Posted on 05/28/2004 5:25:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
A Mormon Girl Gets Her Start in the Adult Movie Business
Jan. 23 — When 20-year-old Michelle saw the handsome Spaniard who would later become her fiancé, she thought it was love at first sight.
[WARNING: This article contains descriptions of sexual acts that some readers may find offensive.]
"The day we met, he said, 'You're going to be the mother of my children. I love you,'" she remembers. "You know what I mean? I never had that before. I never had a guy be so in love with me."
The couple met on the set of a porn film in a rented house in Prague in July 2001.
Michelle, the daughter of a retired Air Force captain and former bishop in the Mormon Church, was an up-and-coming starlet in the adult video world. She had had some setbacks in her first year in the business, but believed her career was turning around with the Prague trip, which would be her first starring role. Her co-star, 28-year-old Nacho Vidal, was already a well-established star.
The director had told Michelle that Vidal liked her work, and when the pair saw each other they immediately fell into each other's arms, kissing from one side of the house to the other.
"There's nothing bad about you," she told him admiringly as they prepared for the shoot. "You don't know me very well" he replied with a grin.
But when the director finally got the pair to settle down to the business at hand — filming a sex scene — the tone changed. Without any prompting, Vidal got rough during the sex, slapping Michelle's face violently from side to side, and choking her. [Pleased to meet you/Hope you guessed my name]
Afterward, she looked shaken, her face reddened and her eyes watery. But she insisted she was OK. "I look torn up — can you tell?," she asked an ABCNEWS producer who was following her progress for Primetime. Laughing and wiping her eye, she turned away and said without conviction, "I took a beating today, and it was great."
'Belladonna' Is Born
Michelle had gotten her start in the business at 18, when she came to Los Angeles from her home in Utah to look for work as a nude photograph model. When she failed to get modeling work, her agent encouraged her to try porn. She refused at first. "I always hated porn. I thought it was the most disgusting thing in the world," she told Primetime, which followed her career for more than two years.
But she finally agreed. Taking the name Belladonna, like the poisonous flower, she found herself preparing for what she thought would be a simple boy-girl sex scene. She was shocked when the director told her he wanted her to do anal sex — something she says she had never even thought about before. Worried she'd have to go through with it if she wanted to work again, she let him talk her into it. "I was kind of scared. I didn't know if I could say no," she remembers. "I didn't know any better, you know?"
After the session, she was shattered. "I wasn't ready for anal sex.... It was painful. But I can hide it really well." She had just turned 18, the legal age for participation in sexually explicit films.
Michelle went on more shoots over the next few months. Then her agent sent her on a job where she would have sex with male actors in prison outfits — 12 of them. Once again, she tried to back out, telling the director it was "sick," but once again she was talked into it. She had sex — all kinds — with the 12 men. "It was really hard because I really felt like a piece of meat ... in a lion's cage, 12 lions.... I had to do a lot of things I can't imagine anyone wanting to do." She was paid $4,000.
Afterward, she says, she couldn't stop crying. She packed her bags and went home to her family in Utah.
Glimpse of the Big Time
But within a year, she was back, even agreeing to promote the prison movie that had so upset her.
She began to feel that her career was picking up. She got a small part in a movie for VCA, one of the "high end" companies that produce big-budget films, and hoped it might lead to a contract. On the shoot, she met porn legend Ron Jeremy, who was making a cameo, and began to feel like she was fitting in. "The first second I walk in, this girl grabs my breast, and I'm like, Wow, you know, that's like the best welcome ... 'cause then you feel like, Oh, someone likes me, you know?"
Another company considered giving her a contract, but at a meeting, the owner, veteran porn star Ona Zee, sensed that Michelle was not emotionally ready to become an adult star. "There's a part of me that wants to say to you, 'Run for the hills, girl, do something else, because you can be something better,'" she told her.
At the high-end companies — which produce a small proportion of the thousands of adult titles released each year — performers often have contracts and can make six figures by shooting just eight to 10 movies a year. They can pick their own partners and condoms are generally required. Shot on film with elaborate, sets, costumes and plots, the movies can have budgets up to $250,000.
