Chances are you’ve never heard of Reuben Sturman but for a time he was one of the richest, most powerful men in America. What Rockefeller was to oil, Sturman was to porno magazines and erotic novels. What Carnegie was to the steel industry, Sturman was to snuff films and peeping shows. By the time he was busted for tax evasion in the 1980s, Reuben Sturman had a virtual monopoly on the porn industry both in American and in Europe and was pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
In fact, Sturman’s incarceration is one of the reasons that porn is as prevalent as it is; arresting Reuben Sturman had the same effect that trust-busting has on more recognizable monopolies. Profit margins went down and tens of thousands of people entered the business without having to give a portion of their proceeds to anyone else. The United States Government, in all its infinite wisdom, is partially to thank for what Eric Schlosser termed the “democratization of porn.”
This summer I finished the book Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market by Schlosser, who also wrote the higher profile Fast Food Nation. Reefer Madness traces the history and modern forms of the three biggest “illegitimate” forms of business in America: marijuana, illegal immigrants and their effect on the labor market, and the porn industry. FYI, I highly recommend this study. I found it to be a compelling and engaging mix of anecdotes and interviews, economics, and history.
The story of Reuben Sturman is the story of the rise of the porn industry as we know it today. Before Sturman, porn was considered much more taboo than it is today. Indeed, although sex was still used to sell products, the vivid and often shocking visual display we see in today’s advertisements, music videos, and mainstream movies would have been absolutely shocking fifty or even thirty years ago. Porn was in the same category that we put marijuana today: something immoral and in many cases, illegal.
Indeed, while I’m not going write much about the subject, I encourage you to Google Comstock Laws. I will throw down a brief explanation here to give you an idea of how much society’s perception about pornographic material has changed over time. “The Comstock Act (1873) is a United States federal law that made it illegal to send any ‘obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious’ materials through the mail… The Comstock Act not only targeted pornography as such, but also all contraceptive equipment and many educational documents such as descriptions of contraceptive methods and other reproductive health-related materials. The ban on contraceptives was declared unconstitutional by the courts in 1936.” The list of authors whose works were heavily censored or banned under this law includes: Honore de Balzac, Victor Hugo, Oscar Wilde, Ernst Hemingway, Eugene O’ Neil, James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, and F. Scott Fitzgerald.
But let’s return to Mr. Sturman. Sturman started his future billion-dollar industry selling comic books out of the back of his car. However, due to his charisma and incredible drive, “by the late 1950’s his business had swelled to a major wholesale magazine company with affiliates in several American cities.”
Now, during this time in America’s history, sex was still very taboo. However, like Victorian England, America’s underground sex culture was shockingly vibrant. Our perception of 1950s America is dominated by I Love Lucy and other black and white (both literally and figuratively) shows which totally ignored the naughty streak that occurred behind closed doors. Apparently the drive-in movie industry often showed pornographic material to a receptive audience. Strangely this community experience was overlooked by the government and many prominent politicians could also be seen attending these events. Really bizarre!
This was also during the height of the “sex novel” which sold like hotcakes underneath counters and in the backs of bookstores all over the country. These books also had much higher profit margins than comic books, a fact that did not go unnoticed by Reuben Sturman.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Jake // Apr 14, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Reuben Sturman was definitely a protector of free speech. Unfortunately for his family, however, the IRS took everything he had. I respect Reuben Sturman, and I wish I could have met him when he was still around.
2 Eddie Monahan // Jun 24, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Reuben was the last “Robber Baron” of the 20th Century.
I’m in the “porn-biz” (chain of retail stores) myself and his name is still spoken of almost everyday.
His vision, business model, and courage should be considered scripture to us all.
I have also written a screenplay titled, PEEPSHOW, which is about the life and times of the early pornographers. (1968-1997).
Guess who the main character is?
