Notes on Cafe Flesh: A 3 Part Essay

Opening Lines || Anti-Porn,Anti-Art || Victimization & Harm || Pornotopia || Porn Taboos

Anti-Porn, Anti-Art

The adult movie Cafe Flesh arrived in 1982 at a peculiar time.

The staunch anti-communist Ronald Reagan had just been elected president, and tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had reached an all-time high. As the US increased defense spending, neutron bombs and medium-range nuclear weapons were being seriously proposed as "nuclear lite" alternatives for use during a limited war on European soil. Actions like this caused consternation, fear and protests on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1983 alone, several movies about nuclear war were released: The Day After, War Games, Testament, Special Bulletin, Silkwood, The Dead Zone.

AIDS was also becoming a thing. Reports of people dying from AIDS were appearing in medical journals in 1981 and 1982 (though it didn't really hit the mainstream presses until a few years later). This was accompanied (perhaps coincidentally) by a new conservatism. After Reagan's election, evangelicals and the Moral Majority embraced "family values" as a way to counter the freedoms championed during the Sexual Revolution and the "radical" agenda of feminists and gay rights advocates.

The movie world was also undergoing transformations. Porn movies were appearing in movie theatres even though the legality of producing these movies was still unclear. Until the California Supreme Court threw out a prosecution of a porn producer in 1989, anybody making porn movies could (hypothetically at least) be prosecuted for pandering.

During the 1970s and the first part of the 1980s, adult movies were being made just like regular feature films. Perhaps they had smaller budgets or less accomplished actors or weaker scripts, but they had real plots and characters (and sometimes lavish sets and music).

They were also produced with the purpose of being shown at "adult" movie theatres. By that time even mainstream movies contained sex and violence (even though it was always simulated sex—penises were nowhere to be seen). By the late 1970s, cable TV was making inroads in people's homes and hotels, and video cassette recorders (VCR's) were starting to appear. Nielsen data reports that 14% of households had VCRs in 1985 and that rose to 66% in 1990. ^[1]

In the 1980s, it was easy for Americans over 18 to buy sexually explicit magazines and visit strip clubs or adult movie theatres. Cable TV made it easy to watch R-rated movies in the privacy of one's home. In 1982 the teen sex comedy Porky's came out and became the 5th highest earning movie in the US (105 million box office gross). It was cheaply made and offensive to most people, but it had locker room humor and lots of nudity. ^[2] That single movie became a mainstay on U.S. cable channels and quickly spawned sequels and imitators. Here's how one critic described it:^[3]

At about the same time, Fast Times at Ridgemont High was riding the demand for teenage sex comedies (as did the more mainstream Baby It's You and Risky Business a few years later). Among mainstream movies appearing at the time (Tron, Blade Runner, Liquid Sky, Koyaanisqatsi, Eating Raoul, Tootsie), you already had themes of alternate worlds, non-narrative filmmaking and frankness about sexual perversions. Among the major productions in the porn world were Roommates, Pandora's Mirror, I Like to Watch and Nothing to Hide. All pretty conventional stories (except for Pandora's Mirror—which was a fantasy about a magic mirror that depicts erotic scenes from the past).

By the mid-1980s, movies were distributed through videocassettes to be rented or sold at neighborhood video stores. Although the biggest video chain (Blockbuster) didn't distribute any hardcore porn, many independently owned video stores carried a few in their inventory, and some specialty shops rented only porn. By the end of the 1980s, an increasing amount of porn videos relied upon amateur talent and used plots or scenarios which were skimpy even for porn. Sometimes it seems that more effort went into packaging the video box and devising a memorable and campy parody title (When Harry Laid Sally, Gilligan's Bi-Land, The Tanya Hard-on Story) than actually making a memorable story. Strolling through an X-rated video store in the late 1980s or early 1990s was a minor postmodern adventure, where pop culture is recycled and repackaged into newer lustier versions. Director Quentin Tarantino once confessed in a New York Times interview that he knew he'd finally become a pop culture icon when he saw a parody of one of his movies on the porn shelves.

