Posts
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Prop 8: The Question Nobody's Asking
I really don't want to get political on this blog. That is to say, I don't want to mention the names of any politicians, unless they're doing something sex-related. I just don't want to be dragged down into that bog, because I've seen too many non-politically-focused blogs get overrun by political opinion posts. I don't want to be that blog, losing all of its fun with rants that can typically be found elsewhere, and often by much more informed folks than myself.
Moreover, I doubt it would have much effect, except perhaps for a cathartic effect for me as the writer. Almost everyone who reads non-news blogs has already formed an opinion, and probably won't budge very much . . . they read the same old things screaming either "Heck yeah! Dead-on!" or "Heck no! What an idiot!". And that's just not productive, satisfying as it may be. And for those moderates and undecided voters whose minds I could potentially sway, well, I'm pretty sure they will have decided with the help of bigger, better, famous-er blogs by the time they finally come to mine. I'm just not in the business of trying to convince you.
And yet, whenever I see a certain viewpoint missing in a discussion, I feel the call of duty, particularly since such discussions usually have reached a stalemate, locked in a dead heat between proponents and opponents who feverently believe in their cause. It's my opinion that nobody wants to somehow 'destroy America' the way some politicans would have you believe. We all have needs and desires, as individuals and as members of groups/communities with their own interests, and though I may disagree with some of those interests, I certainly believe that they all should be taken seriously. Political fanatics who don't listen to any reason are not just stupid and/or brainwashed, as we'd like to believe- they are made when they [sometimes legitimately] feel they are being pushed aside and not being listened to. If you think the world is against you from the start, there's no way you're going to listen to the well-founded criticisms you receive. And then we're back right again to that stalemate.
My inspiration today was in an op-ed piece about- what else?- California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban (for those of you who, as I often forget, don't live in Cali). Though it's certainly a serious topic, I can't help but read all the debates with amusement. The "yes" supporters often fall on arguments I find most ridiculous. But occasionally they do hit a strong nerve that can't be laughed away so easily, and one of them has been the accusation that allowing gay marriage would create legislative imperatives for those individuals and institutions who don't agree with it- i.e. churches having to marry gay folks, kids being taught about gay marriage in school, etc.). This has raised a series of commercials about who's lying- will kids know about the fact that um, there are gay people in the world, or will they be able to ignore this fact by locking themselves in their basements and being isolated from the general world? I'm going to skip the "Liar!" accusations and go right to the assumption that neither side really knows just how, exactly, the legislation will work. It's a nebulous thing, law. The Prop 8 supporters might be right about some changes taking place- and if they are, what then?
Case in point: the article offered several concrete, documented examples, wherein doctors were sued for not artificially inseminating a lesbian woman because of their personal religious convictions, churches lost some of their tax-exempt status for refusing to let a lesbian couple hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion, and parents were refused the right in a court case to opt their children out of school discussions of homosexuality. Now, you, like me, are probably rolling your eyes, because you know that it's stupid and ridiculous for people to have their panties all in a bunch over homosexuality in this day and age. They're stupid, they're bigots, whatever, it's soo over. Deal with it. Don't try to legislate your homophobia and weird mixed up feelings onto me. But these are still big concerns to these people, and like I said above, when nobody listens to your grievances or dismisses them, you start launching ugly campaigns.
The problem, then, becomes one of competing rights. How do you bow to both without becoming discriminatory? And that's the question nobody's asking.
I believe people have the right to get married, because according to our Constitution, we have the right to, as individuals, voluntarily enter into contracts regardless of their nature. When we sign, by the fact that we pay taxes, the justice department will honor that in court, and make sure both parties hold up their end. Calling it 'civil unions' when it provides the exact same thing (which, actually, it often doesn't), is eerily reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' thing, which the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education struck. And I believe that individuals have the right against the government forcing them to serve and interact with those they don't want to. So even though I get odd looks for saying it, I believe that a bigot who doesn't want to let a black person into his store, or hire a woman for a job just because she's a woman, for example, should have the right to do so. The government cannot do this, of course, because Lady Justice wears a blindfold and the law is impartial; there can be no discrimination in a democratic government, and injustices in hiring and whatnot should be brought to suit. But if you own a business or institution and wish to do the completely idiotic, counterintuitive and counterproductive act of turning away qualified employees or paying customers because of your bigotry, your business will suffer (and hopefully conscientious citizens will launch boycotts and raise awareness about how much you suck).
