Geoff... I'm getting curious what DVDTalk's policy is on 'adult' reviews. This one is now showing up in the main review forum too:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=9206

From the review: "Originally a hard core porno movie entitled Disco Dolls in Hot Skin, (among other names) this movie was reedited for the soft core market and retiled somewhere along the way. WARNING: Being a soft core porn movie, there is a lot of sex in this movie. Every few minutes someone is jumping in bed with someone else. There nudity is all above the waist, and no genitalia are shown, but there are very explicit situations, including an orgy and lesbian scenes."


Again, much like the films discussed earlier... what is this doing here? Are the mature areas only for hardcore stuff? This is clearly an 'adult' film. Why is it not in the 'adult' area?

Note: I'm not personally offended by any of this (it takes a *hell* of a lot to offend me ) I'm just honestly curious what the criteria is for deciding what goes where. Putting Playboy, Peach DVDs, and reedited porn into the main review forum just doesn't make much sense to me... especially when there is already an existing mature review area.

I can't speak for Geoff, but I would assume the "Adult DVD Video" is a nicer way of saying "Unambiguously Porn". Predominately hardcore, almost certainly from an established porn distributor. Cinemax After Dark-style movies, no matter how much sex/nudity there may be, aren't lumped in that category. FWIW, there is precedence for the review you mentioned -- Blue Underground's Emanuelle In America was reviewed last July and was placed in the main reviews forum. I personally wouldn't categorize those movies, Irreversible, Seduction Cinema titles, or anything starring Shannon Tweed under Adult DVD Video.

As the reviewer of this title - I do NOT consider it a porn release without penetration. It is a "stripping" movie - meaning full frontal nudity. But it's NOT edited porn, like what you'd see on the Spice Channel. Since Amazon.com and other e-tailers that do not sale porn carry these titles, I see no reason to move them to the adult reviews section.

Showtime's "Family Business" DOES contain clips of edited porn that you might see on the Spice Channel...I would say (having reviewed both) that this series is much closer to being offensive than any of the Peach or Playboy releases - which are no more "hardcore" than DVD releases from Seduction Cinema.

I don't care where the reviews are, just please keep the review cover banners off the forums (other than mature) during the daytime while people are at work.

Regardless, the covers are imported automatically. Either someone would have to go through and check each cover manually and hope their assumptions are in-line with everyone else's <small>(neither of which seems likely to happen)</small> or they're posted by default and removed upon complaints being received.

I find it funny that you find box covers like these offensive:


But don't find box covers like THESE offensive:

Not to pick nits (and maybe I'm just not being clear), but here are some excerpts from your review:

"while you won’t get any hardcore action here…you will get the next best thing"
"For those interested in porn that want to test the waters before they dive into some serious sexual action, these Peach releases make the perfect introductory discs."
"You won’t see penetration of any sort on this disc…but this is about as close as you can get without actually getting there."


Regardless if you want to call this disc "softcore", "porn", "stripping", or whatever... the point is that it is clearly an ADULT, erotic title. Since this site already has an area for adult/mature material, I don't see why something like this shouldn't be there.

It's called writer's embellishment - just trying to give a decent title a little added "oomph".

There's nothing in these DVDs but naked women. No men at all, unless you count the guy taking the pictures of the girls in the Playboy video. If you feel that a naked woman is "offensive", but a serial killer chopping up a person into little tiny pieces isn't, please send your complaints to John Ashcroft and not the good people of this forum.

If Amazon.com, Tower Records, Borders, and a lot of other major online and B&M stores don't have a problem selling these (and they don't have them in "adult" sections of their stores, either), I don't see why DVD Talk should bury such titles in the Adult forums...which, by the way, is only going to tick off DVD Talk's adult forum regulars, since these titles are clearly NOT porn.

Not to mention the fact that Amazon has an agreement with DVD Talk for the exclusive links to such titles...I'm sure they'll be thirlled to have some of their product in the X-Rated video section of this site.