It's almost a cliche to complain about the bad quality of porn from that time. In fact, a good amount of porn coming out in 1982 probably was better than Porky's and at least had the decency to show actual penises and orgasms. Maybe the perception of quality just had to do with the smaller budgets and the limited pool of writers and actors to choose from. Maybe the kind of customers who paid to see a porn movie worried less about reviews than on a movie's superficial qualities (like the title or the pulchritude of the stars).

Porn is judged to be bad by conventional standards of plot, action and character. These things ARE important, but it's unclear whether a porn movie with interesting plot, action and characterization would appeal to viewers seeking simple stroke material. The film Cafe Flesh provides a perfect example of this paradox. Directed by Stephen Sayadian (using the pseudonym "Rinse Dream"), it has beautiful sets, intriguing characters, thoughtful dialogue, hypnotic music and provocative ideas. Here's how Film Threat magazine described it in 1989: ^[4]

This movie is often labeled as "anti-porn" because it subverts visual expectations. It experiments with camera angles and montages instead of following porn's visual conventions. It seems too smart for porn although Radley Metzger's "Henry Paris" movies of the 1970s managed to do that and still achieve box office success. Cafe Flesh's subversiveness lies in bringing the (male) ^[5] viewer to confront his own voyeurism and the aesthetic detachment it breeds.

Porn movies of the 1990s went down the path of reality TV (if only for cost reasons). Some vids stuck to scripted stories; others tried to imitate the flashy style of MTV reality shows; some simply dealt with role playing (the high school teacher and the cheerleader, etc) or the performance of a certain sex act (often anal or gangbangs). Some were parodies of well known movies; some had young individuals or couples submit their own videos. Some focused on humiliation or fetishes (sometimes with it named in the title). Some simply depicted wall-to-wall sex, while others delved into the sexual history and fantasies of attractive people. The Internet allowed models to do camming from the privacy of their own home and technical advances allowed for more interactivity between performer and audience.

The changing times affect social standards, technology and distribution methods. It's hard to say whether yesterday's porn can have lasting appeal to a contemporary audience. A retro sensibility can be fun and provide ironic enjoyment, but today's consumers are used to high-definition audio and video. Dialogue from 1980s porn movies may seem corny, and hair styles can seem outrageous. Attitudes which might have seem daring at one time will seem conventional today, and various segments of society can find them offensive or oblivious. But enough time has elapsed that a movie like Cafe Flesh can be viewed with historical distance.

Victimization and Harm

Do pornographic depictions cause harm? Does it cause harm to the people involved or the people who consume it?

This was a subject of Cafe Flesh, but it was also a hot topic in 1982. Conservative groups like Jerry Fallwell's Moral Majority opposed gay rights and the "anti-family agenda" in mass media. At the same time, feminists and groups like Women Against Pornography decried the sexual exploitation of women and connected the use of pornography with violence against women. (Eventually this led to a high profile presidential commission to study the issue in 1985 whose conclusions were sharply criticized).

Many people (and religious groups) still criticize the production and use of pornography for various reasons. It is claimed that porn and sexually-oriented businesses undermine healthy relationships and cause harm to romantic or marriage partners who have to compete with these idealized actors. It is claimed that porn desensitizes people to sexual violence and normalizes some socially undesirable behavior. It also provides a way to escape reality and not have to deal with emotions and desires in real life.

Of course, lots of activities provide an escapist outlet and have the potential to waste a lot of time (comic books, sitcoms, game shows, true crime podcasts, etc.) Some habits (like smoking and drinking and fine dining) could be unhealthy or undesirable or expensive. But people don't try to legislate against those things—not only because it is impractical, but because it is intrusive and violates an individual's autonomy. Indeed, if masturbation can be seen as psychologically normal and beneficial and if porn —like sex toys—facilitates masturbation, attempts to regulate porn can actually harm sexual development.

