Thursday, December 17, 2009

Hardcore Profits

I suspect those who vehemently oppose pornography (which depicts primal human impulses and desires in graphic detail) oppose reality in their own life. They oppose disclosure, live in a cocoon-like state of denial, and are determined to spread the shame that's been pounded into their skulls.

The above thought occurred to me for the upteenth time as I sat on a plane watching the UK documentary Hardcore Profits, a terribly pious, predictable piece of journalistic piffle hosted by a stuck-up English bloke (Tim Samuels) who spends the entire show "exposing" the fact that communications companies like Vodafone and cable systems around the US indirectly profit from the transmission of pornography over their signals and cables. My reaction was: So what?!

His ludicrous claim is tantamount to a judge claiming that the phone company facilitated child molestation because one of their customers called an underaged girl to set up a "date".

Samuels thinks he's a thoroughly clever clogs by confronting a Christian investment group with the mind-blowing(!) revelation that one of the companies they invest in also pipes pornography through their cable system. Again: So what?!

Tim Samuels is described on Wikipedia as a "British Michael Moore without the political agenda"; I say "poppycock" to that. This "award-winning" muckraker works like heck to get everybody's knickers in a big, thick knot about pornography being streamed through some of the channels various multi-nationals operate. He tries the oldest, most cynical trick in the book when confronting elderly churchgoers with news that some of the money they're putting in the Sunday collction plate could be going into the hands of pornographers(!). The connection he makes is as spurious as accusing a McDonald's worker of profiting from pornography by selling a porno director and his kids a dozen Big Macs.

Samuels' ultimate agenda, of course, is to get pornography removed from all screens (large, small, and mid-sized) by shaming anybody remotely connected to it.

At the core of this agenda is his own shame about sex

Isn't it always?

Like America's Christian Coalition, who have big issues with S.E.X., Samuels has no problem with companies that pipe extreme violence through their systems. It's accepetable, by implication, to show a head being blown off or a belly stabbed repeatedly, but burn ye in hell for common carrying graphic footage of fellow humans engaged in natural acts of sexuality (sex of any type between real humans is natural, by the way).

Companies like Vodaphone are not broadcasters; they don't cast anything out there broadly; they simply provide a democratic conduit through which media is piped.

Personally, I don't care for censorship of any type; I'm not troubled, however, if access to adult material is confined to adults. Samuels disagrees with me.

Clearly, he and his puppet masters don't trust adults, and probably doesn't themselves, either.

His next attempt to bolster his wrong-headed cause is introducing us to a bunch of thickheads in an African village who have had access to internet porn and pirated porn DVD's. Due to this exposure to pornography, Samuels claims -- and the thickheads admit -- they have taken to raping various village women in order to emulate the "evil" stuff they've seen on porn videos such as anal sex(!).

Not once does Samuels castigate these morons for rape or ask them why they think rape is acceptable in the first place. Isn't their thinking the the failure of education and an entire culture? Or is porn entirely to blame for their immorality and criminality? These raping rubes are adults, and it's very convenient for them, isn't it, to blame porn piped to their mudhuts, produced by US companies such as Anabolic Video, for their aberrant behavior?

Memo to Samuels: Porn isn't to blame. THEY are to blame. The lesson is simple: If you want to have sex with a lass, lads, ask first. If she says no, go play with yourself, or organize an all-male circle jerk.

This English twit, relentless in his pursuit of spurious cause and effect, then travels to LA to meet the head of Anabolic (like he's relevant to the discussion!). He asks head honcho Chris Alexander if he knows his videos are being seen by black villagers in Africa? Alexander, who isn't concerned, and isn't conscious of Samuels' agenda, is keen to promote his product, so he informs Samuels that his pornography has wide global distribution.

More than likely, the DVD's the village rapists saw were pirated; it's unlikely Anabolic has legit distribution contracts with a surfeit of African nations. Alexander's presence in the video adds nothing to Samuels' thesis.

Samuels' mission to eradicate porn by fanning global shame is a sad mission, indeed. It is ironic, too, that he confronts the multi-nationals on their (indirectly) profiting from porn while ignoring the amorality of their standard corporate practises -- practises that, as cited in the doco The Corporation, amount to sociopathic behavior.

