Last week, pornographer John "Buttman" Stagliano was tried on obscenity charges in D.C.—but the government fucked up its case so bad that the trial was dismissed before 14 Washingtonian jurors got the chance to weigh in on Stagliano's work. Sexist readers, for one, aren't too fond of the government prosecuting their milk enemas and squirting:

Barbara Booey sees art in the enema:

The very fact that Stagliano was put on trial is a miscarriage of justice. John Stagliano is the Kurosawa of dairy-product enema cinema.

Bart wonders if the government cares about his girlfriend's "actual dick with veins":

I’m young and ignorant of the law. I thought porn was legal in DC. I buy DVDs, I order in on Comcast. My girlfriend has a vibrator, and not a medical looking one but an actual dick with veins. What is he exactly on trial for and why are they wasting time when thugs, dealers, spies, BP execs, Republicans etc are running lose in this city?

Legba Carrefour on the government's insistence on releasing a porn performer witness' real name:

Fucking bizarre. Simultaneous to this, the federal government (through the Department of Health and Human Services) is investigating the leaking of personal records of two actresses who were STI tested by the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM). The testing results are made available to producers, one of whom decided to leak the information to an industry blog. One of the major points of contention was the leaking of the actresses’ real names and social security numbers and addresses and medical records.

So the federal government is opening a criminal investigation into one outing of sex workers but actively pursuing the outing of sex workers in another case.

Aaron is impressed by the government's incompetence:

I’d be a lot more worried about modern obscenity trials if it didn’t so often turn out that the prosecution is utterly hapless. It seems kind of like how if you criticize somebody’s spelling or grammar on the Internet, you’ll invariably screw up your own? Like if you try to prosecute for obscenity, you’ll invariably trip over your own ass in front of the judge, or something like that.

Rover shares:

On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog with an enema fetish.

brian is looking for more variety in his enema porn:

i think they are missing an opportunity here, theres a whole drink market to consider…O.J., purple stuff, sunny D….maybe even diet cola and mentos.

Obscenity obscmenity. I probably spelled that wrong.

Typical DC BS asks where babies come from:

I hope the jury takes about 5 minutes to find this guy non guilty. Hard to believe an FBI agent was given the go-ahead to initiate and perform this investigation.

Maybe the FBI will also discover that sex is required to create babies and that the stork doesn’t really deliver them.

Photo via psd, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

This morning, opening arguments were held in the U.S. government's prosecution of John Stagliano—the adult entertainment industry impresario known as "Buttman." The obscenity trial hinges on three porn titles allegedly distributed by Stagliano: The full-length DVDs of Milk Nymphos and Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice, and a 5-minute online trailer for Belladonna: Fetish Fanatic 5.

The D.C. jurors—six men, seven eight women; nine 11 black, three white—will be tasked with determining whether Milk Nymphos' dairy-based enemas and Storm Squirters' water sports violate D.C.'s "community standards" for obscenity. But before jurors even see the smut, attorneys provided a run-down of arguments for and against Staglino, through the trial's opening arguments:

Government: You won't find Milk Nymphos on Pay-per-View. "This case is about crossing the line," the prosecution offered in its opening argument. These videos aren't like the ones you'd order into a hotel room or catch on "late night TV"—this "goes beyond that."

Buttman: Exactly—so don't order it if you don't want to see it. "The movies are not—and are not meant to be—distributed to these 14 strangers sitting in a federal courthouse," Stagliano attorney Paul Cambria said. They include "adults putting on a performance . . . for another adult, who would make that choice if that were his or her cup of tea." And at least some people like it: An attorney for John Stagliano Inc. promised the jurors that when they watch the tapes, "you'll see the actors enjoying themselves."

Government: Kids could have seen this stuff! The investigator downloaded the free movie trailer in "a public area in a Washington, D.C. hotel," where he gained access to the material with "only four clicks of his mouse." The trailer could theoretically be made available to people under the age of 18.

