"A flood tide of filth is engulfing our country in the form of newsstand obscenity, and is threatening to pervert an entire generation of our American children!" So says 'reporter' George Putnam, who is not only upstanding but 'outstanding' as well! Putnam, a natty, well-dressed guy with Brylcreem in his hair, seems like the righteous sort of family man you might see volunteering as usher at your local parish. He uses amusing placards to warn us that magazine pornography (a two billion dollar a year business!) and other forms of filth reach 75-90% of our children (so much for that clever hiding space!) and that perversion is like an octopus reaching its tentacles out to the malt shop set--luring them into the insidious world of unnatural desires. "There are more than 800 distributors" peddling porn, and--no thanks to rapid transit and mass distribution--our children are being exposed to homosexuality at a faster rate than ever! Such dated naiveté is then accented with pulpy paperback covers and vintage sex rags which would go for big bucks today on eBay. One has to hand it to Putnam: he stands tall and holy, like a mighty Sequoia, putting emphasis on words like 'whips' and 'bestiality' with authoritative conviction. One can just imagine him hitting the local pub after the long film shoot, chatting up the neighborhood trollop and heading back to her place for a little R 'n R.
26 Reviews
This preachy documentary is nowhere near decent. It was mostly an awful watch.
ironhorse_iv28 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being conservatism and protecting some 'family values' in the United States, but this emergence of the people like Charles Keating & George Putnam from the New Right from the 1960s is downright horrible. While, I have a love/hate relationship when it comes to pornos. I just couldn't get behind the idea that pornography lead to communism ties. It sounds too ridiculous. If anything, it lead to people being too interested in, looking at naked people than trying to over thrown the American government with Soviet style-communism. While, yes, there is a small truth, that the later 1960's couther-culture's sexual revolution did influence protest against the US government. Still, it wasn't because the U.S.S.R influence them to do it, with dirty magazines. Doesn't Putnam know that pornography was largely suppressed by the Soviet Union, because the government felt that sex in general was viewed as a wasteful consumer of energies better devoted to the building of Communism? If anything, Putnam's beliefs is more in line with the Soviet Union than the wicked pornographers. Anyways, the anti-Vietnam war protest would come, regardless, if dirty magazines played a hand or not. As the unpopularity of the Vietnam War has reached a fever pitch with the military draft. After all, forcing young people to fight a war, in which, they don't believe, is indeed going to make some conflict. Another thing, the idea that Putnam claim that pornography caused sixteen of the nineteen major civilizations to vanish from the Earth is comical, when the majority of them, was cause by bad economics. It's weird to see Putnam mention 'A Study of History' by British historian Arnold J. Toynbee, but fails to notice, that the author is against everything, he holds dear. After all, Toynbee quotes in his book that nation will fall when the "Creative Minority", fails to ceases to be creative and degenerates into merely a "Dominant Minority"—which forces the majority to obey without meriting obedience. Isn't that, another word for censorship, what Putnam is trying to do!? While, yes, some pornos are really low brow, but if anything, smart pornography material could be the spark for creatively. After all, isn't some of the beautiful innovations of the modern world, were somewhat create for the purpose to see pornography like the VCR/DVD, internet, and now fast online streaming and paying service!? Just think of the world, without those inventions. In truth, most pornos just are just there to help people, mellow out. Sadly, this 1965 Eastmancolor propaganda film just doesn't get it. About the allegations that most gay people are child molesters. It's clearly not. Child molesters who were gay or lesbian are far fewer than the cases in which a straight male has been trialed. While, it somewhat true that more homosexuals men are likely to engage in sexual relationship with a minor, compare to lesbians. It's still, from lower than the majority of straight male to female child abuse. The film also argues that sexually explicit materials like dirty magazines, corrupt many young viewers and readers, leads to more acts of violence and "perverted" attitudes regarding sex—including inclination toward homosexuality, when in truth, such human actions has been there, since the beginning of time, just not well-recorded. In my opinion and the studies, I have done for this review, I notice that the incidence of rape in the world has declined 85 per cent in the past 25 years while access to pornography has become freely available to teenagers and adults. In truth, the more conservative, a country is, the more likely that people would act upon their darkest perversions. It's the taboo effect. Despite my disagreements with most of the film, the film does have some considerable historical significance, serving as a sort of time capsule of pornography from the era as well as an example of historical concerns regarding media influence. It must had been really shocking to see, this film was, when it was first released. It nearly shows nude photos of women and men in compromising positions! Some of the images without black censor bars. It's also funny and rare to see an American show examples of the earliest Japanese tentacle porn. If anything, this movie today, feels least than a dated propaganda piece, and more like an early example of film exploitation. Maybe, Putnam should had censor his own movie. It's pretty hypocritical, that Putnam didn't do that. Anyways, 'Perversion for Profit' as of today, is still in the public domain, due to the film producer failing to copyright it. As a result, anyone could duplicate and sell a copy of this film. However, since many of them, come from extremely poor quality, having been duped from second- or third-generation copies. Don't be surprised, that the copies available on the market are either severely or badly edited. My version was full of static. It's better to find it on Youtube. As of this writing, 'Perversion for Profit' is the second most popular Cold War documentary superseded only by the well-known, Cold War short animated film, 1952's 'Duck and Cover'. Because of that, the short film has been used for other films such as 2005's documentary 'F*ck" & 2004's TV Movie 'Sluts' as an strong example of misguided attempt of yesteryear uber-conservatives in educating the public of the dangers of sex. Overall: While, the film is indeed insightful. I really can't recommended this short, even if some people want to watch it for a good laugh. There is a lot of issues with this time capsule film. In conclusion, it's 'not so bad, it's good'. It's just bad.