Another way to criticize porn is to focus on its pernicious effects on performers. Opponents claim that 1) it degrades sex workers by allowing their body to be used as objects, 2)it takes advantage of an actor's desperation and stigmatizes them in real life and 3)it provides bad working conditions and possibly long term medical and psychological issues.

Some people have been traumatized or victimized by their involvement in porn. In some cases, coercion has been involved. Even if an actor participates willingly, that doesn't mean it will be fun or rewarding or harmless. Often young people make decisions they may regret later, and they lack access to good advice and knowledge which might empower them. The social stigma of porn can prevent individuals from complaining or seeking legal redress. Sometimes a single gig can leave scars; sometimes it can be difficult to extricate oneself from an unpleasant work arrangement because of the stigma. Even when the sex work is "fair," a young person may lack discipline to use these earnings for self-improvement. Maybe they have addiction issues or psychological issues which led them to try sex work.

How does this compare to working conditions in the real (i.e., non-porn) world? Some entry level jobs are difficult or exploitative or even degrading. I have never worked as a sex worker, but I have hurt my back from working long hours at a big box store and as a teen was paid minimum wage to mix dangerous chemicals for a small business owner without being confident that it was "safe." One of the worst jobs I ever did was doing data entry for a company that processed credit card applications. The pay sucked, the management sucked and I worked graveyard shifts. I also did short term gigs which paid great but I blew all the money on stupid things.

Sometimes I have made good money doing pointless work. Sometimes I have been let go without warning (or justification). There have been jobs which paid terribly, but I did anyway because it seemed at the time to be important or educational. Some other jobs were terrible, but convenient for my schedule or because I really needed the money. Some jobs were good and treated me fairly, but the workplace was so far away that I would lose three hours each day on public transportation. I worked at a few jobs which paid poorly, but at least the people were nice. At some of the jobs I actually enjoyed, the pay was so low that the only way to come out ahead was to work overtime. I continued working at one job where the salary was abysmal and the boss treated me poorly because I (wrongly) believed that this experience would lead to better jobs later. Sometimes I worked hard on projects I thought would eventually bring great financial rewards only to learn later that the actual compensation was far less than I had anticipated.

I have described experiences which most people can relate to (even if it didn't involve group sex or uncomfortable positions or exchange of bodily fluids). Many people try jobs or gigs out of a delusional sense that it would lead to higher pay or a more reliable income. Then after they do it, they learn what they didn't know or how they miscalculated. If I were a pretty 19 year old female without good job prospects who enjoyed sex and dancing, I might have been okay with doing a little sex work. Sure, working in a sexually-oriented business could limit certain job opportunities later, but almost every job has opportunity costs which one fails to perceive until after the fact.

Perhaps working in porn makes a person cynical about human relationships. (So does being a divorce attorney or social worker).

Perhaps working in porn makes a person susceptible to substance abuse. (So does working in the restaurant or entertainment business).

Isn't the system unfair because it rewards physical beauty and youthfulness over everything else? (That's already true in a lot of professional fields). But how do you determine your economic value to a company (or even society) at any given time? Sometimes I have felt overvalued and sometimes I have felt undervalued; what else is new? Sometimes my age and personal characteristics cause employers to overvalue me; sometimes my age works against me even when I have felt eminently qualified to do a job. A lot about the economic system is unfair. Sometimes we may be incapable of perceiving at the time how unfair it is or why it's unfair. Sometimes we may wrongly guess our value to a business. Sometimes we may be profoundly ignorant of what other people are earning for similar jobs.

I have a hard time differentiating between the exploitation that one would find in the porn business and the ordinary kinds of exploitation I am describing here. I don't regularly come in contact with porn performers, but I'm sure they have attitudes and personalities which help them to manage the stresses of that kind of work. Does the social stigma hurt some performers from obtaining future jobs? Perhaps, but over time, some people succeed despite the stigma and opposition. One cannot assume that people doing porn work don't derive non-monetary, social and psychological benefits from it as well.