Buttman: Yeah—but they didn't. "The evidence will prove beyond all doubt that there was no distribution  . . . at any time to children," Cambria told the jury. "No children involved whatsoever." In the hotel, an attorney for John Stagliano Inc. argued, there was only "one customer in there—an adult"—and they didn't see anything, either. On the production side, Stagliano also keeps records of birth certificates of his performers to ensure they're of age (But Stagliano isn't being accused of producing these videos—just distributing them).

Government: No, seriously, this stuff is really gross. The prosecution laid out the "extreme" imagery of the videos: Performers using "syringes and tubes to pump milk into women's anus and vaginas," then expelling the milk from their orifices and "into each other's mouths." A performer inserting his "penis into a woman's anus" and then immediately into "another woman's mouth." "Using drills" in "women's vaginas." "Extreme close-up shots" of "women squirting liquid" across the room and onto each other. A performer sticking a "foot inside a vagina." And one omission: "No real plot-line."

Buttman: But the videos have some artistic merit! The performers are "sexual athletes, if you will," said Cambria. "They are attractive people. A lot of care and work went into designing these movies." Also, it's not like  consumers are surprised by that content. The videos include "exactly what they expect: Intercourse. Oral sex. Women-on-women sex," Cambria said. And, yes, "enema play."

Government: D.C. doesn't want this stuff in its community. The videos, the prosecution told the jury, "violate your community standards."

Buttman: Hey, D.C. is a diverse community. An attorney for John Stagliano Inc. urged the journey not to rule based on "personal preference" but rather with respect for "all the cultures that are here in the capital of our nation." Like the Milk Nympho culture, for exabple.

Government: This guy is promoting this smut in public! The prosecution noted that an investigator came across Stagliano's offerings after visiting an "Adult Expo in Las Vegas." The FBI was alerted.

Buttman: That's actually a very classy porn expo. The expo "is like the Academy Awards of adult movies," Cambria said—and Stagliano is "a several-time winner." Also, it's a porn expo. It's not like this stuff was "on a billboard on 495."

Photo via Tambako the Jaguar, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

Ask The Sexist "is this sexist?" and she will whisper back softly, "maybe." Contact The Sexist with your queries.

Dear Sexist,

What is a woman to do when sexist decor appears in one's office? My government office uses art "on loan" from the artists. When we moved into the office two years ago, a bizarre picture of fat, smirking, hairy men was placed between the office doors of two "high feminist" workers. Bad enough. But now a new picture has appeared in the reception lobby. It is placed directly over the head of the receptionist. It has a bright yellow background. The object in the picture looks like a bright blue tattooed penis. The original title, "Welcome," had been crossed out and changed to "Lady of the Lake." An unusual nickname for one's penis.

Upon exiting the elevator and looking up, a common response is "Whoa!" I find that this oppression is hurting my productivity and that of my fellow workers. I believe a guerilla incursion is required. Your thoughts?

—A Reader

Dear Reader,

Is a man's penis implicitly sexist? It is not. Are fat, smirking, hairy men implicitly sexist? They are not. Is the placement of a collection of fat smirking hairy man penis art in your feminist work environment sexist? Maybe.

Typically, I will defend the right of any individual or institution to display any piece of art, anywhere, regardless of the art's quality, the artist's pedigree, or  the patent offensiveness of its subject. Nevertheless, seeing as you work for the government, I'm sure you can find some way to have the artwork removed through official channels. Perhaps former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft can direct you to the proper series of forms through which you may file a complaint.

But consider this: While your office's art collection is quite possibly sexist, it is most certainly hilarious. The absurdity of this situation must be exploited for as long as the penis remains on your walls. The office lurker who revised the name of your government-sanctioned tattooed penis has set the precedent for tomfoolery in this case. I suggest that you and your feminist cohorts brainstorm a host of ridiculous names for the penis. Daily, cross out the former name of the artwork and write in the new title. You might begin mildly, with "Bright Blue Tattooed Penis," then proceed with increasingly ridiculous titles, many of which will invoke the names and personal habits of your supervisors. Soon, your office will have no choice but to replace the artwork with a shoddy O'Keefe knock-off.

—The Sexist