Is anyone else offended by the reviews posted?

>>>It is simply grotesque to refer to a woman's autobiographical
recounting of torture, humiliation, and rape as "juicy."

I don't think "juicy" is usually used to mean "sexually arousing". When you're talking about gossip or an expose, the word usually means something like "very interesting".

Have you actually seen the film? Have you actually seen that she went on to star in several other films and was even modeling nude shortly before her death in 2002? Linda Lovelace was NOTORIOUS for contradicting herself, but I will admit that in the film her acting and the look in her eyes seems to be void of meaning or enthusiasm, but that can be passed for bad acting very easily. The film made her the heroine that she is simply because women saw the freedom they felt she expressed in her role and sought to seek it themselves, even more so that they got the chance to exercise a constitutional right to see the movie in the first place.

Clearly she is enjoying herself in many of the scenes of the film. The film required ACTING, and gee, if she was drugged or forced against her will, she sure did hold her own pretty well. She even starred in the second damn one! And why crusade against something you sold yourself into in the first place? It may not have been her choice to star in "Deep Throat," okay, but how about the countless titles to come after it?

Unfortunately for everyone of the anti-porn crusaders that held up Linda Lovelace's "auto-biography" as prove that the pornography industry is "evil", Miss Lovelace recanted 98% of her story and was planning a comeback to the industry shortly before her early demise from cancer.

The "auto-biography" was a fabrication by her own admission, fueled by regret over money and an over-zealous editor that would not release the original book.

Ms. Lovelace was inducted into the adult film Hall of Fame posthumously and the award was accepted by her daughter who said that she only wished that her Mother had lived long enough to set the record staright and make up for all the people her lies hurt.

I found the Passion of the Christ to be easily one of the most violently offensive films ever made, but I still support Mel Gibson's right to make it.

In closing, chew on this. If your so offended by the subject matter, why did you visit the page in the first place?

Am I offended by the review(s) posted? No.
I am more offended by your attempts to shame people with your rather short sighted and obviously poorly researched posts.
It seems rather ironically obvious that the review you mention shares some of your views. Yet you fixate upon "juicy" and assume that means erotically stimulating. A previous post clears that up for you.
Good luck with your myopia.

[deleted]

bansidhewail is clearly a lesbian feminazi.

I read Linda Lovelace's autobiography and I have seen deep throat. So that makes me qualified to log an opinion.

Linda Lovelace wrote a book because she needed money. She accused her former boyfriend of everything under the sun except the JFK murder. So she loses credibility there. She could not act, but then most porn stars can't so she is in good company there. The films that she did were not all that great. I don't see her as anything special when it comes to giving blow jobs. She was extremely over-rated in my opinion.

If Chuck Traynor was such a brutal monster, then why didn't Marilyn Chambers write a tell all book about his abuse considering that she was the next woman in Traynor's life once Linda spaced out and moved into the Twilight Zone? How is it that Marilyn Chambers went on to make a better and more lasting place in porn than Linda? Why is it that Marilyn Chambers looks so damn good today for her age if Chuck Traynor was such a brutal monster?

Could it not be possible that Linda Lovelace was born into this world a perpetual victim, with no clue about anything? So when the money ran out she did was most people like her do...write a tell all book.

As far as I am concerned she is way over-rated and too much valuable time is being spent discussing her since after all she is dead and it's a moot point.

Yes, I am. Other folks here are missing the point. The point is not 'is Linda Lovelace a liar or not'. The point is this: is a book about being raped something "juicy"? No. The book may be true, it may be false, but either way it's not "juicy". The book is horrific and it's gross. If you find it juicy and a turn on, then there's something wrong with you. Even if Lovelace is a liar. (And I say this as someone who like sexually explicit material.)

Think about it this way - let's pretend that Schindler never helped any Jews, that Schindler's List was entirely made up. Would that make Schindler's List 'juicy' or anything like that? No. It would make it false, but still horrific. It's the same thing. If you see Schindler's List or read Lovelace's book and you think it's 'juicy' then there's something wrong with you.