But Michelle did not get a studio contract, and ended up taking a job with a company known for "gonzo" porn — sex-only, amateur-looking productions shot on video. The company, Elegant Angel, was making a film in Prague and offered her a starring role, which she hoped would show the big studios that she could carry a film.
Love Blossoms in Prague
She was thrilled at the attention Vidal gave her during the week in Prague — but wary. "It's weird to have a guy love you that much. That almost scares me because I have a hard time trusting men," she told Primetime, explaining that her first boyfriend cheated on her repeatedly and ultimately left her for a stripper. Privately, Vidal had told Primetime he could never be with just one woman, and would be happy if Michelle's attraction did not lead anywhere.
She came back to Los Angeles by herself, so sore from the week's filming that she says she could hardly walk. But then she flew to Spain to visit Vidal, and their relationship seemed to be going places. She said he could keep having sex with other women, as long as he agreed to be "honest to me, loyal, and just respect me and tell me that I'm number one every day."
She even began hearing wedding bells, telling Primetime, "The second I get married, I won't having sex with men in this business any more."
Wedding Bells
By December 2001, Michelle and Vidal were engaged. As she proudly showed off her diamond ring, saying how pretty it was, Vidal joked in his Spanish accent, "I need to f—k so many girls for that ring."
The couple was in love, Michelle says, but they were fighting regularly. Vidal would sometimes get what he calls "Latino jealous" when he saw her talking to other men at clubs. Michelle told Primetime, "It's hard to be in a relationship with someone in porn."
By now, she was working steadily, even shooting for the same company she shot the prison gangbang for. "I guess now I've gotten past the whole feeling-bad-about-it thing. I'm like, 'OK, I did it and that was pretty damn rough of me' ... Like wow, you know?," she said with a laugh. "I can say that I've done pretty much everything there is to do, and I can walk away feeling a little proud about it, you know?"
The Primetime producers who had been following her noticed changes. At 18, she had said she would never use drugs, but now Primetime learned that she was sometimes high on marijuana during her scenes. She was working without condoms, though she said the risk of AIDS was never far from her mind — or her prayers. "The fans don't like to see condoms ... If I would have said I want to use condoms every time, I really wouldn't get any work," she explained. She contracted chlamydia, which can make you sterile.
And anal sex — which she had be talked into during her first shoot — was now her specialty. "Funny, isn't it? Something I didn't want to do and now I'm known best for it," she told Primetime. No longer a fresh face in the business, she found she had to agree to even riskier sex acts to earn the same money.
Ona Zee, the producer who had interviewed Michelle the previous year, noticed a difference, too. "I said to my husband, Our baby is all grown up and left home. She's no longer the adorable fresh-faced girl that I met ... Now she's really in the life ... Even in the pictures that I see of her, she's much harder, much tougher."
Behind the Smile
During interviews with Primetime, Michelle kept the happy smile she had always had — even when describing things that many people would find disturbing. However, her composure cracked when Diane Sawyer asked why she always smiled. Tears came to her eyes as she said, "Because I like to hide — hide everything, you know?" Then she began to cry, explaining that she hides her real emotions because she wants to show everyone how happy she is. "And I'm not happy ... I don't like myself at all," she said.
Michelle confessed she often felt physical revulsion during her scenes: "My whole entire body feels it when I'm doing it and ... I feel so — so gross." While pretending to be enjoying the sex, she said, she was in fact counting the minutes, telling herself, "Hey, I only have this much time left. Don't worry about it. Get the check. Gonna go deposit it in your bank." She admitted: "You get addicted to the money."
Like other performers Primetime spoke to, Michelle said that during shooting she often imagines herself outside her body. "I call it the 'other half,'" she said.
Bringing Home a Trophy
In January 2002, Michelle's Prague movie won an award at the Adult Video News awards in Las Vegas, considered the Oscars of the adult industry. Things were not going smoothly with Vidal that day — he complained that Michelle "don't do the ironing my clothes... I still 28 and I need my mother," and at the ceremony he openly checked out other women — but there were crowds of admiring fans for Michelle and she soaked up the attention.