"A flood tide of filth is engulfing our country in the form of newsstand obscenity."
classicsoncall8 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
All the while I'm watching this I couldn't help but think how counterproductive the whole exercise turned out to be. Because if you didn't know where to get your hands on all manner of illicit literature, this flick did a pretty good job of letting you know. Not to mention those types of specialty magazines that one might not have considered for their titillating sexual content - nudist, physique and bodybuilding, bondage and torture, mail order and pocket books. The operating theme here had to do with the idea that obscenity leads to depravity, while glorifying crime and ridiculing law and order. It's the same argument that's made regarding marijuana as a gateway drug to more potent drugs, and though one could make a reasonable case for either, there are just as many examples of individuals who've looked at or tried the stuff and wound up as upstanding citizens. Made in 1965, this film calls to mind the exploitation flicks of the Thirties and Forties regarding such topics as drug abuse and prostitution, and it doesn't take much to see that those were entirely ineffective. Checking in on the short bio of narrator George Putnam here on the IMDb, it appears he passed away in 2008, well into the internet era. If his message didn't resonate in the mid-Sixties, it's a certainty he would have been apoplectic with the availability of all the prurient stuff one can find on line now.
A classic exploitation film...
vamark4 March 2010
I've seen a number of reviews here by people who seem to think that this film is some kind of documentary. It's nothing of the kind. This is nothing more than a good old-fashioned exploitation film.
This film had no more intention of "saving souls from smut" than "Reefer Madness" had of dissuading people from smoking pot. The whole point of the exercise is to circumvent the legal and moral restrictions of the day and to make a fast buck while doing it.
These films all follow the same pattern:
1. "XYZ is evil/immoral/deadly"
2. "Here are some examples of XYZ so you'll know it when you see it."
3. "Fight XYZ!"
As the Master of Exploitation, Dave Friedman, points out in his autobiography, "A Youth in Babylon," the idea was to get the rubes to part with a few bucks to see something they could never see at the local Bijou.
Disguise it as "hygiene" or wrap it in patriotism or religion and the cops won't bother you.
Some other classic examples of the genre are "Mom and Dad," "Sex Madness", "Exposing the Nudist Racket". I believe all of these are available online.
This film had no more intention of "saving souls from smut" than "Reefer Madness" had of dissuading people from smoking pot. The whole point of the exercise is to circumvent the legal and moral restrictions of the day and to make a fast buck while doing it.
These films all follow the same pattern:
1. "XYZ is evil/immoral/deadly"
2. "Here are some examples of XYZ so you'll know it when you see it."
3. "Fight XYZ!"
As the Master of Exploitation, Dave Friedman, points out in his autobiography, "A Youth in Babylon," the idea was to get the rubes to part with a few bucks to see something they could never see at the local Bijou.
Disguise it as "hygiene" or wrap it in patriotism or religion and the cops won't bother you.
Some other classic examples of the genre are "Mom and Dad," "Sex Madness", "Exposing the Nudist Racket". I believe all of these are available online.
Thankful it's not 1965 anymore
tjm19931 December 2012
Wow. I just caught this on TCM and at first I couldn't stop laughing. Putnam's pompous and self righteous delivery was especially funny at first then it became extremely irritating. As a former deejay and radio talk show host, the delivery was making me nauseous. Of course, the problem is, that in 1965 this vocal delivery was not than unusual. Thank goodness we don't talk like that today. The production values were lower than low. The announcer (who obviously thinks he is the voice of God) stands in front of a map of the U-S and holds cue cards for the camera. As for the content, once again it started off hilarious but about half way through the repetition became annoying. I became tired of being preached at and told all things sexual were bad, evil and the work of Satan. Not to mention communists. His "facts" were incredible. The problem is they were probably just accepted as facts by many people. For instance, did you know that moral decay caused 16 out of the 19 most successful civilizations to decline and fall apart? Not the strength of their enemies, but moral decay. Who knew? Such a slippery slope. I'm very, very glad that our viewpoint on these things have changed over the years. I don't think I would like to live in a society that viewed the world in this way. I do feel almost cheated though as several of the reviewers mentioned it was 60 minutes long and the version I saw was only 30 minutes. Shucks. If you get a chance to see this go ahead and give it a look see. If you have to pay for it, don't bother. But if it's free, go for it. 12/31/2012
Ya Got Trouble
bkoganbing23 March 2014
Watching this 49 year old film from the perspective of same sex marriage rapidly gaining ground throughout the USA and civil right statutes for sexual orientation and gender identity being passed and enforced, one can only marvel at the sea change in attitude in half a century. Four years after this film and it does spend a good deal of time attacking gays, the Stonewall Rebellion took place.
Perversion For Profit is at the same level as Reefer Madness. I have no doubt that this was a work personally conceived by J. Edgar Hoover. The presence of George Putnam as narrator who was a running buddy of Hoover in the same manner that Walter Winchell was gives credence to that belief. During the course of the narration Putnam makes mention of the fact that our opponents in the Cold War, the Communists are at least applauding America's descent into 'degeneracy'. Putnam used the phrase Masters Of Deceit which was a book authored under Hoover's name and the phrase was that the Communists were masters of deceit.
I've also no doubt that after seeing this film those so inclined to alternative sexual expression went racing around their towns to find if their outlets for porn were still secure or seeking to acquire new ones.
Putnam's strident narration leaves us no doubt that the number one problem in America was porn, that it led people into all kinds of immoral behavior. Not race relations, not poverty, not the environment, kids getting their rocks off over something salacious and turning into polymorphous perverse. Does that not sound familiar?
Listening to Putnam among other things that ran through my mind was Robert Preston telling the folks of River City about their number one problem with that pool hall. No doubt the yokels of 1965 just ate this up.