If there are some Prop 8 supporters who are truly motivated by the fears mentioned in this article and still feel that gays should have the right to marry, if it weren't for all these complications (and I'm sure there have to be some, right?), then nobody is asking the question: why don't we get the government out of our lives and have the best of both sides? If you don't want the government being able to say who your church has to marry, then you have to give up your tax exempt status (which has always bugged me, anyways, especially since I read Winnifred Sullivan's The Impossibility Of Religious Freedom, which made a wonderful argument that government's protection of religious "rights" privileges the religious over the non-religious and takes on the impossible task of deciding what constitutes a "true" religion, particularly when it comes to more hybridized folk faith). If you want to resolve the question of what students learn, you need to get the government out of education and turn to private schooling and homeschooling. If you want to be able to not treat/serve/whatever to various people in your business, you must get the government out of your business- and that includes the laws that benefit you.
Of course, I know not everybody shares these Libertarian thoughts, and it's far too extreme for our gigantic, bloated government to instantly do. But what irks me most is, again, that nobody is even offering this as a possibility to be shot down.
That's it for today's politics.
Moreover, I doubt it would have much effect, except perhaps for a cathartic effect for me as the writer. Almost everyone who reads non-news blogs has already formed an opinion, and probably won't budge very much . . . they read the same old things screaming either "Heck yeah! Dead-on!" or "Heck no! What an idiot!". And that's just not productive, satisfying as it may be. And for those moderates and undecided voters whose minds I could potentially sway, well, I'm pretty sure they will have decided with the help of bigger, better, famous-er blogs by the time they finally come to mine. I'm just not in the business of trying to convince you.
And yet, whenever I see a certain viewpoint missing in a discussion, I feel the call of duty, particularly since such discussions usually have reached a stalemate, locked in a dead heat between proponents and opponents who feverently believe in their cause. It's my opinion that nobody wants to somehow 'destroy America' the way some politicans would have you believe. We all have needs and desires, as individuals and as members of groups/communities with their own interests, and though I may disagree with some of those interests, I certainly believe that they all should be taken seriously. Political fanatics who don't listen to any reason are not just stupid and/or brainwashed, as we'd like to believe- they are made when they [sometimes legitimately] feel they are being pushed aside and not being listened to. If you think the world is against you from the start, there's no way you're going to listen to the well-founded criticisms you receive. And then we're back right again to that stalemate.
My inspiration today was in an op-ed piece about- what else?- California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban (for those of you who, as I often forget, don't live in Cali). Though it's certainly a serious topic, I can't help but read all the debates with amusement. The "yes" supporters often fall on arguments I find most ridiculous. But occasionally they do hit a strong nerve that can't be laughed away so easily, and one of them has been the accusation that allowing gay marriage would create legislative imperatives for those individuals and institutions who don't agree with it- i.e. churches having to marry gay folks, kids being taught about gay marriage in school, etc.). This has raised a series of commercials about who's lying- will kids know about the fact that um, there are gay people in the world, or will they be able to ignore this fact by locking themselves in their basements and being isolated from the general world? I'm going to skip the "Liar!" accusations and go right to the assumption that neither side really knows just how, exactly, the legislation will work. It's a nebulous thing, law. The Prop 8 supporters might be right about some changes taking place- and if they are, what then?