After going on stage to pick the trophy, she was beaming, telling Primetime she had worked hard for it. "I think this is the very beginning of my career, like I've just begun," she said.
And at the 2003 AVN awards two weeks ago, Michelle was an even bigger winner, taking home awards for best supporting actress and three other categories.
Do they bear some responsibility? Yes. But men who recruit them are older and far more culpable. They are also aware these young girls are being destroyed before their very eyes and they could care less.
Amen we are on the same page there. Our Country was founded on Judeo Christian values and symbols. One of the values impressed on the document was the state was not to press one specific religion or views on the people. People here would do that. That is NOT in the Constitution just like the ACLU's view of separation of God and government is not in there.
You really need to read the writings of the Founding Fathers many of whom were Christians or at the very least Deists. They feared what you are advocating. You freely admit you would abuse the Constitution one way the ACLU would do it another way. Neither fosters the freedom our forefathers created. If I had to choose between the two I really don't know which I would choose.
If you think this is the kind of liberty our forefathers were considering when they crafted the constitution your insane. Read about their discussions. They believed in a restrained liberty.
And if you don't at least speak out against it, you will account for it when you meet your maker. I don't even want to consider what is in store for those who defend it.
What about all the women that run their own porn websites? Are they abusing themselves?
Porn is as nasty as it looks.
This small "l" libertarian has no problem with this approach, or any approach that does not use the force of government. To give another example, I don't believe in anti-discrimination laws, but you better believe I'd protest against and boycott any company that didn't hire someone solely because of the color of their skin.
If someone doesn't want to criminalize something, it does not mean they support it or are indifferent on the matter.
The fact is, you're right...too many 18-year olds are really not mature enough to handle the trust socierty, through the law, places upon them at that age. At one time, not long ago, many people were married and working fulltime jobs supporting their families at age 18. It was expected that men and women would, by that age, comport themselves as adults, in both word and deed. With the increased standard of living which began in the 1950's, young adults were "coddled" all the way to age 18. Then, college, once a luxury available to only a few, became widely utilized, eventually driving out the equally-honorable practice of learning a trade, which often began at that age. College also had the effect of "extending" the years at which an individual could "get away" with behavior that would be considered wildly immature by their parents. Freed thus from most "adult" responsibilities, modern kids DO seem more childlike at that age than in previous times.
The discussion we seem to be geting at is what the law refers to as "the age of emancipation" or "the age of majority", when a person is no longer considered a minor child, and no longer subject to the parents' wishes. Unfortunately, even that (which should be a clear distinction) is too often blurred.
As has been pointed out, at 18, a person can enter into contracts, vote, join the military, and can be held criminally liable as an adult for transgressions of ALL laws.
BUT, they cannot drink alcohol, or own handguns or (in some states) ANY firearm. Ironic when you consider the hundreds of thousands of 18 year olds currently carrying, and using, everything from M-16s to high explosive ordinance (and it is absolutely beyond comprehension that a person so employed could return home and not be able to purchase a legal civilian version of a weapon which he has carried and used for years).
The kids notice this well. I was a Navy Instructor for 3 years, and most of my students fell within this "neither fish nor foul" age group. Universally, they hated that distinction, and wondered why they were considered "adults" for SOME things, but not others. It led them to question the whole thing, and of course to rebel against it at any opportunity.
My feeling is that there should be ONE "age of majority" for all things...say. The logical choice is 18, as that is and will remain the age at which a person can volunteer (or be drafted) for military service. It disturbs me that I can go into a combat situation with someone backing me up, but afterwards cannot share a drink with them. If someone is "mature" enough to handle the awesome responsibilities of warfare, million-dollar weapons systems, and killing for his country, he is able to handle more mundane things at home without being considered a second-class citizen.
If his vote is valuable enough at 18, so is his ability to exercise his Second Amendment rights. Simply put, we cannot keep treating 18-21 year olds as adults for some things and children for others. You do NOT get the best of both worlds that way.