3 Ben // Jul 3, 2008 at 2:22 am
Thank you so much for the comment, Eddie. That’s really interesting. When you say, “his name is still spoken,” what do you mean? I’d be interested to hear more about the context in which he is discussed. I’m also curious about your screenplay. How long have you been working on it, and have you tried submitting it anywhere? I don’t know if you’ll ever look back here again, but if you see this response please feel free to comment again with follow-up.
4 SAMMY KAY // Jul 12, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I WAS A FFRIEND OF REUBENS AND WAS THE LAST PERSON TO SEE HIM IN JAIL
IN PERSON BEFORE HIS DEATH. THEY SHOULD MAKE A MOVIE ABOUT HIS LIFE
5 Eddie Monahan // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Jake, feel free to email me at ekmonahan@gmail.com
6 patricia // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Reuben was one of my father’s clients (I was raised in Cleveland, where Reuben ran his “empire”) and he used to come home at night and tell amazing stories about Reuben’s house and the way he lived. He spent hundreds of thousands of dollars each year (this was a fortune in the 70’s) retaining lawyers to protect his first amendment rights. We should be thankful to him for that and, as a writer and an artist, I am. The New Yorker did a great story several years back about Reuben and it was the first time I made the conection that this was the same Reuben Sturman I had grown up hearing about. I then started to put the pieces of the puzzle back together and realized that my best friend’s aunt ran his household and a friend of my mother’s was his personal secretary. Reuben gave my brother a fainting couch from his home for my brother’s first apartment, which is now mine. I am sitting on it as I write this comment. How cool is that………..?
7 Zippy // Oct 24, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Growing up in the same general area where Rueben lived, I had occasion to meet affiliates and associates. People who knew him always spoke highly of him and I know he contributed large sums of money to local charities while doing his best to keep a low profile.
In the 80’s Reuben appeared in federal court in Cleveland wearing a smile and a Groucho Marx disguise. From that day he became my hero for life:-)
Looking back on it today he must have had tremendous drive to accomplish this things he did
8 Cody // Jan 22, 2009 at 7:11 pm
You people all need to do some more research into the life of Reuben and then you will realize that he is no more than a smart ruthless criminal. You speak of protection of 1st amendment right, where in there did the founding fathers intend for that to cover some of the obscene material and activities that Reuben partook in and profitted from? He was a ruthless man who had ties with many crime organizations, and who is responsible for the lives of many innocent people. Shame on all of you for building him up as someone to look up to.
9 Cody..c'mon dude? // Feb 8, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Hey Cody,
What year are you in? How old are you? Seriously? Did Reuben Sturman do something to you directly? FYI - Pornography, to a certain degree is legal…period! Are you a church goer/Bush voter? That’s the ruthless man that profits from criminal organizations you shouyld write about. Grow up son.
10 Greg. // Jul 24, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I do not condemn Ruben Sturman as he was a supplier to the consumers. I have been a consumer myself. The debate on pornography is huge but there is one overwhelming fact and that is there is much destruction arising from it both physically and mentally and emotionally.
Motorcars can be an instrument in death and destruction but should we ban them. But people will say that it is how the car is handled by the individual. Same argument goes for alcohol, guns, food, drugs and so on. And indeed the same arguments are used in the defense of pornography.
But I find personally it is disingenious to use the same denses for pornography as in the case of other things consumed by the public. I heard a story recently about a man who viewed pornography on the net and didnt see the seriousness of it or rather downplayed it untill one day he saw a picture of his own daughter amongst the porn. Suffice to say he wept.
For another side to the debate maybe visit: christiansagainstpornography.com/ - Cached - Similar
Be blessed,
Greg.
11 steven pinkus // Sep 8, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Well lets see anybody ever hear of william pinkus. He was the porn king. Pinkus vs United states. My father and ruben where good friends. I remember his house in studio city off of fryman canyon.
12 Ron Miller // Jun 4, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Hello Steven…Your dad and my dad Marvin Miller did a lot of business together. I met you father back in the 70’s. By the way did you ever hear of “Miller vs. California?
Leave a Comment