Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Love on a Porn Set: One Woman's Story (ABC Expose of Porn Industry)
ABC News ^ | 5/27/04

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: catholiclist; porn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 941-960961-980981-1,0001,001-1,003 next last
To: DannyTN; Aquinasfan
DannyTN wrote:

Porn causes widespread harm and a general degradation of societal values.

Do you consider porn an 'intrinsic evil', Dan?
Can our society prohibit it as such?

If you agree, you end up in the same trap about 'evil' that A-fan did, wherein he claimed we can prohibit even lying, because "lies are intrinsically evil".
He left the fray, unable to answer the question below..
Can you?

"Try to answer the question, - how can you claim that a verbal attempt to mislead a nazi search for jews is an 'intrinsically evil' lie?"

961 posted on 06/02/2004 5:24:51 PM PDT by tpaine ("The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
It is a significant factor in the breakup of families that gives rise to the welfare state.

Like most liberals, you have that exactly backwards.

What's more porn is not something that the nation generally tolerated until the late 20th century, when judicial activism began turning this country's values upside down.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Your knowledge of the history of "porn" is woefully lacking.

962 posted on 06/02/2004 5:36:38 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 950 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Unlike Porn all of those have been around since the country's inception with the exception of fast cars. And of those only drinking and smoking are harmful.

What astounding ignorance! For the record, porn predates the Constitution. For that matter, it predates the Bible.

963 posted on 06/02/2004 5:40:06 PM PDT by balrog666 (A public service post.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 954 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
We had help. At least our founding fathers thought so.

Any divine help isn't germane to the discussion. What is germane is that this is not a government ordained by God (a classic recipe for tyranny), but given its power by the people.

964 posted on 06/02/2004 6:51:56 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 935 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
That follows logically if there is an established Church.

That makes no sense. It follows if heretics have some exposure to the Bible, which they do.

But as I said before, this has to be balanced against freedom of conscience, which is a natural right.

And here I thought you were of the opinion that there is no right to use your free will to choose evil. To hear the Gospel and reject it is evil, but if a right to freedom of conscience means anything, it means the right to reject the Gospel and reject Christ.

Good point. The founders didn't want a nationally established church, but they had no problem with established state churches.

As I pointed out (and as you feebly attempted to rebut; more on this in my next reply), this is simply false.

Otherwise, I think they would have agreed with my notion of the common good.

Obviously not. Your notion of the common good is incompatible with any form of limited government and rejects liberty -- except, apparently, the liberty to reject Christ.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the Hussites.

Catholics killed the large majority of the Czech population after the Battle of White Mountain.

Faith in Christ is a gift of grace.

Embracing the "errors" of Luther, are you? Excellent!

Some who deny explicit faith in Christ do so out of ignorance.

And they still go to Hell. And not some painless limbo either.

965 posted on 06/02/2004 7:11:03 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 910 | View Replies]

To: Modernman; inflation; tpaine; cyborg; All
Whilst we're flapping our jaws on this seemingly-unstoppable thread, can I just say that I absolutely HATE this habit we seem to have of calling just about everything a "war"? It is patently ridiculous.

There is not, and never has been, a "war" (in America) on drugs, porn, illiteracy, poverty or even crime.

- In a war, BOTH sides shoot at each other with the intent of killing. Are pornographers shooting at cops? Are cops shooting pornographers?;
- BOTH sides try to engineer the complete, total defeat of each other. In none of the so-called "wars" listed above is this the case.;
- In wars, you use B-52's, AC-130's, Marines, ships, tanks, and lots of ammo. You don't use, as a general rule, cops and lawyers;
- In war, you invade nations, kill their leaders, and take territory. Have we done that to Columbia or Peru yet? How about LA, where most porn is made?
- In a war, lots and lots of brave young men give their lives defending and serving their nations.

I'm sorry for ranting, but having now been involved in two real wars in my life, the misuse of the word just plain irks me.

I've even done some time down in South America on counter-drug operations. Let me be the first to tell you, no war is going on there, at least not against any drug lords.

966 posted on 06/02/2004 7:21:43 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 949 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
"Well, it bothers me, that some people think Christians are complete prudes"

Danny, I gotta tell ya, Brother, there are some Christians (not ALL) who most certainly are, and are quite proud of the fact. True, they give the rest a bad name.

