The Blowfish Blog

[The Pro Circuit] Fun With Torture in Florida and/or Montana

Just when you thought the disintegrating US economy meant that the government would finally have to lay off the porno and start doing whatever it is governments are supposed to do, another federal obscenity indictment shows up to crash the apocalypse. Curiously enough, this case has been getting little coverage in the major adult trade publications XBiz and AVN, even though it could potentially mark a major wrinkle in federal obscenity prosecutions. The titles here are strictly BDSM-related. It’s not very good BDSM — in fact, it’s pretty bad, and bad porn — but it’s BDSM; there’s no excretion, ejaculation, enemas, schoolgirl outfits, or any of that stuff crusaders love to hate lately.

The news in this case comes from a Department of Justice press release dated last Tuesday (September 16) and headlined “Federal Grand Jury Charges Florida Man with Obscenity Violations.” The month-old indictment was unsealed Tuesday, according to the press release. The accused is Miami’s Barry Goldman, doing business under the names “Torture Portal,” “Masters of Pain” and “Bacchus Studios.” There are a couple of interesting aspects to this case, and when considered overall it’s more than a little creepy from a legal perspective. Consider that the indictment was made in Billings, Montana, by the Washington, D.C.-based FBI Obscenity Task Force, against a Florida producer. But that’s no biggie, really — it’s typical for federal obscenity cases to be brought in sympathetic — i.e., conservative — districts, regardless of where the productions were shot and/or released.

There were three accusations of dirty mail hurled Goldman’s direction, one for each of the DVDs in question. According to the DOJ press release, they are “Pregnant and Willing,” “Defiant Crista Submits,” and “Torture of Porn Star Girl,” but the latter is almost certainly “Torture of a Porn Store Girl,” from studio Masters of Pain / TP (presumably Torture Portal, get it?) Productions. The fact that the DOJ didn’t get one of their titles right is a concern. Often porn is resold and retitled randomly, but it makes me wonder what else the DOJ mistyped and how that might affect the case. In the marketing copy for the 80-minute “Porn Store Girl,” we’re treated to the following cheerful prose:

“Working in a porn store, seeing customers buy videos of torture, she wondered ‘What would it be like to actually live out the fantasy that makes my pussy so wet?’ Bella had no idea what was in store for her with One of the Masters of Pain! See her scream! See her moan! See her CUM!!”

It’s the story of my life, I tell you. With the 40-minute “Pregnant and Willing,” we’re told “The fact that she is ‘with child’ hasn’t curbed this slut’s need for BDSM and dirty sex” and promised that the title is “Packed with all the torture and masturbation you’ll ever need,” which, I’m just saying, I seriously doubt. Defiant Crista, meanwhile, “is a brunette who is defiant and needs to be taught a lesson. It takes a few whips and some ropes to get her to submit but when she does, it is like breaking in a new horse, she is going to be easy to ride and fun to take on a long jaunt, and she will end up submitting to what ever you bring her way!”

So what singled out these titles for prosecution? Being the dedicated journalist that I am, I actually watched these titles. I did it with some trepidation, because the low quality of the stills makes them look like some freaked-out porno shot in a government torture house deep in Soviet Russia, circa 1974. But no, no they’re not.

What they are is low-quality SM porn by what appears to be an independent, amateur producer with vaguely misogynistic tendencies. In “Pregnant and Willing,” Slave Juliana is a few months pregnant — really just barely starting to show. She’s tied, slapped a bit, spanked, and threatened with being shut up in a small space — and in order to get out of it, she masturbates with a dildo. The scariest thing about “Pregnant and Willing” is the fact that she’s put in a hogtie face-down — which doesn’t seem even remotely safe, no matter how barely-pregnant she is. The hardest part of watching “Pregnant” is the bad new age easy-rock music in the background, and the thunderous sound of someone (presumably the camera operator) typing on a computer while the action is going on — apparently he was as bored as I was. “Pregnant” has no intercourse, no intense punishment, just a bit of bondage, spanking, yelling, slapping and carrying on, plus a female wank.

In “Defiant Crista Submits,” we get deeper into BDSM. There’s a little psychodrama, more screaming, some slapping, whipping, and a little knife play. By “knife play,” I don’t mean cutting, though to be honest it’s a bit hard to tell with the low quality of the videos. At one point the male top tortures the female bottom’s feet with a knife, which looks kind of careless and vaguely risky and not very cool, but then, I have a serious and conspicuous lack of any interest in feet. There’s some pussy clamping, some bad bondage, and then some lazy and dangerous looking knife play.

The third title is the most varied in its activities. In “Torture of a Porn Store Girl,” we meet 34-year-old Bella, who according to her interview has indeed been intrigued by seeing people rent bondage movies in her job at a sleaze shop. By the end of this title I was crosseyed from boredom and my ears burned from all the Musak, but there’s more to it than to the other two titles; some bondage, some nipple torture, some pussy clamps, some uninteresting scenes with a pinwheel. Then there’s an extremely large knife, the tip of which is used for sensation play; there’s just the barest hint of breath play, some dangerous and inexpert-looking single-tailing, and a violet wand. Then the top tries to fist Bella, though it’s actually kind of unclear how far he gets. I think he fists her . . . maybe? Who the fuck knows. It’s genuinely hard to tell, which seems like a waste of a good fisting, except that I’m not so sure from the way this is shot that Bella is even remotely enjoying herself.

That’s actually what left me feeling so icky after viewing these titles; anyone familiar with my background knows that extreme porn is not going to creep me out; porn made by and for misogynists, however, tends to. It’s a little disingenuous to hurl that accusation here, as it’s a hard accusation to prove, and not really relevant to an obscenity case. What’s more, how do you know that a girl who’s acting like she’s being tied up and tormented (kind of) against her will isn’t really being tied up and tormented (kind of) against her will? With a safeword, duh, which isn’t in evidence here, but whatever. That’s not what makes me feel icky watching this stuff; it’s an intangible element, something as central to the top’s persona as his bushy moustache, faded jeans and polo shirt. I can’t defend it, it just squicks me.

Which doesn’t answer the question about why the DOJ singled out these videos, or maybe it does — but a squicked FBI agent does not equal an indictment. Indictments tend to be systematic, with specific objections, and a viewing of these three titles makes me happy to venture a guess at why they were singled out. There is the pregnancy in “Pregnant and Willing,” the knife in “Crista” and “Porn Store Girl,” and the fisting or the perception of fisting in “Porn Store.”

All those seem like reasons the federal government might single out titles for obscenity prosecution . . . or do they? Is the really conspicuous thing about these titles their content, or, from a politico-legal standpoint is the smallness of their producer?

Who knows — but whatever the story, here’s hoping it ends on a happy note for the First Amendment, and I can get squicked legally to my heart’s content.

Thomas Roche blogs about pirates, Mozart, and giant iguanas at thomasroche.com.

Share This

This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 at 12:00 am and is filed under Industry. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.