George Putnam lived to the ripe old age of 94 dying in 2008. I can only imagine what he thought of the America he was leaving.
Perversion For Profit is at the same level as Reefer Madness. I have no doubt that this was a work personally conceived by J. Edgar Hoover. The presence of George Putnam as narrator who was a running buddy of Hoover in the same manner that Walter Winchell was gives credence to that belief. During the course of the narration Putnam makes mention of the fact that our opponents in the Cold War, the Communists are at least applauding America's descent into 'degeneracy'. Putnam used the phrase Masters Of Deceit which was a book authored under Hoover's name and the phrase was that the Communists were masters of deceit.
I've also no doubt that after seeing this film those so inclined to alternative sexual expression went racing around their towns to find if their outlets for porn were still secure or seeking to acquire new ones.
Putnam's strident narration leaves us no doubt that the number one problem in America was porn, that it led people into all kinds of immoral behavior. Not race relations, not poverty, not the environment, kids getting their rocks off over something salacious and turning into polymorphous perverse. Does that not sound familiar?
Listening to Putnam among other things that ran through my mind was Robert Preston telling the folks of River City about their number one problem with that pool hall. No doubt the yokels of 1965 just ate this up.
George Putnam lived to the ripe old age of 94 dying in 2008. I can only imagine what he thought of the America he was leaving.
Dazzlingly awful!
john-5797 August 2006
This film is just appalling. I like how he keeps whipping out totally unsubstantiated statistics and "facts" to "prove" his case and talks about perversions-this and perversions-that. Someone was ~inspired~ by a nudist magazine to rape and kill a 5-yo child? Oh, my, oh, my! It couldn't have been this guy acting out something that had happened to him, nope, it must've been the magazine. (Somehow, I think that we should burn Bibles by this criterion given the level of evil they're known to have inspired.) And HOMO-SEKS-YOU-ALLS: the horrors they inflict upon an unsuspecting world are just not to be believed!
Say, have you ever noticed how the people who are compiling reports of this stuff NEVER, EVER seem to have been affected by it despite the amount of exposure they've had? They're clearly made of sterner moral stuff than poor, degenerate so-and-sos like us. (Just ask them; they'll tell you.) Even worse, most married people are busy doing most of what he's talking about... which makes the idea of "who's perverted?" a real dubious question.
File this film with the other hysterical "This is for your own good!" stuff of its era as a historical curiosity that teaches us how to identify and ignore the same kind of highhanded idiots today.
Say, have you ever noticed how the people who are compiling reports of this stuff NEVER, EVER seem to have been affected by it despite the amount of exposure they've had? They're clearly made of sterner moral stuff than poor, degenerate so-and-sos like us. (Just ask them; they'll tell you.) Even worse, most married people are busy doing most of what he's talking about... which makes the idea of "who's perverted?" a real dubious question.
File this film with the other hysterical "This is for your own good!" stuff of its era as a historical curiosity that teaches us how to identify and ignore the same kind of highhanded idiots today.
Get Off with George Putnam
wes-connors26 April 2009
This vile pile of 1960s pollution was put out by a group calling themselves the "Citizens for Decent Literature Inc." Like other films of its type, "Perversion for Profit" sought to both frighten and titillate its audiences; today, it's either offensive or funny (depending on your mood). The film provides a generous parade of pornographic images. Narrator George Putnam (subtitled "outstanding news reporter") promises the photographs displayed will cover up offensive body parts, "for the sake of decency" - but, don't worry, he mostly means the little dark slits covering some of the models' eyes. Mr. Putnam's approach is much like that employed, presently, by "folks" like Bill O'Reilly; express shock while providing your audience with perversion, for profit.
* Perversion for Profit (1965) Charles Keating ~ George Putnam
* Perversion for Profit (1965) Charles Keating ~ George Putnam
Dangerous film filled with bold face lies
jeffn716 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Many people know of the old "educational" film Reefer Madness. It's so outdated and exaggerated that it succeeds only to incite hilarity in those who view it today. But I have just seen a film that is so full of bold face lies and hateful misinformation that it is truly tragic.
Perversion for Profit was produced in 1965, an interesting time for "Pornography" where one could purchase nudie magazines and stories of sexual encounters, but there were not yet any magazines with pictures of people actually engaging in sexual acts.
It is remarkable then that the host of this short film equates these nudie magazines with murder... And he does so several times.
He also has several extremely hateful and totally incorrect things to say about homosexuality. In fact, I'd say that more than one gay man or lesbian could very easily have been murdered after a closeted, or homophobic, or religious man saw this film.
As truly bad as this film is in every way, it's good to see it now to learn how far we have come and what type of misinformation to totally ignore if anyone should ever attempt anything like this again.
I cannot give it more than one star however, because no matter what it's historic significance, if even one gay teenager committed suicide after seeing it, or if even one man killed a man simply for being gay because of this film, then it is quite literally the "WORST" film ever made.
Perversion for Profit was produced in 1965, an interesting time for "Pornography" where one could purchase nudie magazines and stories of sexual encounters, but there were not yet any magazines with pictures of people actually engaging in sexual acts.
It is remarkable then that the host of this short film equates these nudie magazines with murder... And he does so several times.
He also has several extremely hateful and totally incorrect things to say about homosexuality. In fact, I'd say that more than one gay man or lesbian could very easily have been murdered after a closeted, or homophobic, or religious man saw this film.
As truly bad as this film is in every way, it's good to see it now to learn how far we have come and what type of misinformation to totally ignore if anyone should ever attempt anything like this again.
I cannot give it more than one star however, because no matter what it's historic significance, if even one gay teenager committed suicide after seeing it, or if even one man killed a man simply for being gay because of this film, then it is quite literally the "WORST" film ever made.