Bottom line, don't try to impose your personal defintion of "porn" and "offensive" on the rest of us. I get enough of this watching the Republicans on TV every night.

Okay - that's my Dennis Miller rant for tonight...I'll get back to reviewing - maybe I'll review a few more Peach titles!

Wow, Shannon. Take a deep breath. This is a feedback forum... you know, the place where people give feedback. I'm not trying to 'impose my personal definition' of anything on anyone.

How much more clear can I be? Contrary to what you may be thinking, this isn't a 'right wing conspiracy' out to rid the forum of your wonderful embellishments. I just had an honest (and, I think, logical) question about what the policy was here for reviews of erotic, softcore titles. Judging from the other responses (and the fact that this thread was created in the first place), I'm not alone.

I too said I could personally care less about them. I'm not personally offended. Please read people's posts before making baseless replies.

So I'm not offended by either the sexual ones or the violent/gory ones.

It's just not good to have pictures of half (or more) naked women on your computer screen at work. My female office mate definitely wouldn't appreciate it, and it would be really bad if one of the professors I work with walked in and saw that.

Yes it's lame that society here has a standard where sex/nudity are taboo and violence is not, but that's the way it is.

Neither bother me, but I'm not going to catch crap at work for the violent pictures, where I definitely would over the sexual ones.

I apologize if I've sounded excessively harsh in any of my posts...that's not really my intention. I think it may be that my threshold for being offended is high enough that I'm honestly a bit confused by the whole discussion. I'm not seeing what everyone else is seeing, I suppose.

But to clarify on what I was saying earlier, I think there's a difference between a more literal intepretation of the "Adult DVD Video" label and its intended purpose. I don't see the use of "Adult DVD Video" as containing DVDs too racy to be included with the general content -- its use seems more like porn as almost a genre. Putting a Sylvia Kristel or Shannon Tweed flick in there would almost be like having Powerpuff Girls DVDs under an anime section.

I agree these dvds aren't porn and shouldn't be lumped in with it, but the review links featuring covers are often too racy to have popping up in all forums during the day when people are browsing from work.

Just put picture links to non-racy movies up, people will find the skin flick reviews when they skim the review section.

Dunno who's going to sift through all of the covers and decide what's appropriate and what's not, though, assuming Geoff would even want to go that direction.

Exactly.

I must say, I'm still somewhat giggling "Lord of the G-Strings" posted above, but that's just me.

--LVM

In all honesty, the repitition of this one makes me personally nautious, but once again, that is just me:



Maybe that should be moved into the "Mature" section. There is a fine line between softcore and hardcore when it comes to this one.

--LVM

I'll volunteer to do it. If a box cover offends me, I'll recommend moving it to a separate section. Keep in mind that as an adult, one who actually works when he's at work (and therefore doesn't worry about surfing the internet on the boss' dime), and one who agrees with Shannon about the clothed gal vs. decapitated head issue, it's unlikely that any cover bothers me enough to want to hide it away from the children.

Wait..I don't get it. You are a reviewer but then go on to say that you try to get a "litte more oomph" So are you a reviewer or a person trying to peddle this stuff?

Secondly, your statement is just plain ridicoulous:

So what? My definition is as good as your definition. Just because you watch penetration pornography and can't bear to call these videos porn because they don't show penetration is just stupid. Playboy TV shows "hard-core ponography edited to take out penetrations" all the time.

I guess that definition shouldn't really be in the hands of the reviewer. It should be fall under a general DVD Talk rule regarding what is considered "porn" or not. It is already done in the mature forum, where a breast showing in a pic will get it taken to the mature forum.

Okay I'm going to close this here thread.

There was a very fair point about some titles released by non adult studios who might seem to be adult titles from the covers even though they arent'

There are VERY few of these titles we get on any given month, so it's no problem for them not to appear in rotation.

In terms of the other covers, they're title's we're covering and so consequently will be rotated via out new review system so readers can know that they are there.

thanks
Geoff