Randy Blue is whipping out the massage table for the second time in a month, only this time the premise is more rape-y.
Twink model Skylar West portrays an actual massage therapist working out some kinks on the back of 18-year-old twunk Ryan Knightly.
He starts out only slightly unprofessional, going in for a butt massage and making these faces:
But then Skylar whips out a vibrator and decides to just ram it on into Ryan’s ass, which would definitely be in violation of some laws.
But Ryan, who is no mood to bottom, jumps and wrestles Skylar onto the table, and then VERY aggressively rams that thing in Skylar’s ass, which had to hurt.
And then, in case you didn’t see this coming, they fuck.
[Randy Blue: Hot Twink Skylar West massages 18 year Old Ryan Knightly]
If he’s 18, then he’s celebrated his 18th birthday easily 5-6 times. Furthermore, Alex, companies really have to just suck it up when it comes to opinion comments–you cannot shut someone down just because you do not like their opinion of your product….and in this instance, the product does read a bit unconsensual both times the dildo is used. This forced action was mild compared to ANY Alencar scene over at Men.com–that one gets off on sexually violating and humiliating screen partners….he’s the fag version of Rocco Sifredi.
18 years old really?
How many years has that boy been 18?
Thank you.
Maybe he counts birthdays in metric.
I’d bet that the Randy Blue lawyers are working on the “cease and desist” letter right now. I also wouldn’t be surprised if they revoke the The Sword’s affiliate account, too. Legit adult sites tend to not appreciate having their promotional materials described as “rape-y”.
Even if such a demand were made, it would not be enforceable under the First Amendment.
And what is a “legit” adult site? What makes some adult sites “legit” and others not “legit?”
Perhaps you need a refresher course on the Constitution. The First Amendment is only applicable to governmental interference to free speech.
Indeed, this site can exercise free speech…but, that doesn’t mean that the speech is without consequence.
What is applicable here are the Terms of Randy Blue’s affiliate program, since that’s where all the materials posted here were obtained. This post is potentially in violation of those terms. Specifically: “Webmaster shall not engage in any activities that may be harmful to the reputation, image, goodwill or reputation of SITE (Randy Blue).”
And, a “legit” adult site is one that abides by the law by documenting performers’ ages in accordance with Section 18 USC 2257. Depictions of crimes (like rape) are also something a “legit” adult site would avoid.
You have to also determine HOW Randy Blue’s reputation was tarnished by this article, and that’s almost unprovable in most cases.
Also just because it’s a “legit” studio doesn’t mean they are incapable, or not purposely, doing a “rapey” scene. Have you not seen some of the scenes from “legit” studios like Raging Stallion or Titan? There’s definitely been some rapey scenes there.
And I saw the scene yesterday and yea that part was pretty damn forced, definitely something “rape-like.” But this is Skylar West we’re talking about, Randy Blue’s super bottom who has gotten DPd there. As the saying goes, you can’t rape the willing.
You people keep tossing around the term “legit” studio as though it had a well-defined meaning. It doesn’t. Your use of the term is vague and arbitrary. Many mainstream movies and TV shows depict rape, murder, torture, beatings, mutilation, and other violent “crimes.” Are the studios that make mainstream movies and TV shows that depict such violent acts not “legit”?
The blogger is merely making critical commentary about a movie. That is what movie critics do all the time. There’s no law against expressing critical opinions about a movie, even if those opinions are unfounded. The reason there’s no law against it is because such expression is protected speech under the 1st Amendment, alex.
If consumers decide not to watch a movie because of what a movie critic said about it, that is not actionable! The consumer is free to make up his own mind whether he wants to watch it.
The blogger opined that (1) the premise of this massage scene is “more rape-y” than last one and (2) ramming a vibrator up someone’s ass “would definitely be in violation of some laws.” It could be argued that this blog might actually make some people want to watch this scene just to see what all the fuss is about. The purpose of these blogs is to create buzz for the studios, and that is just what is happening in this blog.
Each movie studio makes its own reputation through the content and quality of its productions, and the effectiveness of its marketing and distribution strategies. These blogs are simply part of the marketing strategy.
Randy Blue doesn’t have to prove their reputation has been tarnished. Their Terms say they can cancel an affiliate account at any time for any reason. Their program; their rules.
A “cease and desist letter” is a written demand to cease purportedly UNLAWFUL activity and desist from taking it up again.
Under what law would publishing the opinion that a porn scene looks “rape-y” or “would definitely be in violation of some laws” be UNLAWFUL? How would your fantasized “cease and desist” letter be enforceable in a court of law?
RandyBlue might assert that such activity may be harmful to its “reputation, image, goodwill or reputation,” but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
You assert that “legit adult sites tend to not appreciate having their promotional materials described as ‘rape-y’.”
You define a “legit” adult site as one that “abides by the law by documenting performers’ ages in accordance with Section 18 USC 2257.” Can you name any adult sites that do not comply with 18 USC 2257 when required to do so? Even if adult site failed to comply, that law does not regulate the content of the scenes in adult movies. (FYI, it’s actually SECTION 2257 of CHAPTER 18 of the USC. Not “Section 18 USC 2257.”)
Many mainstream movies and TV shows depict violent crimes–certainly much more violent than anything you’re likely to see in adult movies. Are the studios that make mainstream movies and TV shows that depict violent crimes not “legit”?
Your definition of a “legit” adult site seems arbitrary and vacuous.
If RB intends to revoke The Sword’s affiliate account, then what would be the point of the “cease and desist” letter that you suppose “Randy Blue lawyers are working right now”?
I doubt that you have any idea what “legit adult sites tend to.” You can’t even provide a plausible definition of “legit adult sites.”
How is saying an RB scene is “rape-y” harmful to “the reputation, image, goodwill or reputation of SITE (Randy Blue).”
The scene IS “rape-y,” and ANYONE who believes that has a legal right to say it all over the Internet, and there’s not a damn thing RB can do to stop it, because RB doesn’t control all the blog sites.