An old short that fights against porn it's message is to make all sex look bad.
blanbrn22 October 2011
Just recently saw this short documentary and true it's outdated it was interesting to see how that it's message fought all types of sex so hard! In the year it was made 1965 most in the academic community and organized agencies were fighting against people having sex for pleasure. This film expands focusing on the perverted side of it as it's title "Perversion for Profit" shows how magazines and literature of the time showcased naked women, and portrayed them in sexual manners and the film stated that many works even promoted homosexuality and it wanted women to be lesbians. Still it looked from it at a legal point even saying that these magazines and having sex will lead to criminal behavior even rape. Still one can argue free will remember anyone has a right to choose between right and wrong. And the film did not argue for freedom of expression and right of privacy. As in my view sex is causal and is okay between mature adults it's a given right to enjoy. Surely the film would not argue against "Playboy" which would become the literature champion of free expression and sexual rights for the way it mixed nude women with artistic, social, and political and cultural viewpoints as Hef changed the game! Still an interesting watch no matter how you view the sex world.
Some thing very perverse indeed.
st-shot2 July 2013
Like Custer at Little Bighorn facing charging Sioux virtuous George Putnam tries to stamp out porn before it overruns America but as you can see he failed as miserably as the colonel. Armed with high school style science project placards and an unshakable conviction Putnam's abysmal effort crashes and burns early.
It's a perversely titillating tale predicting America's undermining through the pervasive availability of the product in this day and age. The usual suspects (gays ,hot bloods and gum chewing blonds in tight skirts) are paraded out for you along with a poorly censored array of mags that I used to in my youth try and gander at at news stands.
It's all a very clumsy effort casting doubt on it's sincerity and while it is thankfully brief enough not as funny as Reefer Madness. The pits.
It's a perversely titillating tale predicting America's undermining through the pervasive availability of the product in this day and age. The usual suspects (gays ,hot bloods and gum chewing blonds in tight skirts) are paraded out for you along with a poorly censored array of mags that I used to in my youth try and gander at at news stands.
It's all a very clumsy effort casting doubt on it's sincerity and while it is thankfully brief enough not as funny as Reefer Madness. The pits.
Game, set, match
JohnSeal25 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Poor George Putnam must have been completely discouraged by the time he passed on in late 2008: his warning had gone unheeded, and the culture wars lost. Perversion for Profit is an amazing and angry screed about the dangers of sodomy, bestiality, sado-masochism, nudism and nudity, and homosexuality! homosexuality! homosexuality! Why, with the triple threat of the printing press, rapid transit, and mass distribution, the threat is all around us. And who is it that is poisoning the minds of our youth? Godless communism, of course, with a helping hand from their foot soldiers, the hook-nosed, cigar chomping money grubbers who drive this two billion dollar a year industry. George assures us that the Supreme Court and the law is on our side, and it's up to us (presumably the man of the house) to check and double check all the reading material that enters our homes to make sure it is wholesome and good. The tone of Putnam's narration suggests he already knew the game was up when he made this film, which was produced by one of the great men of the twentieth century, John McCain's pal Charles Keating Jr., who spent time in jail for fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy. But not, thank jeebus, smut peddling!
Quaint, dated and potentially useful
redryan6431 January 2016
IT WOULD BE rather easy to take the view that this now half century old privately funded 'Public Service' was truly an example of "camp" humor. That would put it into the same category that we've pigeon holed TELL YOUR CHILDREN (1936); which is far better known by its1960's re-release title of REEFER MADNESS. This would be the expedient route to take; but perhaps things are not that simple. Some perspective, historical or otherwise, would serve well in the dissecting of such a short film with such a subject matter.
WHEN WE VIEW the movie as a citizen would have in the mid 1960's America, we would have a greater chance of being made far more uncomfortable with its methods of communication. The speaker, newsman George Putnam, is presented framed in the background that was befitting a Clergyman or Great Political Orator. The very dry and somewhat preachy diatribe is lengthy and has the tendency to bore (Our own observation). This alone is quite interesting in that the subject matter that has S-E-X at the center should not be boring, no matter how much one either agrees with its premise or not.
THERE IS LITTLE evidence against the notion that such sexually oriented materials, no matter of what sort, do not belong in the hands of minor children. We'd certainly like to hear any arguments to the contrary. The young need to be shielded from many things that would be more suitable after maturity is a matter of common sense. Alcohol consumption, unrestricted hours out of home and having voting rights are examples.
BUT EVEN THOUGH the attitudes portrayed and suggested actions are "Old Fashioned" and presented in such a condescending manner, our vote must be a positive one for the over all message.
THE ATTITUDE THAT evolved concerning such practices of Homosexual behavior has been one of "Live and Let Live." The general rule of thumb throughout the USA is that sexual acts that are performed between consenting adults in private aren't unlawful. It has much to do with one's own individual freedoms and a question of the right to privacy.
BUT IN TODAY'S Politically Correct World, we are required not only to allow individuals this self determination, but we are to recognize any alternative 'orientation' as being the moral equivalence to what has been the behavioral standard ever since the time of Adam & Eve.
PERHAPS WE COULD stop laughing at Mr. Putnam long enough to derive some wisdom from the film's end message.
WHEN WE VIEW the movie as a citizen would have in the mid 1960's America, we would have a greater chance of being made far more uncomfortable with its methods of communication. The speaker, newsman George Putnam, is presented framed in the background that was befitting a Clergyman or Great Political Orator. The very dry and somewhat preachy diatribe is lengthy and has the tendency to bore (Our own observation). This alone is quite interesting in that the subject matter that has S-E-X at the center should not be boring, no matter how much one either agrees with its premise or not.