Case in point: the article offered several concrete, documented examples, wherein doctors were sued for not artificially inseminating a lesbian woman because of their personal religious convictions, churches lost some of their tax-exempt status for refusing to let a lesbian couple hold a civil union ceremony in its pavilion, and parents were refused the right in a court case to opt their children out of school discussions of homosexuality. Now, you, like me, are probably rolling your eyes, because you know that it's stupid and ridiculous for people to have their panties all in a bunch over homosexuality in this day and age. They're stupid, they're bigots, whatever, it's soo over. Deal with it. Don't try to legislate your homophobia and weird mixed up feelings onto me. But these are still big concerns to these people, and like I said above, when nobody listens to your grievances or dismisses them, you start launching ugly campaigns.
The problem, then, becomes one of competing rights. How do you bow to both without becoming discriminatory? And that's the question nobody's asking.
I believe people have the right to get married, because according to our Constitution, we have the right to, as individuals, voluntarily enter into contracts regardless of their nature. When we sign, by the fact that we pay taxes, the justice department will honor that in court, and make sure both parties hold up their end. Calling it 'civil unions' when it provides the exact same thing (which, actually, it often doesn't), is eerily reminiscent of the 'separate but equal' thing, which the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education struck. And I believe that individuals have the right against the government forcing them to serve and interact with those they don't want to. So even though I get odd looks for saying it, I believe that a bigot who doesn't want to let a black person into his store, or hire a woman for a job just because she's a woman, for example, should have the right to do so. The government cannot do this, of course, because Lady Justice wears a blindfold and the law is impartial; there can be no discrimination in a democratic government, and injustices in hiring and whatnot should be brought to suit. But if you own a business or institution and wish to do the completely idiotic, counterintuitive and counterproductive act of turning away qualified employees or paying customers because of your bigotry, your business will suffer (and hopefully conscientious citizens will launch boycotts and raise awareness about how much you suck).
If there are some Prop 8 supporters who are truly motivated by the fears mentioned in this article and still feel that gays should have the right to marry, if it weren't for all these complications (and I'm sure there have to be some, right?), then nobody is asking the question: why don't we get the government out of our lives and have the best of both sides? If you don't want the government being able to say who your church has to marry, then you have to give up your tax exempt status (which has always bugged me, anyways, especially since I read Winnifred Sullivan's The Impossibility Of Religious Freedom, which made a wonderful argument that government's protection of religious "rights" privileges the religious over the non-religious and takes on the impossible task of deciding what constitutes a "true" religion, particularly when it comes to more hybridized folk faith). If you want to resolve the question of what students learn, you need to get the government out of education and turn to private schooling and homeschooling. If you want to be able to not treat/serve/whatever to various people in your business, you must get the government out of your business- and that includes the laws that benefit you.
Of course, I know not everybody shares these Libertarian thoughts, and it's far too extreme for our gigantic, bloated government to instantly do. But what irks me most is, again, that nobody is even offering this as a possibility to be shot down.
That's it for today's politics.
Women Wanting Sex? Hil-ar-ious! (NOT)
It used to be mildly funny, but I'm quickly getting tired of all those porn-related spoofs that end up reinforcing our ideas that women are sexless and wouldn't be turned on by yummy raunchy things unless the man in question is being Harlequin-style, vomitously over-romantic or is performing some sort of other non-erotic service for her (opening his wallet, doing chores, etc.). Not that I don't also enjoy men who do their fair share of housework- have I ever told you how a man cooking (good food) can melt me into a fuckable puddle almost instantaneously? But when there's such a dearth out there of porn aimed at women and/or made by women, I get irked at people grabbing my attention with unfulfilled promises.First it was the attention-garnering but still-kinda-cute Cambridge Women's Pornography Cooperative and Susan Anderson's book (and calendar!) Porn For Women, which at least did show some manflesh (moreso in the calendar, though). But now I trip over Porn For Girls By Girls, which is all just a horrible spoof to sell David McCandless' book "The Internet: Now In Handy Book Format". And yeah, it's equipped with fully-clothed males, plays on ubiquitous porno slogans- "Huge Wet Smiling Eyes", for example- and the one thing I did like, three separate tabs labeled "Foreplay".