Doesn't the degrading nature of some sex work make it easier for people to walk all over you? Maybe, but I can't help wondering why depictions of victimization, passivity and degradation in the Christian religion (for example) are deemed to be uplifting to individual dignity but not degradation in porn. Also, what counts as degrading depends very much on context. If a sex worker does things on camera which many would regard as degrading or humiliating but is treated respectfully and compensated well off-camera, that could possibly negate the psychological damage. ^[6] Actors can distance themselves from the roles they play; that is indeed the point (and the challenge).

Like stunt work in the mainstream movie industry, a physical act like sex can cause discomfort and pain and possibly even scars and disease. Some kinds of porn go to extremes, and the actors are supposed to tolerate it. More established companies in the US offer rules and protections. A good agent or agency might help the performer negotiate worker conditions, but often these gigs are temporary and informal; the performers may have no idea what the market rate ought to be or what counts as normal.

Does porn change attitudes and behaviors around sex? Of course. Does it trivialize sex? (Did Dr. Strangelove trivialize mutually assured destruction?) A subject too sacred to be trivialized on occasion, probably deserves more scrutiny anyway. Does porn harm sex by turning it into a public spectacle? Perhaps, but don't forget the advantages of bringing something to the public eye. Bringing the Vietnam War to the TV screen changed political and social attitudes (probably for the better). Workplace behavior probably changed for the better after female workers went public with reports of sexual harassment. Porn can also broach subjects normally taboo in other contexts. It encourages an open appraisal of sex and relationships to discover what aspects of healthy sexual relationships are unique and can't be commoditized.

Ironically, although the Cafe Flesh movie talks about the physical harm from nuclear fallout and the exploitation of Sex Positives, there is no indication that Sex Positives experience any harm from performance (physically or psychologically). Also, aside from the cost to enter the Cafe Flesh (which seems to be some primitive bartering system) money is invisible in the movie world. At one point (42:00), Silky says, "I could buy and sell Johnny Rico" (and eventually does become Rico's agent and arranges for him to appear). The Sex Positives have to be brought to Cafe Flesh—and Lana speaks of the opportunity to perform as a sex positive as a "gig" but Moms says that "The system breaks down if we don't all do our duty (38:00)." ^[7]

Although the movie is more evocative than judgmental, it raises questions still relevant today. What are the long term consequences of participating vicariously in a fantasy world? How does it affect one's sexuality and ongoing relationships? Can couples participate in this fantasy world while staying emotionally close? Can a person be happy and satisfied without ever using his or her sexual energies in a relationship? Can couples who watch sexual performances by others (porn) find value in the inhibition that it releases? Or does it focus attention towards a never reciprocating figment of the imagination?

Pornotopia

Usually sexually explicit art (whether it be fiction, games or videos) tries to construct an alternate utopia (or anti-utopia) world where sexual encounters are easily initiated, females are just as aggressive about expressing desire, and people don't have to worry about consequences (like STD's, marriage or pregnancy). Pornotopia is a paid-for paradise of the imagination, where sexual barriers don't exist, where prostitution is openly engaged in, where everyone is sexually attractive and even sexually hungry. In this Pornotopia, sexual harassment or abuse cannot occur because everyone is doing it or trying to do it or trying to persuade others to do it or simply watching others do it.

Entering this Pornotopia even as a visitor or spectator legitimates this curiosity or interest. If you read a dirty novel, you know that someone else (the author) must have conceived every scene beforehand; when you watch a dirty movie, you know that at some point, actors and directors have collaborated to make it and write a script for it. When you enter a virtual reality of sex avatars, you know you are joining a world set up by people with similar kinds of desires.

Pornotopia doesn't need to imitate the world; it just needs to arouse curiosity and desire. Sometimes visual cues make it obvious that Pornotopia is an imaginary subjective place. This can be conveyed by dress or lighting or the scenery itself. Cinematic effects (camera angles, movement and framing) can call attention to the subjective nature of this world. After Cafe Flesh, Rinse Dream produced an erotic horror movie Dr. Caligari whose visuals were inspired by the German expressionist movie Cabinet of Doctor Caligari. Even the director's other porn movies juxtapose strange surrealistic elements with ordinary American life.