THERE IS LITTLE evidence against the notion that such sexually oriented materials, no matter of what sort, do not belong in the hands of minor children. We'd certainly like to hear any arguments to the contrary. The young need to be shielded from many things that would be more suitable after maturity is a matter of common sense. Alcohol consumption, unrestricted hours out of home and having voting rights are examples.
BUT EVEN THOUGH the attitudes portrayed and suggested actions are "Old Fashioned" and presented in such a condescending manner, our vote must be a positive one for the over all message.
THE ATTITUDE THAT evolved concerning such practices of Homosexual behavior has been one of "Live and Let Live." The general rule of thumb throughout the USA is that sexual acts that are performed between consenting adults in private aren't unlawful. It has much to do with one's own individual freedoms and a question of the right to privacy.
BUT IN TODAY'S Politically Correct World, we are required not only to allow individuals this self determination, but we are to recognize any alternative 'orientation' as being the moral equivalence to what has been the behavioral standard ever since the time of Adam & Eve.
PERHAPS WE COULD stop laughing at Mr. Putnam long enough to derive some wisdom from the film's end message.
Hilariously inaccurate
preppy-33 October 2009
This short documentary is presented by the Citizens for Decent Literature Inc. (no--I never heard of them either). It has "outstanding news reporter" George Putnam (no--I don't know him either). According to this perverted magazines (like "Playboy", "Hustler", physique mags etc etc.) are destroying the next generation of children by presenting filth to them. This docu lumps gay men and lesbians with sadists and masochists. And oh yes--this all might lead to communism!!!! Honest--that's what he says! And why are they published? Cause they make money (duh). Among the other fascinating "facts": Girly and nudist mags warp young minds into thinking being nude is OK; physique mags (get this) turns young men into homosexuals (!!!); gay men go after young children (as a gay man I can tell you this is NOT true) and the "chilling fact" that obscenity leads to depravity. SHEESH! This film is so wrong in so many different ways it boggles the mind. It's on a crusade to destroy all nudie and "sex" mags. Anybody can just drop by any newsstand today to see how successful this docu was. Very silly but kind of frightening to think that people actually thought this way back then. Good for laughs only. Just be prepared to sit there slack jawed at what you're seeing and hearing!
a bizarre little film, good for some laughs
photomac27 November 2004
After watching a few Ed Wood films, I think I can safely say that if you want a bad film that is truly hilarious, you should look for this one instead.
The narrator very sternly intones against the "flood-tide of filth" that he considers against Christian values, and carefully and methodically gives examples of this "filth," showing almost as much as you'd see if you'd bought it yourself. But it's not all pretty pictures: the narrator explains a bit about it as well: that people can get sexual satisfaction from hurting themselves or others, and that various forms of fetishism deserving thorough discussion are "threatening our children": "the extreme spiked heel and the tight boot, the burning cigarette, the laced leather garment, the nakedness," "the worship of the whip, the riding crop, rubber and leather garments."
Aside from the S&M, which didn't disturb me at all, the film does also focus on child pornography; it's hard to dismiss that.
Yet still, by the end of it, the film has given so much detail in decrying all these "perversions" that one wonders whether the protest were a bit more personal than the staunch narrator pretends. It's easy to imagine the writers stacking up more and more magazines, saying to themselves "oh, that /is/ perverted ... yet oddly intriguing... such a nice boot...."
The narrator very sternly intones against the "flood-tide of filth" that he considers against Christian values, and carefully and methodically gives examples of this "filth," showing almost as much as you'd see if you'd bought it yourself. But it's not all pretty pictures: the narrator explains a bit about it as well: that people can get sexual satisfaction from hurting themselves or others, and that various forms of fetishism deserving thorough discussion are "threatening our children": "the extreme spiked heel and the tight boot, the burning cigarette, the laced leather garment, the nakedness," "the worship of the whip, the riding crop, rubber and leather garments."
Aside from the S&M, which didn't disturb me at all, the film does also focus on child pornography; it's hard to dismiss that.
Yet still, by the end of it, the film has given so much detail in decrying all these "perversions" that one wonders whether the protest were a bit more personal than the staunch narrator pretends. It's easy to imagine the writers stacking up more and more magazines, saying to themselves "oh, that /is/ perverted ... yet oddly intriguing... such a nice boot...."
Produced by Charles Keating....who wound up in Prison!
qcloes0916 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I gave this dreadful diatribe 4 points because of the sheer stupidity of it and of course the historical time line (1960's). First of all....as an "Anti-Porn" short, I can say it didn't exactly do that. This nifty film goes on to show us more Porn photos than most people saw in the 1960's without watching it.
Hilariously, they covered the men and women's EYES, but not their body parts. So we would have seen more porn than ever. The guy even reads from a Porn novel. Really cool. He seems to be drooling through all this while attempting to be very angry.
About the Producer and those funding this project, the "Committee for Decent Literature." It was formed by the no other than CHARLES KEATING. A pet of then President Nixon, himself a bad dude, Keating had backing from the Government. Keating was a financier who wound up in Prison for Fraud, racketeering and conspiracy. His use of five senators to help cover his crimes led to their being called "The Keating Five." Through horrendous mismanagement and fraud, Keating cost the U.S. Government $3 billion when his financial empire collapsed. He also cheated very nice, "Decent" people out of their life savings.
Hilariously, they covered the men and women's EYES, but not their body parts. So we would have seen more porn than ever. The guy even reads from a Porn novel. Really cool. He seems to be drooling through all this while attempting to be very angry.