I should smile, but damn it, it's taking up webspace that should be devoted to real porn for girls by girls! I wouldn't be angry at all if there were more than a handful of such websites to accompany it, but until then, I'll stay pissed, because as it stands, a gal looking for porn and directed to this site gets only the message that she's abnormal for looking for real pornography- something she's been getting from society already (and somehow managed to overcome in her Internet searches). Or the boyfriend or husband who wants to open her up to porn and is looking for something that'll appeal to her- and ends up closing his browser, convinced the only things out there are either for gay men, raunchy hardcore for men, and spoofs that make a mockery out of female desire.
Grrr. Righteously angry posts are actually kinda fun.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Book Review: "Amorous Woman"
I read it a while back, but I wanted to write a review for Donna George Storey's book Amorous Woman, because it's rare that an erotic book captivates me as much as this one did. I had been eagerly awaiting its release since I first heard about it, and not only did it not disappoint, but it even managed to impress this old jaded reader. And with 23 5-star reviews on Amazon- almost unheard of in terms of book reviews, especially erotica, which rarely can satisfy all the disparate predilections of its very diverse readers- it's destined to be a classic in the genre.Don't let its rather tacky cover fool you: it really should be a Caucasian woman on the cover, since that is its protagonist. As the book blurb says, "For a sum much smaller than a plane ticket an American woman can travel to a rustic hot-spring inn where anything goes after midnight, don the gorgeous kimono of a Japanese bride, romp in the dungeon rooms of tacky love hotels, act out an orgy straight from manga porn, and slip inside Kyoto’s most exclusive restaurants for exquisite dinners of seduction. The Amorous Woman experiences almost every flavor of erotic pleasure Japan has to offer—and she’s happy to take you along for the ride. Inspired by Ihara Saikaku’s 17th-century satiric novel of the pleasure quarters, this story of an American woman’s love affair with Japan— and many sexy men and women along the way— gives readers a chance to journey to a Japan few tourists ever see."
It's interesting . . . I read Amorous Woman in the same period of time that I read Sheridan Prasso's The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls, And Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient (as I am wont to do . . . too ADD to focus on one at a time, I suppose), and the effect was disorienting: one book critically dissecting the racism, stereotyping, objectification, and imperialist fantasies that provide the erotic charge and fetishization of Asia, and the other blatantly encouraging it (well, not the racism- mostly just the objectification), relishing in the exoticism in what could almost be considered an affair with an entire country, and not just the men in it. And yet while she's certainly fetishizing Japan, it doesn't feel bad in any way (I wonder if I'd feel the same if it was written by a white man?). Donna's love and respect for Japan and Japanese culture comes across as strong and pure.
I'm sure, of course, that I'm bringing my own experiences to the reading. Certainly, the history-drenched Kyoto Prefecture is as different from Ibaraki Prefecture (where I stayed) as New York differs from, say, Houston. But the experiences of a foreigner in Japan seems to be mostly the same everywhere, and everything resonates beautifully, from the evocative descriptions, the perfectly selected details, even to the sex (as someone shocked by my attraction to other foreigners who I wouldn't have given a glance in America, I appreciated the gaijin-gaijin fling in the book- it rang very true for me). Those who have visited Japan will undoubtedly be instantly transported back, and those who haven't will be introduced to a rich panoply of cultural landscape.
And then there's the next best thing: straight Asian guys! Yay! They still may not have much of a/any representation in porn, but Storey definitely adds to the small but precious list of eroticized, heterosexual male Asian characters, with loving, hot descriptions that come from someone who truly 'gets it'. (For all you looking for more, I've compiled a short list of some other Asian men in erotica- got any more?: the scrumpdidilyupmtious character of Takeshi in Madelynne Ellis' Dark Designs, David Imakita of Emma Holly's In The Flesh, the unnamed lover of Marguerite Duras' The Lover, and the collection On A Bed Of Rice).