The key is, as always, responsibility, including that for one's own failures. Adult behavior should be expected, not hoped for, and the consequences for making bad choices rest with the individual making them. If a woman at 18 decides to go into the porn business, she must bear the results of that choice. It's called "trial by fire", and it has worked for much of history. We only THINK it doesn't because 1. we are conditioned to think and react to 18 year olds as children or "teenagers" (a concept which only dates to the '50s, BTW); and 2. we therefore cannot stop ourselves from "coddling" them. Perhaps we should; they might grow up wiser if they knew that the safety net was all gone at 18.
That's insane on its face. They are of the age of majority, they recieve compensation, and consent to the sex. That is in no way "rape".
Consistent so far.
Failing to adore the Eucharist can be a sin of omission, and is not an intrinsic evil.
You reversed what I said. "Failing" to adore the eucharist is morally obligatory. The practice of the adoration is intrinsically evil. If I agreed that the state should punish anything intrinsically evil, I would have to attempt to have your religion prohibitted. Otherwise, aren't I failing you? I know you Catholics sin horribly as a by-product of confused theology, so why not protect you by putting you in jail or fining you?
Promoting Judaism or Islam is not intrinsically evil because most of the adherents to these religions are serving the truth to the best of their abilities.
This is bizarre. Porking on camera is more evil than denying Christ? How? They say that Christ was merely a prophet or merely a travelling rabbi who liked to tell little stories: how in the world isn't that evil? And you say it's not intrinsically evil to promote Christ-denying false religions!
Pornography and abortion are examples of intrinsic evils because they are evil in every circumstance.
If "not knowing better" makes it okay to deny Christ, why doesn't it make it okay to sell smutty videos?
Follow the link I posted 'banzo and try reading before shooting off at the mouth.
I suppose if someone offered to give a man's family a million dollars if he agreed to allow them to kill him, it wouldn't be murder, right?
Of course it is. The woman is an adult, and gives consent, and is even compensated. No one is deprived of life, liberty, or property by force or fraud.
You may feel that her choice is bad, or that those she chooses to work with are, but that is not relevant.
" it is standing up to evil for the protection of our daughters."
Ah, yes, "It's for the CHILDREN!". Except, they're not. Do you agree with the Brady Bunch that an 18-year old gang menmber killed in a shootout counts as a "child", too? Oh, I forgot, he's not one of "our (precious, virginal) DAUGHTERS!
"If you think this is the kind of liberty our forefathers were considering when they crafted the constitution your insane. Read about their discussions. They believed in a restrained liberty."
Would that their discussions constituted law. Unfortunately (and in the case of the Second Amendment, especially) they do not. The Constitution does, and I see no problem with interpreting it to INCREASE, rather than decrease, individual Liberty. It has been interpreted that way, by those charged with so doing. Don't like it? Pass an Amendment, or get judges confirmed who will overturn. But don't assume that everyone on the planet shares your view of porn as "evil".
"And if you don't at least speak out against it, you will account for it when you meet your maker. I don't even want to consider what is in store for those who defend it."
I'll decide for myself what to speak out for or against, thanks.
And BTW, the video of Michelle with the 12 prison guards, was insane on its face. If you found insanity in my comments, why can't you see the insanity in the video, and in a society that would permit it?
"I suppose if someone offered to give a man's family a million dollars if he agreed to allow them to kill him, it wouldn't be murder, right?"
That straw man has been beaten to death here. Go back and read the posts.
Many mainstream movies as well as porn have depicted rape onscreen. Did you think they were all real, too?
In fact, a movie out of France last year caused quite a stir...it was called Base Moi, which is unprintable in English. The director (a female, who also starred) had a scene in it of herself being raped, with full penetration depicted. Watching it could scare the socks off of anyone, and made me physically sick. However, it STILL wasn't really rape. However, it would surely show you the difference.
"In reality, there is no ligitimate age of consent for intrinsic evils like pornography and abortion."
Uh, yes there is, in most states it's 18.
I found you comment "insane" in that you said "paid to be raped", which is a funny concept to say the least...rape, by definition, has no consent. Therefore, it certainly involves no payment. You allowed your disgust and emotions to overwhelm your logic.
And if those that do not believe in God are elected and in power that they should have the right to prohibit people from from joining a Church because, according to them, that is an intrinsic evil?
What about guns?
What about webboards (like FR)?
What about drinking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.