About the Producer and those funding this project, the "Committee for Decent Literature." It was formed by the no other than CHARLES KEATING. A pet of then President Nixon, himself a bad dude, Keating had backing from the Government. Keating was a financier who wound up in Prison for Fraud, racketeering and conspiracy. His use of five senators to help cover his crimes led to their being called "The Keating Five." Through horrendous mismanagement and fraud, Keating cost the U.S. Government $3 billion when his financial empire collapsed. He also cheated very nice, "Decent" people out of their life savings.
weird, ridiculous propaganda
framptonhollis21 November 2018
A plea for even further repression, 'Perversion for Profit' is an unintentionally hilarious and horrifying piece of propaganda. In the 1960's, the obsessively conformist values of the 50's were shapeshifting into a confused world forced to face with very progressive countercultural movements, and 'Perversion for Profit' is a perfect example of the hysteria some extreme conservatives must have found themselves in. The script is comically over-the-top and just plain foolish, and the delivery of George Putnam (who the credits call the "outstanding news reporter") is perfectly melodramatic. This entire short is the bizarre ramblings of a paranoid and hateful old man refusing to come to terms with natural sexual desire, and to look at the film through such a lens makes it even more fascinating. The unintentional comedy and entertainment value one can get out of this fear mongering and blatantly anti-free-speech short film makes it worth watching for those who can enjoy the campy quality of awfully unsuccessful and dated propaganda.
Everybody, Get in Line
Hitchcoc31 May 2015
This is an example of a government agency trying to determine morality for the culture. Mr. Putnam, who seems to really enjoy what he is talking about, present us with material that is much more graphic than most 1965 children would have seen. As I recall (and I was a teenager at the time), most of the magazines and publications shown here would have required a visit to a restricted magazine store. If a kid could get his hands on a Playboy, that would have been quite a coup, but the supposed pervasiveness presented here just didn't exist. The intensity of this presentation is laughable. The gloom and doom here is overwhelming. There is no evidence that the stuff he is so adamantly opposed to had anything to do with crime or STD's or an increase in "illigitimate" children. What is interesting is the little effort made to cover up the graphic displays. This film may have been considered pornographic if Mr. Putnam were to watch it.
Fascinating document of its time
Horst_In_Translation18 November 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"Perversion for Profit" is an American half-hour documentary movie and with one exception a monologue by host George Putnam about the "pornification" of society. There is no need to elaborate on these moments, in which he is painfully wrong, but occasionally he hits the nail on the head. And the title is accurate too. Sex hotlines take 4 dollars per minute and don't even get me started on porn-related internet scam. Of course, this did not exist when this was made pretty much exactly 50 years ago, but still. Perversion for profit is something that existed back then and still exists today. regardless of what you think about the contents, it's impossible to deny that this is a truly interesting document about the perception of sexuality back in the 1960s. I just wish they could have made this more interesting with 2 or 3 more sequences like the court proceedings instead of Putnam rambling from start to finish. I really wonder what he thought himself of what he said, if he truly believed it or was just playing a role. Anyway, overall, this is not a great documentary. Thumbs down.
"Sixteen of History's Nineteen Greatest Civilizations . . . "
pixrox16 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
" . . . were done in by various forms of pornography," outstanding news reporter "George S. Patton" informs viewers when Crunch Time arrives during his PERVERSION FOR PROFIT lecture. Rumors that "A-Bombs" brought Japan to Her knees to close out World War Two turn out to be as unbelievable as the later alleged "Moon Landings," PERVERSION FOR PROFIT reveals. The Japanese War Machine actually was crushed by wave after wave of American bombers dropping countless "Dirty Pictures" anywhere at least two Enemy Combatants were hunkered down. This strategy had worked already on the Italian and German Fronts (though Vietnam's rice paddies and jungles proved too soggy for the cheap paper favored by LBJ to "work their magic," despite the 81 billion gallons of Agent Orange deployed there to "dry things out"). Before aircraft were invented, mass distribution of "Attack Porn" was much more cumbersome (why else do you think that Hannibal had to resort to elephants to cross the Alps?). But the only way to make our USA Homeland great again, argues PERVERSION FOR PROFIT, is to keep "Stormy D." on the federal payroll.
Porn, it'll make you radioactive
tomdmorganti5 May 2018
Fascinating, funny and very, very unsettling
Kieran_Kenney19 January 2004
"They lack the dignity of our dutial Christian heritage." So says "outstanding news reporter" know-it-all George Putnam (pronounced 'Putt-Numb', the man can't even pronounce his own name!). He is referring to the mongers of perverse material that are covering the nation with smut and trying to corrupt our youth (let's face it, they don't have anything better to do). We sit and watch as this creepy guy narrates, talking directly to the camera (staring uncomfortably right at you) about the evils of girly magazines, nudist journals, physique pictorials "and all the rest" (as he puts it). Since soft-core pictures of women's boobies will automatically turn you into a perverted slob.
Shots of him are intersperced with barely censored illustrations from said magazines. Full page spreads from Playboy, One, Sunshine and other tepid publications are displayed, with pieces of colored tape covering objectionable areas. That is, just barely.
This movie leaved basically nothing to the imagination, in terms of whit it exhibits visually. When seen today, the film becomes something else: a fascinating look at an underground Adults Only culture. The skin magazines of the 1950's and 1960's, which were legal, were hardly as `perverse' as the harcore 16mm `blue' movies that were being made at the time. Putnam promises that `What you have been shown here is not the worst' and he'd be right, but according to him, shots of half-naked women sitting around at a pool looking bored were depraved and deranged. Of couse the major bone that the consevatives have to pick is mentioned over and over: kids can legally get this stuff. There's no drive towards a solution, though, like maybe restricting the ages, plastic wrap, etc. How typical.