But enough discussion of the Asian/Japanese aspects of the book (since, I'm aware, there are folks out there who aren't as in love with it as I am). This book is well-written. I mean, seriously well-written. I'm not talking about your usual "hey, hot erotica without typos and grammar errors!", but about the kind of writing style, in terms both of lyricism and structuring, that almost gives you chills. Everything seems crafted to add deep layers of eroticism and emotion, from the general outlay of the narration (it takes place as Lydia's recounting of her experiences to two men preparing to go to Japan), to the clever introduction that foreshadows the tale, and the neat tricks used to jam-pack sexy action in and up its levels of heat without turning our heroine into a cliched slut or throwing away reality. And this is only the structure. The sensuality of the words, the way they flow and build- it's all very, very delicious. The entire novel has a deep mood about it that's almost haunting. And the story is good; good enough that I'd be willing to read it even with all the sexin' taken out. Not to mention that so much of the book goes back to feeling real (probably because a good deal of it was autobiographical . . . how much, I'm not sure, though I certainly am curious). I won't give away any plot points, but it's rare for an erotic book to address some of the unsexy issues here, and to do it so well- the portrayal of an entire woman, instead of just segmented-off sexuality and happy-ending-no-complications romance. But don't be fooled- the sex in here is wonderfully varied and very steamy.
So yeah. Amorous Woman gets 6 stars out of five for making me pull it out of the drawer more times than anything else- and for making me daydream about it when I'm not reading it.
Sex Toy Singalong
Another collection of songs, dedicated to all those inanimate objects we put near our nether parts. Enjoy, after the jump!
1) The most famous song of all! A great viral video and a supremely catchy song you'll be humming all over the place. And it's a PSA about how sex toys are for girls AND guys! Enjoy "The Dildo Song":
2) "Vibrator" by Motorhead. I think it's great that somebody finally wrote a song from a vibrator's first-person perspective. That story definitely needed to be told ;)
3) "My Wife's Vibrator" by Dos Gringos. Pretty funny and cute . . . and accurately depicts a lot of men's fears and feelings of inadequacy regarding their female partners' sex toys.
4) Desperatehousewife72 has a lovely little parody of Plain White T's "Hey There Delilah" with "Hey There Dildo". And the video's pretty adorable. It's what you do to me . . .
5) "Nipple Clamps" by a group of kids . . . bad quality, unfortunately, but I'm still digging it.
6) Once again, The Wet Spots win at life. "Texas Annie" is not only a catchy country tune about sex toys, but it's political as well. And be sure to watch this little intro to the song as well.
7) Even though the song in this is fairly short, I must include it because I think it totally rocks for a sex toy retailer to make such a cute video. Just for that, they totally get a link. Their "Sex Toy Satire" video is hilarious. I'd totally donate if I saw a telethon like this.
8) Another original, called "Anne, Where Is Your Sex Toy?". Not sure what exactly it's about (well, okay, it's about Anne and her sex toy), but I like it. I guess it's a fun way to break the tension when you stumble across anybody's sex toy- just sing it to them later until they laugh and you can get over the embarrassment.
9) Okay, so espwish's "Young Boys With Rubber Toys" kind of pushes things to extremes, what with the incest and all, but it's nice to hear about boys with toys!
10) "Anything Can Be A Dildo" is kind of stupidly funny. I hope it goes without saying that many things can't be a dildo- or not without harming ya. But props to them for, um, pushing you to be creative with your homemade sex toys?
1) The most famous song of all! A great viral video and a supremely catchy song you'll be humming all over the place. And it's a PSA about how sex toys are for girls AND guys! Enjoy "The Dildo Song":
2) "Vibrator" by Motorhead. I think it's great that somebody finally wrote a song from a vibrator's first-person perspective. That story definitely needed to be told ;)
3) "My Wife's Vibrator" by Dos Gringos. Pretty funny and cute . . . and accurately depicts a lot of men's fears and feelings of inadequacy regarding their female partners' sex toys.
