty much anti-porn, and I think she's kind of a flake. I think she goes to places after having said she'll do anal or whatever, and then when she gets there she changes her mind, or otherwise wastes the time of the people involved.

The Max part is pretty much the 'highlight', because whatever the agenda of the film-maker, and whatever the character of the girl and her obvious naivety/stupidity, it's very disturbing and I don't think for one second it's an act.

Although it looks throughout the documentary that she's not ready for porn, or not prepared to do it, I think by the end she's taking cocks every which way, and even winds up as a fluffer or something.

You read the credits?

I 100% agree with Robbie and it amazes me to see that many don't :)

another angle: black crayon summed it up gfy style- how would you rather be fucked in the ass? max hardcore's mind fuck on her was not unlike a "get back in the fucking game you chicken shit" knute rockney speech anyone of us may have had in high school sports or such and i'm sure many professional athletes routinely experience.

sorry. lost my cool earlier in the day. loooooove your avatar.

:thumbsup

C'mon, all of its fake. Im sure women are victimized somwhere in porn. Just not on our sets.
Felicity went on to do gang bangs with dp's and all kinds of crazy shit. She played naive. That was her part. Max was the bad guy as always.

"Don't believe anything you read or half of what you see" quoted from some smart guy

We dont hurt nobody. As a matter of fact we have helped countless women with everything from their financial to medical to criminal matters. Many of their relatives too. Not bullshitting.

Porn is jam-packed with girls who have little to no self-esteem, drug habits, pimp boyfriends, daddy issues, control issues, abuse issues, rape issues, so many fucking issues they're like a lifetime fucking subscription to Bitch Daily.

How do I cancel?

Don't bother entertaining that old ugly twat, fucking moron is comparing a Rocky movie with a staged boxing match to a porn scene... Rocky didn't have a cock up his ass, but I think this twat does with the way he's vehemently defending his twisted views and repulsive life... 'oh I had 'real' sex at the Red Rooster'... you mean with the hooker you just paid? Pathetic douchebag.

Mr Peabody...do you know a lot of those girls?

I don't know what any of that has to do with girls shooting gonzo porn.

Why is it that if we guys love sex...we are studs. But if women enjoy sex...even rough sex...there always has to be some underlying "problem" with them and/or they are "victims".

I know a LOT of women in this business. And maybe I'm just hanging with the "wrong" ones...but the girls I know have their shit together and are not anybodies victim. They are some of the smartest, funniest, and sexiest women out there.

Why are murder illegal ?
<irony>WHO are you with your "personal moral tastes and values" to say that's wrong ?
No limit !!!
</irony>

"obscenity laws" ? no: human dignity !
There is a problem for me even without a camera

And then you will tell me:
"look, this ACTRESS is great... she works in porn, they are all skilled there" :winkwink::winkwink::winkwink:

Seriously, wtf.
WWE is a little better staged...

I can't convince you of anything. I"m just trying to say that I believe it's all staged.

Everyone signed releases, everyone got paid.
If you believe it's real then so be it.

In the end who cares what I believe or you believe. We're just a couple of guys on a message board. :)

I think that can sue that here:
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignit%..._fran.C3.A7ais
- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abus_de_faiblesse
- http://www.senat.fr/lc/lc79/lc791.html 180b

+ the physical damage

She wants her money.
If she stops, it means that she suffered for nothing, so she HAS to continue.
I can't believe that people in marketing have such a lack of knowledge of basic psychology.

She is trapped by this commitment.

Ok you just proved you don't know shit about directing porn.
Ds

It's their blasé attitude about commitment in the first place that lead them to do porn. I'm not saying all girls in porn can't their shit together, but the vast majority are lazy & can't even hold down a load let alone a job.
Ds

No limits. And that means no limits.

A few words about the child pornography laws. Throughout the United States and most of civilized creation these days, an age limit has been set that defines, by the age of the performer, that anyone who possesses a work containing someone younger than 18 in a sexual situation is a serious pervert. In the US, it's five years for possession the first time through, ten years for distribution the first time through, and fifteen years for creatiion the first time through. But it's arbitrary and not based on science, human behavior, or cultural values. In fact, when the United States first adopted a child pornography statute thirty years ago, the age set was sixteen rather than eighteen.

In Illinois, it is normally no crime to have any kind of sex with a seventeen year old. In Michigan, it's 16. In Canada, till recently it was 14. The minimum marriage age in some US states varies from 13 on up. There are, of course, many milllions of mothers under the age of 18 and many thousands who've been married and divorced. Psychiatry looks at pedophilia as a condition in which men are attracted to children who are not sexually developed. But some of our most seriously punished crimes are aimed at men who possess or view content depicting fully developed females. Social and political correctness aside, men still look at females 15, 16, 17, and 18 years of age, and if you had a nickle for every rear end car collision in our major cities caused by a male driver staring at a provocatively dressed teenager instead of the road, you'd have a stack that reaches from here to the moon. And, despite the best urgings of the do-gooder community, that's simply normal male interest and not a sign of perversion. Men in every culture through history have been interested in youthfulness and virginity, and this is has been so universal that it appears to be part of the basic brain wiring.

If the aim of these laws is to re-wire the brains of men, it is inevitable that these laws will never succeed. In the legislative selection of an arbitrary age to define what is perverted, one that changes by geography and the direction of political winds, I think an absurdity has been created. When it's lawful to have anal sex with a seventeen year old in Chicago or a sixteen year old in Detroit, but a cell phone picture of her breast will put you on a lifetime sex offender registry, something very weird is taking place.

When all of these laws started one hundred years ago, they were aimed at the protection of innocent, naive girls from aggressive, rapracious predators and they made sense. The innocent state of the victim was an element of the early laws. When arbitrary age limits substituted for innocence, the laws diverged from their just purpose. When those age limits were arbitrarily set at 18, these laws became legislation designed to change actual human nature.

I'm a cynic. I have defended innocent men charged with child pornography and I have prevailed. One of them was a first-generation internet content producer named Mike Jones whose life was nevertheless destroyed.

I believe that the real point of child pornography laws is to give every law enforcement agent a basis for a warrant to invade personal computers, studios, and wireless devices. I've seen it happen when the cops actually knew that my client had nothing whatsoever to do with child pornography. It's just another tactic to destroy personal privacy, like the so-called war on terror.

God bless Bradley Manning who is suffering for our freedom as I write. God bless Edward Snowden whose crucifixion on account of our right to privacy is about to begin.

No limits.

When the First Amendment says that Congress shall enact "no law" abridging the freedom of speech, it means "no law" not just "some laws". I'm with Justice Douglas on that.

No limits.

Deltay, there are a certain number of sheltered people who think that all human beings are basically good and that true evil doesn't exist, that it's just an absence of good, a partial vacuum. It takes that gristly, gross decapitation stuff and the crime scene photos to confront these well-meaing people with how this world really exists and the nature of pure evil. Some people need that, not that free speech needs an excuse. Any ideology I have comes out of experience and empiricism. This world is filled with evil and the point of the law is to protect individuals from evil. One of the things people need protecting from is those who try with every breath to control and manipulate other people and take away individual privacy and freedom.

Thread was over at this post as far as I'm concerned.

so the scenes are not staged?

Isn't there the possibility that Max staged that entire thing for the documentary in order to improve and market his brand?