Of all profiteers of perversion, it is the homosexuals who fair the worst. Putnam holds up an image of a ten-year-old boy in a g-string (not a very pretty sight if you ask me - and I'm gay), and says `See at what tender age homosexuals prefer their conquests!' And he promises us that there are also slides and movies showing tawny young men in alluring states of undress (yummy).
Also glowered upon is sado-masochism. While recent films like Secretary attempt to explain it in a positive light, most of the world is still in the dark when it comes to S/M. Can we expect a thoughtful, positive or at least somewhat enlightening view on the subject in this film. No. Mr. Putnam treats it the same way he treats everything else, by doing the verbal equivalent of stamping a great big OBSCENE on every last image he shows us.
So, it's a sad story. This film that apparently conservated a lot of peoples minds on the the subject of obscenity. Despite Putnam's claim that they aren't trying to sensationalize their presentation, it's clear that that's what they had on their minds. Yet the movie is also talky and dull. Skip to the good parts, and then never, ever watch this movie ever again.
Shots of him are intersperced with barely censored illustrations from said magazines. Full page spreads from Playboy, One, Sunshine and other tepid publications are displayed, with pieces of colored tape covering objectionable areas. That is, just barely.
This movie leaved basically nothing to the imagination, in terms of whit it exhibits visually. When seen today, the film becomes something else: a fascinating look at an underground Adults Only culture. The skin magazines of the 1950's and 1960's, which were legal, were hardly as `perverse' as the harcore 16mm `blue' movies that were being made at the time. Putnam promises that `What you have been shown here is not the worst' and he'd be right, but according to him, shots of half-naked women sitting around at a pool looking bored were depraved and deranged. Of couse the major bone that the consevatives have to pick is mentioned over and over: kids can legally get this stuff. There's no drive towards a solution, though, like maybe restricting the ages, plastic wrap, etc. How typical.
Of all profiteers of perversion, it is the homosexuals who fair the worst. Putnam holds up an image of a ten-year-old boy in a g-string (not a very pretty sight if you ask me - and I'm gay), and says `See at what tender age homosexuals prefer their conquests!' And he promises us that there are also slides and movies showing tawny young men in alluring states of undress (yummy).
Also glowered upon is sado-masochism. While recent films like Secretary attempt to explain it in a positive light, most of the world is still in the dark when it comes to S/M. Can we expect a thoughtful, positive or at least somewhat enlightening view on the subject in this film. No. Mr. Putnam treats it the same way he treats everything else, by doing the verbal equivalent of stamping a great big OBSCENE on every last image he shows us.
So, it's a sad story. This film that apparently conservated a lot of peoples minds on the the subject of obscenity. Despite Putnam's claim that they aren't trying to sensationalize their presentation, it's clear that that's what they had on their minds. Yet the movie is also talky and dull. Skip to the good parts, and then never, ever watch this movie ever again.
Brain Dead
dougdoepke10 October 2009
The first 5 minutes and I thought this must be from the McCarthyite early 1950's, when the Communist menace spread like an ink blot across the map, and every New Deal liberal had an FBI tail. But, no-- It's 1965, and thanks to a liberal Supreme Court, sexual explicitness is spreading to magazines and, horror of horrors, to neighborhood news stands. So the same folks who brought us the McCarthy purges must again swing into action against this newest assault on God, country, and the missionary position. After all, these self- appointed watchdogs are well practiced in the art of subversion—of the First Amendment, that is.
No need to repeat consensus points made by others. The logic of this 60-minute screed is indeed puerile and on the order of "If you like hamburger, you'll love cannibalism". But then, the script was never intended as an appeal to reason; it's meant to rally those already believing that any kind of sex outside monogamous marriage and man-on-top is not only wrong, but just plain evil, and a "threat to the American Way". Of course, it doesn't hurt, as the Bible well knew, to provide a little titillation along with the righteous sermon to keep all those nodding heads awake.
But these folks know what they're doing. Like fundamentalists of all stripes, they know that if you control a person's sex life, you control the person. Putnam gives away the game in the last 5-minutes, which stresses the significance of a tightly regulated sex life to our God- ordained right-wing American society. In short, Hugh Hefner is not just an evil pornographer, he's downright un-American and a threat to the family, and so much for the First Amendment and the rest of us. Thanks be to TMC for reviving this curiosity, for these forces are still among us, going by the name of Falwell, Robertson, and Roman Catholic conservatives, among others. They may have lost the 1965 battle, but the Word of God is absolute, and so, unfortunately for our democracy, are their beliefs.
(In passing—those of us living in LA and of a certain age are quite familiar with the late George Putnam. Regrettably, he anchored a local news show for many years, where he pontificated nightly in the same pompously self-righteous manner as this 1965 diatribe, that is, until the Nixon scandals, among others, undid his credibility. Perhaps most revealing, he was the inspiration for the smugly vacuous Ted Baxter newsman on the old Mary Tyler Moore TV show. You know, the silver-haired guy who was clueless to everything but his own ego. How appropriate.)
No need to repeat consensus points made by others. The logic of this 60-minute screed is indeed puerile and on the order of "If you like hamburger, you'll love cannibalism". But then, the script was never intended as an appeal to reason; it's meant to rally those already believing that any kind of sex outside monogamous marriage and man-on-top is not only wrong, but just plain evil, and a "threat to the American Way". Of course, it doesn't hurt, as the Bible well knew, to provide a little titillation along with the righteous sermon to keep all those nodding heads awake.
But these folks know what they're doing. Like fundamentalists of all stripes, they know that if you control a person's sex life, you control the person. Putnam gives away the game in the last 5-minutes, which stresses the significance of a tightly regulated sex life to our God- ordained right-wing American society. In short, Hugh Hefner is not just an evil pornographer, he's downright un-American and a threat to the family, and so much for the First Amendment and the rest of us. Thanks be to TMC for reviving this curiosity, for these forces are still among us, going by the name of Falwell, Robertson, and Roman Catholic conservatives, among others. They may have lost the 1965 battle, but the Word of God is absolute, and so, unfortunately for our democracy, are their beliefs.