In attacking hotel chains (most of them) that carry porn on their in-room channels, he's attempting to create a storm in an English teacup. Patrons are not forced or coerced into watching porn, and it is restircted to adults. Porn is a choice, as is a mainstream movie, a foreign flick, or a Jet Lee actioner. The fact that porn (graphic depictions of diverse sexual activity between human beings) is so demonized by idiots of this type is evidence that, in the 21st century, S.E.X. is still a big issue for the immature and seriously fucked up amongst us.

Samuel expects us to reel from the screen horrified that phone companies and cable companies and porno companies are making billions from porn (!). Again, so what?! Porn's a business, a legal business, with hundreds of millions of consumers. Porno makers have families, kids to put through school, wives, husbands, sons, mothers and daughters. They live next door and they're just like you and me.

Personally, I find myself reeling from the way banks and financial institutions rape their customers with outrageous fees and pathetic interest rates. I gape in in horror at the fact that banks lend my money to other people and reap profits from these people that I never share in. The exploitation of customers by big business is what horrifies me. At least porn delivers something tangible. When was the last time a bank delivered you an orgasm?

In a global village where the actual presence, and availablity, of child pornography has no correlation to the height of demonic fear associated with its existence, all sexuality now presents a threat to those who live pathetic lives of denial, insecurity, and fear (incited, for the most part, by religion).

The boogeyman, once nucleur, now swings a penis.


  1. the sneering (homo-phobic) snobDecember 25, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    Long live the heterosexual buggery of gorgeous 18 year-old girls, Merry Christmas.

  2. Couldn't agree more with your sentiments, Phantom. When the f- are we, you, me, everyone ever going to be left alone by these parasites preying on other people's private lifes for the sake of Morality and Good Manners? The real pornography is this documentary and others of its self-righteous ilk, not an Anabolic vid.

  3. It's fucking pathetic that Mr. Samuels even thought this horseshit was a newsflash. Cable companies stream porn? THE HELL YOU SAY! Hotels have adult channels? GET THE FUCK OUTTA HERE! Any reasonable adult can tell you that this propaganda is more damaging than any amount of wank fodder.

  4. thesneering -- sentiment understood, but not entirely relevant to this discussion.


    Headache -- Hear! Hear! Unfortunately, I don't think these "moralists" will ever leave us alone. They will always find a demon to rail against in order to assuage their own personal hypocrisy.


    d-- "pathetic" is the word. Fortunately, there are other reviews of this propoganda that have also called it out for the journalistic stink it is.

  5. Hi,

    Yes I think I saw this too- but I never thought that the guy was out to get at porn so much as Christian hypocricy- by looking at their "ethical" investments. But perhaps you are right - I never really did give much thought to dude's agenda.

    Besides he didn't even have to go that far to find christian hypocricy- I have noticed that we are no longer having to give up our first born in our celebration of xmas- surely if we have a nativity play complete with little angels and so on this is just cherry picking the good bits of the xmas story just to avoid some good old fashioned xtian sacrifice. Its political correctness gone mad!

    Joking aside, interesting post that has got me thinking but I guess I will have to watch the documentary again with your words borne in mind- it seems I didn't see what was staring me in the face. I got the xtian hypocricy but not the stuff you covered here- even though thinking about it I suppose he may well have been using this as a trojan horse for an anti porn agenda.

  6. I loved this post. Your writing makes me so happy. It's nice to hear a voice of reason when typical mainstream coverage of anything pornographic reminds me of this "DON'T SAY SEX NOW. S.E.X. IS TERRIBLE FOR HUMANS. DID YOU KNOW THAT PORNOGRAPHERS MAKE MONEY OF S.E.X? ARE YOUR CHILDREN SAFE? MORE AT 11. NOW BACK TO RAMBO VII:Return of the Vietcong Zombies"

  7. Nigel M -- "Trojan horse" is the apt metaphor.


    Thawkins -- Yes, yes, yes! I, too, am so sick of everything sexual being demonized by the media and religion and human sheep in general. Will they ever get over it? It is sickening how respectability = anti-porn and pro-porn means you're some sort of irresponsible pervert nobody is safe from.

