I'm giving NOT A LOVE STORY half of a good rating - because that's exactly what the film gave me - HALF of the story. This exploitative "documentary" is completely biased and shows absolutely no objectivity in the subject-matter and was obviously created by someone with a personal vendetta against the adult-entertainment industry.
We basically follow a woman (who I assume is the director) as she recruits stripper Fonda Peters to go to different peep-show houses and strip-clubs to talk to the owners and the girls that work there. There are a few "round-table" type discussions with other porn-haters and a few "facts" mixed in as well, and at one point, Peters volunteers for a Hustler-style photo-shoot with famous erotic photographer, Suze Randall. The "slant" of the film is that porn is violent and misogynistic and detrimental to women and sexuality in general...
Couple of problems with all this. First off - while staging protests and talking about how "degrading" her photo-shoot was, Ms. Peters NEVER once seems to regret her profession as an adult-entertainer, and in fact defends herself for her choice of careers on several occasions. I found this a bit odd. For such a "straight-and-narrow" documentary of the perils of porn, we're treated to several scenes of sex-acts in nightclubs, a hardcore live-sex show, and several scenes from B&D types of films. What's the purpose? To me, it seemed like an exploitative attempt to "sell" this film to the exact market that it so blindly accuses. I also found it interesting how the film focused solely on "roughie" style porn and related ALL porn to that particular sub-genre. The scene where they claim that the only women who watch porn are coerced into it by their boyfriends is ridiculous too. Also - why no talk of the male sex-trade? There are plenty of male strip clubs where men are objectified - why no discussion on that topic? The reason is because as soon as the roles are reversed, then it's a non-issue. Obviously men could NEVER be looked at as "objects" or "exploited", right? This sort of thing could ONLY happen to luckless women forced into this horrid profession. Personally - I think it's all bullsh!t. I have no sympathy for anyone (male or female) who as an adult chooses their path in life. There are very few cases (if any) of a woman (or man) being forced into the types of peep-show establishments or porn industry in general portrayed in this film. It's this constant cry-baby finger-pointing and lack of taking personal responsibility that has begun the gradual downfall of this country.
NOT A LOVE STORY is semi-entertaining in terms of watching these early 1980s women's-libers get all uptight about sex. The "message" itself is so obviously skewed as to be laughable - and there is a good bit of explicit nudity so that made it tolerable too. True documentary fans will see this film as the joke that it is - other porn-haters and staunch anti-porn feminists will probably salute this film as an important work to further their "cause", and then masturbate to the sex-scenes when no one is there to hold them accountable...5/10
We basically follow a woman (who I assume is the director) as she recruits stripper Fonda Peters to go to different peep-show houses and strip-clubs to talk to the owners and the girls that work there. There are a few "round-table" type discussions with other porn-haters and a few "facts" mixed in as well, and at one point, Peters volunteers for a Hustler-style photo-shoot with famous erotic photographer, Suze Randall. The "slant" of the film is that porn is violent and misogynistic and detrimental to women and sexuality in general...
Couple of problems with all this. First off - while staging protests and talking about how "degrading" her photo-shoot was, Ms. Peters NEVER once seems to regret her profession as an adult-entertainer, and in fact defends herself for her choice of careers on several occasions. I found this a bit odd. For such a "straight-and-narrow" documentary of the perils of porn, we're treated to several scenes of sex-acts in nightclubs, a hardcore live-sex show, and several scenes from B&D types of films. What's the purpose? To me, it seemed like an exploitative attempt to "sell" this film to the exact market that it so blindly accuses. I also found it interesting how the film focused solely on "roughie" style porn and related ALL porn to that particular sub-genre. The scene where they claim that the only women who watch porn are coerced into it by their boyfriends is ridiculous too. Also - why no talk of the male sex-trade? There are plenty of male strip clubs where men are objectified - why no discussion on that topic? The reason is because as soon as the roles are reversed, then it's a non-issue. Obviously men could NEVER be looked at as "objects" or "exploited", right? This sort of thing could ONLY happen to luckless women forced into this horrid profession. Personally - I think it's all bullsh!t. I have no sympathy for anyone (male or female) who as an adult chooses their path in life. There are very few cases (if any) of a woman (or man) being forced into the types of peep-show establishments or porn industry in general portrayed in this film. It's this constant cry-baby finger-pointing and lack of taking personal responsibility that has begun the gradual downfall of this country.
NOT A LOVE STORY is semi-entertaining in terms of watching these early 1980s women's-libers get all uptight about sex. The "message" itself is so obviously skewed as to be laughable - and there is a good bit of explicit nudity so that made it tolerable too. True documentary fans will see this film as the joke that it is - other porn-haters and staunch anti-porn feminists will probably salute this film as an important work to further their "cause", and then masturbate to the sex-scenes when no one is there to hold them accountable...5/10