(In passing—those of us living in LA and of a certain age are quite familiar with the late George Putnam. Regrettably, he anchored a local news show for many years, where he pontificated nightly in the same pompously self-righteous manner as this 1965 diatribe, that is, until the Nixon scandals, among others, undid his credibility. Perhaps most revealing, he was the inspiration for the smugly vacuous Ted Baxter newsman on the old Mary Tyler Moore TV show. You know, the silver-haired guy who was clueless to everything but his own ego. How appropriate.)
Poor George Putnam...
iamerror29 March 2004
This film features George Putnam (who is described as an "outstanding news reporter" in the credits) talking about porno magazines. He informs us about the filth that is invading our homes and corrupting our youth and turning fresh-faced youngsters into homosexual communists etc etc. While most the film is like some sort of spoken word version of Reefer Madness, the most hilarious part is when Putnam starts reading from some pulp novel about street thugs filled with old-timey lingo and everything. First, imagine a guy who would have been described as a "square" back in the day reading the following passage with a lot of emotion: "What are we alive for but to get all the kicks we can? Sex, that's a kick. Sure damn good one. A guy can never get enough of that. Drinking, that's another kick. An okay kick. Marijuana, sure. Them's good, too. If you don't let it get the upper-hand with you. Heroin, H, there was something to be said for that. I tried it, but horse isn't such a good kick because it takes more than it gives. And before long, you use it and you don't get any kick." That's just the gist of it. There's plenty more to be made fun of here. Although, some of the stuff he brings up in here looks pretty bad. One magazine appears to contain child pornography. I'm just sitting there thinking, "Um, that's not the kind of thing you write to your local congressman about. I think think that's the kind of thing you tell the police about."
Sexual McCarthyism
JasonDanielBaker14 June 2012
Presented and narrated by veteran newscaster and later right-wing pundit George Putnam (A registered Democrat FYI) and funded by fraudster/anti-porn crusader Charles Keating this production is what is often described as the "Reefer Madness of Porn". Various ludicrous postulates of the most alarmist nature are asserted as pure facts.
The censorship brigade which. by the time this was shot and cut. likely shared membership lists with the Temperance Union and other flaky outfits. The sheer panic that somebody might be getting sexual fulfillment literally anywhere probably horrified them enough to get them to watch this silliness over and over.
Even a prude (I'm one of those guys who complains to convenience store owners about porn being in full or partial view of minors) like me was disturbed by the moral arrogance and conspiracy theorist-style paranoia not merely present in the actual production but the forces behind it's conception.
The idea of it all being subversive was of course absurd in most of the examples presented. But the attitude, which at the time was so prevalent. meant that it was an underground industry which mafiosi produced for massive profit which financed other illegal enterprises. The notion that it was a gateway to depravity was only true because it had been driven underground into the clutches of organized crime.
Featured are nudist magazines which were of course just pornography masquerading as lifestyle magazines - a silly pretense employed to vend porn which fooled no one. Along with that are muscle and fitness magazines which in some cases they really were just that, but in other cases were openly gay erotica.
With it's paranoic's homophobic stance and junk science we get an idea of not only of the kind of prudery so dominant before the Sexual Revolution but the kind of virulent prejudice that now appears to have been an inseparable.
Keating, later convicted of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy used his public stance as defender of morality to hide behind. The anti-porn stance was an utterly brilliant way to win the confidence of crazy old ladies with money which they were only to happy to let him make off with in his various scams.
Keating testified before congress that he believed pornography was part of a communist conspiracy. All part of his narrative. All part of his scam.
I'm only guessing that most of the money put up for this production was spent on Putnam's services and his cachet as a news gatherer/presenter. Shot inside an office, with a map of the United States as backdrop and picture cards as props, his voice and presence are the one aspect that aren't bush league.
The censorship brigade which. by the time this was shot and cut. likely shared membership lists with the Temperance Union and other flaky outfits. The sheer panic that somebody might be getting sexual fulfillment literally anywhere probably horrified them enough to get them to watch this silliness over and over.
Even a prude (I'm one of those guys who complains to convenience store owners about porn being in full or partial view of minors) like me was disturbed by the moral arrogance and conspiracy theorist-style paranoia not merely present in the actual production but the forces behind it's conception.
The idea of it all being subversive was of course absurd in most of the examples presented. But the attitude, which at the time was so prevalent. meant that it was an underground industry which mafiosi produced for massive profit which financed other illegal enterprises. The notion that it was a gateway to depravity was only true because it had been driven underground into the clutches of organized crime.
Featured are nudist magazines which were of course just pornography masquerading as lifestyle magazines - a silly pretense employed to vend porn which fooled no one. Along with that are muscle and fitness magazines which in some cases they really were just that, but in other cases were openly gay erotica.
With it's paranoic's homophobic stance and junk science we get an idea of not only of the kind of prudery so dominant before the Sexual Revolution but the kind of virulent prejudice that now appears to have been an inseparable.
Keating, later convicted of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy used his public stance as defender of morality to hide behind. The anti-porn stance was an utterly brilliant way to win the confidence of crazy old ladies with money which they were only to happy to let him make off with in his various scams.
Keating testified before congress that he believed pornography was part of a communist conspiracy. All part of his narrative. All part of his scam.
I'm only guessing that most of the money put up for this production was spent on Putnam's services and his cachet as a news gatherer/presenter. Shot inside an office, with a map of the United States as backdrop and picture cards as props, his voice and presence are the one aspect that aren't bush league.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