  8. Perfectly put. I have some kind of morbid fascination with watching things I know I won't like from time to time, it's like watching a car crash. Or "Laugh at a loser" which isn't very mature of me but I never claim to be :P So I read your review and of course i gotta see it .This reminds me of another documentary I saw the other night, "america the beautiful", on how everyone is obsessed with beauty. Here is the shocker - we like to look at pretty people because they are pretty to look at. And we like to watch people fucking because we like fucking. Wow! But of course, since we can't admit to anything natural, let's just blame Vodafone and Vivid Pictures for anal rape and HIV in Africa . And who doesn't know every single thing that voice-over-asshole pointed out in this documentary? And when we do know it, more importantly - WHO CARES? you know he goes home to masturbate to some Max Hardcore;) Who is, btw, one of the most fun and interesting things to happen to porn. And the africans. Let's blame porn for them raping women and getting A.I.D.S. instead of the fact that they are all totally ......Did you see Africa Blood & Guts? ;p hehe j/k
    I don't regret watching it actually because it completely reaffirmed every notion i have about most people, and none of them are very nice. The part with the girl saying max Hardcore is a "psycho" and he made her throat bleed & it was too rough (bc no girls can *possibly * like that) was worth the stretch of the movie for me :) Max knows how to handle stuff:) That voice-over-guy... does he have a dick or has it been completely eradicated by his "moral dilemmas" already? And those two annoying "porn stars". haha... Ok I'm done ;) I need to stop watching stuff like this. I have no excuse I could have been watching pure cinema instead of "ooh i've never seen something stretch so wide" lol;) Hope you're good Mark your blog is always great! - Tora

  9. your blog is so good.

  10. tora -- you make so many great points. The AMERICA IS BEAUTIFUL doco made those obvious points re: we like to fuck and watch beauty, but the denial is overwhelming because, perhaps, humans like to be seen as something greater than voyeurs and purveyors of pleasure -- whatever "greater" actually is.
    Yes, you make an essential point about AFRICA BLOOD AND GUTS and a certain mindset that has nothing to do with Max Hardcore.
    In anti-porn docos on the porn industry (most of them are anti-porn), the interviewees are usually disgruntled porn actresses who regretted their decision to participate in porn; this slant produces predictable results.
    Thanks for your spirited feedback.

  11. I personally have problems with the porn industry not because I'm inherently against human sexulity, even unsimulated, on film. A man sticking his penis in a lady's snatch is just another means of physical contact and the religious and theological bastards for millenia have been suppressing it because it feels good and therefore people can be controlled through repressing it.

    My problem with modern porn, especially internet based, is how it depicts sexuality as a dumb, brutish and ugly activity when its actually meant to a beautiful method for two people's bonding. The modern day porn industry sells sex in a freakish, side show theatric manner that sends a bad message about it. Sex in America is either comically repressed by Pat Robertson types or sold in a grotesque, objectified manner. There is no balance. I think people too often either repress themselves or free for all with no common sense (what a lot of people in my age group do, have sex parters like new toys). Both are bad.

    70s, 80s and even 90s porn was considerably better because some of it was more about the eroticism behind it and less about "HUNG GUYZ NAILIN' TIGHT TEEN PUSSY!!!!!!!".

  12. J.L. Carrozza -- You make some good points, but a couple conflict with each other.

    You say sex is "just another means of physical contact", but then you say "it's meant to be a beautiful method for two people's bonding".

    Outside of procreation, I don't believe there are hard and fast rules about what sex is "meant" to be.

    I agree totally that it is repressed (especially in America), but I don't agree that the only other way it is sold is as grotesquery.

    There is plenty of HUNG GUYZ NAILIN' TIGHT TEEN PUSSY, but there is a lot in between, too (if you know where to look).

    This post of yours has inspired me to begin drafting a deeper blog-sized response.

    Thanks for your point of view.

  13. I don't mean the ONLY other way. I'm just saying that I think the view of sexuality is too polarized in general, for too many it's either repressed and treated with shame or its viewed in an excessive, out of control manner. Both to me, are two sides of the same coin really.

    As far as what it is, it means a great many things to a great many people. Objectively, it is but another form of physical contact, but it also has romantic/social/etc meaning.