Porn takes sex out of peripheral vision and turns it into the main subject if only to exorcise it. As Francis Truffaut is reputed to have said, "porn is the price moviegoers have to pay for decades of cinematic lies about romantic love."

If this Pornotopia world is such an artificial construct, why does the (male) viewer escape to it? Porn offers the intimate presence of a woman willing to give and receive pleasure. It adds infinite variety to an imagination suffocating under a monotonous solitary life. It leads a male character (and viewer) on a carnal quest to learn more about the private world and emotions of women. Some feminists might claim that these depictions of females as sex-crazed are unrealistic and objectifying. But the success of porn depends on the male viewer's ability to identify with the character's situation. A depiction that is too degrading or stereotypical brings the viewer outside the artistic experience and removes him emotionally from the movie.

Characters come alive from a situation's context. And porn is similarly dependent upon situations. One usually doesn't know the history of a female character or performer before a scene of sexual enjoyment; one knows only what is being filmed and how the actress or character responds. Porn allows the (male) viewer to become acquainted with the intimate life of a female character by how she acts, talks and emotes.

Porn and other art forms depict the struggle between control and autonomy. An author creates characters and organizes what they do and say according to what the author believes would produce the best story. That is control. Actors improvise a comedy routine from a given theme. That is autonomy. Control is the ability to create an artificial world and the rules which govern it. Autonomy is the ability to inhabit an environment which one is free to grow or change. Control implies a director or creator choreographing everything within this created world. Autonomy implies a participatory creativity, a spontaneous involvement with the subject of the art. Control implies its own powerlessness. When an author like Milan Kundera warns readers that he controls his characters, he is really reminding readers that in the real world such control is absolutely impossible.

Control and autonomy are useful terms for discussing gender and porn. The camera can use images selectively to create an artificial world; it can "steal" away a person's image and multiply it at different angles and zooms. It also is a receptive instrument; the camera can capture the raw image, but nothing more. Although the camera can enlarge, shrink, multiply or distort the image in many ways, in the end it is utterly dependent on the subject.

Porn reflects the attempt of the (male) viewer to control the circumstances and emotional involvement of sex. The viewer can literally push a button to summon different people and sex acts; the viewer can even control the speed of movement and where things start and finish. This control is gained at the expense of autonomy. The movement and speech is predetermined; there is no spontaneity, no freedom of movement. Some kinds of porn strip the actors not only of clothes but reduce the sex act to simply following directions. Pornography, if it is to succeed, must employ one of two strategies: either it must unmask the control mechanism (and thus reveal itself as exploitation) or convey the illusion of autonomy within a controlled environment.

Illusion of autonomy? Perhaps the illusion of autonomy can be the same thing as actual autonomy. This can be accomplished in two ways: through the character and through the actor.

A character can make decisions, yielding to desire as well as being driven by it. Yes, porn films by definition depict people having sex—sometimes crazy amounts of it. A screenwriter has to be inventive at creating a story that permits an optimal number of sex scenes (and variations and partners). That is one reason why so many porn films fail—the sex acts seem contrived for the sake of the movie.

As adult movie director Paul Thomas said in a podcast interview:

In gonzo porn (or "reality porn"), the director is often the performer or "camera guy" whose presence is acknowledged by performers. Scenes are less scripted, more improvisational. Performers are introduced and have sex in their own way. Sometimes it features real life couples filming themselves in the privacy of their homes. Performers mostly use fake names, but the answers they give in an interview are spontaneous and candid (and hopefully enthusiastic). Nothing is really choreographed, and unexpected things can occur on camera (with only the most egregious things being edited out). Sometimes in fact the actresses are more than happy to share details of their sexual history, and sometimes the interview can be lots of fun to watch (even without the sex). When I first watched porn, I used to believe that all onscreen orgasms in porn were faked until I came across one scene in a reality porn movie that was obviously not. It was a stunning revelation for me; it changed the way I looked at porn, and in fact, some interviews with current and former stars have made it clear that female performers often have orgasms on camera; in a way, the people who stay in porn for any length of time are self-selected; you're not going to stay in the industry unless you are open to exploring new kinds of pleasure (either for personal or political reasons or both). For a male to enter the business and stay in it for any length of time, you have to have erections pretty easily and the ability to engage in sexual acts for sustained periods of time. Sex performers also have to be more tolerant of unconventional or even taboo sexual behavior. One 18 year old performer interviewed for her first scene said that "I am a very open, loving girl; something that's very important to me is spreading love. I don't judge; I love meeting people, and I just love "love." Everyone is just unique and beautiful... I just love life (giggling).... We're all human, we're all beautiful souls on this planet." ^[9]

In this kind of performance, the (male) viewer enjoys watching the (female) performer's spontaneous responses and physical reactions. That allows the (male) spectator to participate (vicariously) in the recorded sexual activity and involve himself in the activity. In a way livestreaming and camming permit the same degree of intimate familiarity. In such a live event, the spectator can be one of many, and yet everyone is sharing in the intensity of emotions that the porn star is undergoing. Of course, this exclusive interaction is primarily unidirectional and lubricated with payment, but it is still grounded in empathy.

But ultimately the electricity of the scene depends on the physical sensations and responses of the actors involved. Role playing makes it easier for the actor to become immersed in the emotion and believe that the fantasies they are acting out are their own (and not those of the director or viewer). The type of imagination needed to perform in an erotic drama is much different than that needed to write a script. Both are feats of the imagination; both require skills of evocation, and both ultimately depend on removing oneself from one's actual situation and discovering new erotic possibilities.

For a (male) viewer, porn creates a hypothetical situation and a question: if a man could live in a world where every woman is available and libidinous, would it be enough? The perplexing thing about porn (and the erotic impulse in general) is that it creates a desire to know more fully; it is next to impossible to refrain from further knowledge about an object of desire. What is a woman really? And how much can a man discover about her by watching her erotic explorations? Highbrow porn like Radley Metzger's Private Afternoons of Pamela Mann (1974) come closer to the answer by lampooning the male quest to uncover a woman's erotic self. The woman who is Pamela Mann is whatever the detective/voyeur makes her out to be; she is both the loving wife and pornographic image flashing on the screen in the couple's bedroom. She is both the woman leaning against the mirror and the projection of herself in the mirror. Pamela Mann cannot take her womanhood seriously because she can't take life itself seriously. Her true identity is unknown to her husband and even to herself. The movie about Pamela Mann is just as guilty of falsifying the woman's identity as the detective is, but in the end these misconceptions don't bother her so long as they do nothing to impede her freedom.

Porn Taboos

To succeed as fantasy, Pornotopia has to overlook and even deny certain topics. Here are some omissions (shall we call them taboos?) of porn.

Violence is almost universally taboo in porn. Death is almost unheard of. Why? For one thing cinema violence is simulated and may shatter the illusion that movie events are spontaneous. Porn creates an intimate attachment (both physical and emotional) with the moving picture, while violence makes it necessary to sunder this attachment.

Porn generally denies the validity and important of family structures and rules. In fact, classic porn films like Teenage Twins, Taboo, Pretty Peaches and Virginia tackle incest as a subject (indeed, fake incest scenes seem to be popular in porn, or maybe that's just a shorthand for porn involving age differences). Candida Royale's Three Daughters provides a rare and noteworthy exception, but topics like marriage, children, birth control and pregnancy are avoided because it limits the plot possibilities.

Sexlessness and impotence are other porn taboos. In porn, everybody can do it and wants it bad. All they need is an opportunity. The typical porn movie has four or five come shots, a number that is practically impossible for males to do within 90 minutes. Porn denies the possibility of living a life devoid of sex or desire.

