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.
"The problem with nontheistic religions is that in denying what is naturally knowable, the existence of God..."
The existance of God, or any diety, is by definition not subject to proof or disprooff. It is, being religious, a matter of FAITH, not objective proof. As a religious person, you obviously believe strongly, but you could not prove the existance of God, or the "trueness" of your particular sect of his worship, to an objective person.
This is the reason your entire argument is circular. You base the entire thing on only one sect of the Christian religion, which not all humans share or believe to be true. Since no objective proof of any religion exists, we cannot and do not base laws on their tenets.
Christianity and Catholicism are not mentioned in any of the Bill Of Rights, nor the Constitution as a whole. In fact, the entire system of representative government dates to the Greeks, pagans all.
Pornography is only "intrinsically evil" to you because you interpret the Bible (which is but ONE text, with many differing interpretations and contradictory statements and parables within) to mean it so.
This "disordered" and "unnatural" nonsense is merely your way of justifying a belief you already arrived at. As has been pointed out, "disordered" does not mean "evil".
"Evil", to most thinking people, is willingly causing harm to another, or depriving them of their rights, by force or fraud. Consensual sex might be damaging in some instances, but not in all of them, thus it is not intrinsically evil.
Since no matter what logic or reason is shown to you, you keep returning to your BELIEFS, this discussion is quite pointless.
You believe that porn is evil. Fine, don't buy, view, or otherwise involve yourself in it. But since many others, including the law, do not have this belief, you cannot make a blanket statement of fact that has no backup other than your own, religious-laced beliefs. YOUR religion does not dictate the rights of others.
It's in Msg#839.
Well, then, you're on record as declaring that anything that is "fun" is, ipso facto, not "unnatural and disordered". That ought to make for some... interesting... combinations with your other assertions.
How does it hurt?
Because it is "unnatural" and "disordered". By your own argument, you must accept this as the final word on the matter.
Well, is the person telling the truth or lying? I think that the person is lying about the Jews' whereabouts. You can believe that the person is telling the truth if you like.
As I said before, the liar is absolved of moral culpability since the lie was done under duress and was a choice of the lesser of two evils.
Bovine excrement!.
The purpose of speech, like every other human power, is to glorify God.
Let me borrow from Monty Python: "You're a loony!"
So is porn, and non-procreative sex.
It's not hard. If heretics don't know better, they should. So they are fully culpable.
The establishment of State Churches is legitimate, if not desirable.
This is from the same guy who argued later that the Founders would agree with your notion of the general welfare.
The most intense State/Church suppression of non-Christian religions occurred with the Catharists and Mohammedans.
By specifying non-Christian, you excluded the extermination of the Hussites. Very Clintonian.
That's a fair point, and a matter for prudential judgement. The prime conflicting principle is freedom of conscience.
Freedom of conscience to deny Christ, but no freedom of conscience to have sex on camera.
So is porn.
I'm afraid that you've omitted the option of refusing to speak at all (surprising, since you included it in an earlier message). This would not be evil at all, and thus undercuts the "lesser of two evils" defense.
(To anticipate an obvious attempt to weasel away, remaining silent doesn't count as an evil on the grounds of being suicidal. The person put to the question by the Nazis did not voluntarily put himself in the position where he would be killed for failing to satisfy their demands.)
You'll have to spell it out for me. Either that, or you could give me a letter...
"The problem with nontheistic religions is that in denying what is naturally knowable, the existence of God, they undercut ethics, since pantheism necessarily conflates good and evil, making a coherent ethical system impossible. The state of Indian (Hindu) society is no accident. Hinduism in practice does not promote the common good."
There is no point in debating a fanatic. Rational, reasoned thought has been supplanted by dogma.
Not really Clintonian -- Clinton at least did a competent job of writing the definitions to exclude the inconvenient. Aquinasfan hasn't even managed to successfully dodge the matter of the medieval church's anti-Semitic persecutions.
True. And you've provided the correct reason why people have rights to life and property, except that your definition of "evil" is derived from the logically prior and true definition of evil, that is, disorder. Therefore, your definition of "evil" is not the primary definition of evil, just a description of a particular kind of evil.
And therefore, what? Because the Constitution was established to promote the general welfare, the state may do anything and everything Catholic natural law theorists believe promotes the general welfare? Have you read the Constitution? It promotes the general welfare mostly by restricting the state.
I'm not familiar with their justification for the first amendment, but they didn't object to established state churches, just a national established church. Many states had established churches well into the 19th century.
Uh, no. I know Thomas Jefferson, for one, objected strongly.
You took the fact they had a law, and conclude the Founders supported it. You forget something hugely important: they weren't legislators in the Greek sense. America has never handed power to a Lycurgus or a Solon or to a college of Lycurgi and Solons to reorder our laws as seems best. The Founders were just politicians, with more than usual wisdom (as politicians go).
Didn't you tell me before that the pleasurable aspect of sex was designed for the procreation of the species?
I will leave it to others to point out the precise wording in Msg#839 in which you concede to the state the determination of which religion, if any, is the correct one, as a demonstration that your claim of ignorance is simply a dishonest attempt to evade the issue.
Sorry, I get tired of repeating myself.
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.