4) Desperatehousewife72 has a lovely little parody of Plain White T's "Hey There Delilah" with "Hey There Dildo". And the video's pretty adorable. It's what you do to me . . .
5) "Nipple Clamps" by a group of kids . . . bad quality, unfortunately, but I'm still digging it.
6) Once again, The Wet Spots win at life. "Texas Annie" is not only a catchy country tune about sex toys, but it's political as well. And be sure to watch this little intro to the song as well.
7) Even though the song in this is fairly short, I must include it because I think it totally rocks for a sex toy retailer to make such a cute video. Just for that, they totally get a link. Their "Sex Toy Satire" video is hilarious. I'd totally donate if I saw a telethon like this.
8) Another original, called "Anne, Where Is Your Sex Toy?". Not sure what exactly it's about (well, okay, it's about Anne and her sex toy), but I like it. I guess it's a fun way to break the tension when you stumble across anybody's sex toy- just sing it to them later until they laugh and you can get over the embarrassment.
9) Okay, so espwish's "Young Boys With Rubber Toys" kind of pushes things to extremes, what with the incest and all, but it's nice to hear about boys with toys!
10) "Anything Can Be A Dildo" is kind of stupidly funny. I hope it goes without saying that many things can't be a dildo- or not without harming ya. But props to them for, um, pushing you to be creative with your homemade sex toys?
And, once again, Josefsberg and Gurner don't have enough videos on Youtube, but listen to their Myspace song "Blow Up Doll".
Yay, sex toys! Go to your favorite shop right now and sing an ode to your cashier- they deserve it!
Monday, October 27, 2008
More British Mystery Theatre
I can't seem to stop tripping up over the faint web tracks of real lesbian British porn . . . first it was Angie Dowling, now it's the mysteries of "Candy Stars".
The Candy Bar sounds cool. I mean, I'm hardly a party girl, but descriptions of the UK club make me want to hop on a plane and visit jolly old England, stat. Apparently the club had a very crucial role in shaping dyke culture in the area from its 1996 opening, and it exploded in terms of popularity- becoming one of the first women's venues in the UK to be granted a striptease license. That's right, they have strippers. For lesbians. *Gulp, pant, pant* And they are made sure to get paid a good basic wage (unlike many/most male stripjoints)! Swoon. They've won a ton of awards, and boast quite proudly of all the celebrity visitors they've had frequent the bar (yawn . . . like I care. Unless they got up and stripped. Then I approve very muchly). Point is, it makes me think of really cool, trendy dyke hotspots- something you see in "The L Word". I wanna go.
The network of bars, owned by Kim Lucas and Soho Clubs Ltd, which have spreading the Candy Bar franchise (or were planning to spread) from the UK to Australia and South Africa, seems pretty huge. They aren't just in the business of local partying- add organizing group trips to other countries, starring in documentaries, and making their own films, to the list. (And they've had their fair share of controversy, as evidenced by what happened in Greece). But in terms of more positive news, they've been featured in four documentaries and, even cooler, have produced their own short and full-length films, including "Big Sister" (a lesbian spoof of "Big Brother") and "Lesbian Pop Idol", a sort of "American Idol" done from the karaoke gals in the club. And, apparently, a porno.
The only problem is, I can find out almost nothing about it. I know that it must exist- I've seen pictures of the DVD, descriptions of its contents, and it is still listed as available for purchase here and here. Going by the name "Candy Stars", or "Candy Stars Uncensored", it carries this tantalizing teaser:
Ruby Fox is the new girl in town. Just off the bus from deepest nowhere, she is an innocent babe in London’s lesbian playland. Cute and up for adventure she plunges headlong into the exciting, hedonistic and sexually charged world of Europe’s hottest Lesbian scene. In one short weekend she makes a good friend, a dangerous enemy and has more sex than she has ever had in her entire life. Witty, pacey and with sizzling sex, it a real life lesbian adventure which introduces seven OF THE HOTTEST new lesbian stars.