I've been told some pretty wierd things by some of them. Hell, one guy once told me that if I was having sex with my wife using birth control, I was "treating her like a whore" Fortunately for him, it was online. I tend to get irritated when the word "whore" is used in the same sentence with "your wife". Where I grew up, you do not do that.

967 posted on 06/02/2004 7:32:11 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 958 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
This isn't a flame, just an opinion, so don't take it personal.

What you posted reminds me of one of the reasons I tend to get suspicious of Bible quotations. I've seen people use them a lot on FR to justify positions.

Thing is, you can find something in there to justify almost ANYTHING if you look hard enough and "cut-and-paste" with skill.

Going "line vs. line" against someone else rarely resolves anything, at least as far as I've seen. Also, too many people seem to twist and contort it to ends which, in the big picture, go against much of what it says.

968 posted on 06/02/2004 7:39:24 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 956 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
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?

Yes...

Fascinating. So the whole TEXT of the Constitution matters nothing. The government evidently should take it upon itself to attempt to fulfill the purposes of the text (which necessarily involves violating the explicit commands of the text), and then fill in a new content for those purposes, consisting of Catholic nature law theory, to replace the Constitution's own content.

Have you read the Constitution? It promotes the general welfare mostly by restricting the state.

True. That doesn't obviate the principle.

Of course it does. Are you stupid? The fact that the word general appears before the word welfare in the Preamble does not mean the government must do as Catholic natural law theory dictates. It means, if you bother to read the whole sentence, that the Constitution is intended to promote the general welfare. It does this by its PROVISIONS, not by some woozy abstractions for everyone to read their own ideas into.

Uh, no. I know Thomas Jefferson, for one, objected strongly.

So? The fact is that many states had established churches well into the 19th century.

So you're wrong. You say the Founding Fathers didn't object. Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father, and he objected. That's it. There's nothing to be said in defense of your claim. You can modify it to a claim that a majority of their contemporaries didn't object, but 1) that's irrelevant, and 2) we have no way of knowing how everyone other than property-owning white males would have voted.

969 posted on 06/02/2004 7:45:11 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 917 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Going "line vs. line" against someone else rarely resolves anything, at least as far as I've seen.

True enough, if you let the discussion bog down on petty detail.

Arguing opinions on how to interpret reality is futile.
- Try to establish a common reality, -- [IE, there is a 'War on Drugs'] -- pin your opponent down as to exactly why he promotes that reality; -- and then argue the errors of his philosophy.

Works every time, if you have the patience. They scuttle away.

Of course, most return the next day, with a massive memory loss, and want to rehash the whole issue.

970 posted on 06/02/2004 8:03:36 PM PDT by tpaine ("The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 968 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I never refer to the "war" on drugs without at least using quotation marks. It is NOT a war. It might be called a "police action", however, with far more accuracy than the common usage of the term.

If it were in fact a war, we would have blockaded drug-producing countries, incinerated the fields with bombs, invaded them, and removed their leaders. Then, we would've killed the drug lords.

We also probably would have arrested drug importers here as "enemy combatants" or somesuch.

The fact is, the term "war" means something, and it is something far different than what we are doing regarding drugs.

Like I said, I spent some time in Central and South America doing drug-ops. Not only did we never fly with any weapons, not even pistols, there were none even in theater.

I also participated in ENDURING FREEDOM. Guess which one they gave out medals for? Hint...it had nothing to do with drugs.

971 posted on 06/02/2004 8:14:40 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 970 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"- Try to establish a common reality, -- [IE, there is a 'War on Drugs'] -- pin your opponent down as to exactly why he promotes that reality; -- and then argue the errors of his philosophy."

That only works well when someone is willing to acknowledge the errors, once pointed out. As we have seen here, there are fanatics who are SO convinced of their correctness, no amount of reason, logic, or facts can shake them.

972 posted on 06/02/2004 8:18:01 PM PDT by Long Cut (Certainty of Death, small chance of Success...What are we waiting for?...Gimli the Dwarf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 970 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut

Yep. -- And at that point, you have no option other than to dismiss them.

That REALLY gets them to display their irrationality.


973 posted on 06/02/2004 8:30:33 PM PDT by tpaine ("The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 972 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
It means, if you bother to read the whole sentence, that the Constitution is intended to promote the general welfare. It does this by its PROVISIONS, not by some woozy abstractions for everyone to read their own ideas into.