Illness or sexually transmitted diseases rarely come up in the context of a porn movie. Any person appearing onscreen is assumed to have sexual potential—either as a target or an instigator. Most are young and beautiful. Old age, ugliness and sexual unattractiveness are almost never discussed in porn (though it is a constant preoccupation in real life). Porn validates the sexual attractiveness of performers by the simple fact that they are having sex. Being watched renders them sexually attractive (and not being watched heightens the viewer's insecurities). Even if a viewer doesn't find a particular performer to be sexually attractive, that performer will still be treated as sexually attractive by other performers.

Religion and morality rarely are discussed in a serious way in porn. There is almost no concern for personal ethics. No one in porn ever decides to refrain from having sex. If any sort of moral imperative exists within porn, it is to follow one's instincts, to do whatever comes naturally and resist constraints. Religion and morality can be mocked and found to be hypocritical. (Indeed, hypocrisy is a frequent topic of porn). There is a total absence of judgment in porn; people do things because that's the way they are. There is a lack of moral accountability and even responsibility in the porn world, both behind the camera and in front of it. Performing without condoms, having sex for reasons other than love and using one's power or authority for sexual favors is accepted as part of living in Pornotopia. Selfishness is tolerated and even accepted as normal, and Christian guilt is seen mainly as an impediment to exploring your inner nature.

Cafe Flesh is one of the few porn films to incorporate almost all of these omissions. The setting is a future where people are dying of radiation poisoning and unable to have sex. While writing the script with Jerry Stahl, Stephen Sayadian said that he was reading about "gay immune syndrome"—which would later be called "AIDS"—and thinking, "Can you imagine in the future if you couldn't have sex?" ^[10]The film shown on the 1999 DVD has no violence per se, but people still bully others and (at least in an earlier VHS cut) sometimes fight back. ^[11] The opening tableaux ("Mr. and Mrs. Sane") depicts a married woman being seduced in front of her three children (actually grown men in baby costumes sitting in highchairs). Most of Cafe Flesh's characters are "Sex Negatives" who can't have sex and certainly feel no sexual pleasure (even if the sight of sex mesmerizes them). Many of the Sex Negatives in the audience look plain and almost grotesque (one even has scars all over his face). If anything, the movie can be accused of exaggerating the strange and hideous appearances of some Sex Negatives.

Although religion is never specifically mentioned in the film, the apocalyptic vision of Max and his professed omniscience ("Max Knows") and the hypnotic qualities of the final Johnny Rico sex scene have religious resonances. The bed in the final scene becomes a sort of profane altar in which pagan rituals can be performed to an adoring audience.

Questioning Angel. The Enforcer uncovers the truth about Angel to the astonishment of the others at the cafe.

Cafe Flesh raises moral questions about the erotic show. Max, shown in one scene as a disembodied head in a cage, barks at the audience of Sex Negatives, inveighing against their empty, uninteresting lives. When Angel (the "Virgin") is kidnapped and made to perform onstage, there is genuine moral ambivalence about the taking of this girl:

During the kidnapping scene, the camera rests not on the victim but the surrounding crowd of shadowy faces offering advice but never assistance. Later, when Lana expresses horror that Angel was taken so violently, Moms retorts, "If she's a positive, it's her duty to perform … Do you think we have a choice in these matters?" Later, Moms adds, "Didn't it turn you on, thinking how this sweet girl would look making love before your very eyes?" Lust turns everyone into an accomplice. Still, just having characters question the morality of this kidnapping is a remarkable moment for a porn film.

When moral judgments are given in porn, it is usually so they can be lampooned or found ineffectual. Inside the cafe Max taunts Sex Negatives with their own pathetic situation. "The biggest night of your life," he says, "is watching some strange palooka getting his hog washed by some bimbo you don't even know." But Max is almost anti-morality; he taunts the audience not to reform them but to make them acknowledge his power to start the show.

Next: Part 2: Style of Cafe Flesh

( Leave Feedback? )