Unfortunately, but for those two sites, it seems like "Candy Stars" has been wiped off the virtual map. You find links purporting to have it, only to have the page deleted and the information gone. There are the briefest mentions of it, but nothing concrete. It's certainly not listed as one of the film projects Candy Bar worked on.
I'm fearing that the case may be what one post offered (but which got no reply): for whatever reason, the movie was pulled from release by the British Board Of Films Certification. Unfortunately, I can't find any information to substantiate that.
I'm not sure what exactly remains of Candy Bar. Earlier this year, they lost their permanent space and are now more of a touring act, having regular "nights" at various hosting bars. If you happen to be in Britain, you can find out where to find them (and hence inquire about their porno on my behalf) at this site or their Myspace.
So . . . does anybody have any more information about "Candy Stars"? Can someone shed light on the topic? I guess I'll continue to search around.
- Your Private Eye, Gwen
The Candy Bar sounds cool. I mean, I'm hardly a party girl, but descriptions of the UK club make me want to hop on a plane and visit jolly old England, stat. Apparently the club had a very crucial role in shaping dyke culture in the area from its 1996 opening, and it exploded in terms of popularity- becoming one of the first women's venues in the UK to be granted a striptease license. That's right, they have strippers. For lesbians. *Gulp, pant, pant* And they are made sure to get paid a good basic wage (unlike many/most male stripjoints)! Swoon. They've won a ton of awards, and boast quite proudly of all the celebrity visitors they've had frequent the bar (yawn . . . like I care. Unless they got up and stripped. Then I approve very muchly). Point is, it makes me think of really cool, trendy dyke hotspots- something you see in "The L Word". I wanna go.The network of bars, owned by Kim Lucas and Soho Clubs Ltd, which have spreading the Candy Bar franchise (or were planning to spread) from the UK to Australia and South Africa, seems pretty huge. They aren't just in the business of local partying- add organizing group trips to other countries, starring in documentaries, and making their own films, to the list. (And they've had their fair share of controversy, as evidenced by what happened in Greece). But in terms of more positive news, they've been featured in four documentaries and, even cooler, have produced their own short and full-length films, including "Big Sister" (a lesbian spoof of "Big Brother") and "Lesbian Pop Idol", a sort of "American Idol" done from the karaoke gals in the club. And, apparently, a porno.
The only problem is, I can find out almost nothing about it. I know that it must exist- I've seen pictures of the DVD, descriptions of its contents, and it is still listed as available for purchase here and here. Going by the name "Candy Stars", or "Candy Stars Uncensored", it carries this tantalizing teaser:
Ruby Fox is the new girl in town. Just off the bus from deepest nowhere, she is an innocent babe in London’s lesbian playland. Cute and up for adventure she plunges headlong into the exciting, hedonistic and sexually charged world of Europe’s hottest Lesbian scene. In one short weekend she makes a good friend, a dangerous enemy and has more sex than she has ever had in her entire life. Witty, pacey and with sizzling sex, it a real life lesbian adventure which introduces seven OF THE HOTTEST new lesbian stars.Unfortunately, but for those two sites, it seems like "Candy Stars" has been wiped off the virtual map. You find links purporting to have it, only to have the page deleted and the information gone. There are the briefest mentions of it, but nothing concrete. It's certainly not listed as one of the film projects Candy Bar worked on.
I'm fearing that the case may be what one post offered (but which got no reply): for whatever reason, the movie was pulled from release by the British Board Of Films Certification. Unfortunately, I can't find any information to substantiate that.
I'm not sure what exactly remains of Candy Bar. Earlier this year, they lost their permanent space and are now more of a touring act, having regular "nights" at various hosting bars. If you happen to be in Britain, you can find out where to find them (and hence inquire about their porno on my behalf) at this site or their Myspace.
So . . . does anybody have any more information about "Candy Stars"? Can someone shed light on the topic? I guess I'll continue to search around.
- Your Private Eye, Gwen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