The fact that this has to be explained on this forum staggers the imagination.

974 posted on 06/03/2004 5:43:37 AM PDT by steve-b (Panties & Leashes Would Look Good On Spammers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 969 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Hell, one guy once told me that if I was having sex with my wife using birth control, I was "treating her like a whore"

That's the beauty of the internet for some cowardly people: You can say whatever you want without worrying about real-life consequences. People feel free to act like jerks since they know there's no chance they'll get popped upside the head.

975 posted on 06/03/2004 5:59:22 AM PDT by Modernman (Work is the curse of the drinking classes. -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 967 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Do you consider porn an 'intrinsic evil', Dan?

No. Not necessarily. See my Post 449. Looking at the definition of porn, "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. ", I would have to say that there is a case for certain of these materials, from an informative, medical and therapeutic nature.

That said, the majority of porn falls under the sinful conditions listed in post 449, where you are encouraged to lust after others, instead of your own wife.

"Can our society prohibit it as such?"

Certainly we can prohibit it. It's simply a matter of defining what we want to allow and what we don't. We already do that with child pornography. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on what adult material can be displayed in public or in bars, etc.

What has changed over time is that in the 1960's, certain publishers began a successful court battle to change the definition of porn and get their works retitled from obscene to art.

"Try to answer the question, - how can you claim that a verbal attempt to mislead a nazi search for jews is an 'intrinsically evil' lie?"

I would not claim that a lie in that case is evil.

976 posted on 06/03/2004 7:32:36 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 961 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
"What astounding ignorance! For the record, porn predates the Constitution. For that matter, it predates the Bible."

Murder, Homosexuality, Prostitution, Theft all predate the Bible too. Doesn't make them right.

However, the nature and prevalence of porn has certainly changed over the years, particularly since 1960. Prior to that most porn was either written word or hand drawn illustrations. The following link describes the search by a doctoral student for porn in colonial America. It is instructive on what was available.

Colonial American porn

977 posted on 06/03/2004 7:43:18 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 963 | View Replies]

To: Long Cut
Thing is, you can find something in there to justify almost ANYTHING if you look hard enough and "cut-and-paste" with skill. Going "line vs. line" against someone else rarely resolves anything, at least as far as I've seen. Also, too many people seem to twist and contort it to ends which, in the big picture, go against much of what it says.

I agree if you "cut and paste" with skill you can justify almost anything. I dissagree that going line vs line with others rarely resolves anything. The key to resolving different interpretations is usually to step back and view the big picture. The lines can always be reconciled when you do that.

But there is a fatalism about your post that I really don't like. It seems to say that we should give up discussing the Bible, because we will never agree. Or that the proper interpretation can't be determined through careful study.

Too the contrary, I think the Bible is our main guidebook, and we should be able to discuss it, and examine what it says or doesn't say about oral sex or anything else.

978 posted on 06/03/2004 7:49:28 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 968 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Porn causes widespread harm and a general degradation of societal values.

Do you consider porn an 'intrinsic evil', Dan?
Can our society prohibit it as such? If you agree, you end up in the same trap about 'evil' that A-fan did, wherein he claimed we can prohibit even lying, because "lies are intrinsically evil".

Certainly we can prohibit it. It's simply a matter of defining what we want to allow and what we don't.

Majority rules? Whatever the majority defines as 'evil' we can prohibit? Does that principle also apply to guns, Dan?

We already do that with child pornography. Many jurisdictions have restrictions on what adult material can be displayed in public or in bars, etc.

Yep, reasonable regulations are just fine. Everyone can agree on that. But prohibitions?

What has changed over time is that in the 1960's, certain publishers began a successful court battle to change the definition of porn and get their works retitled from obscene to art.

Yep, - far to many state & local 'lawmakers' were abusing their power to reasonably regulate. Not much has changed, imo.

"Try to answer the question, - how can you claim that a verbal attempt to mislead a nazi search for jews is an 'intrinsically evil' lie?"

I would not claim that a lie in that case is evil.

But you still claim such an effort to prevent an evil act is a 'lie'?
- Is there an intent to defraud involved? Are you obligated to cooperate with an evil government act?

979 posted on 06/03/2004 8:18:26 AM PDT by tpaine ("The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being." -- Solzhenitsyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 976 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
The fact that this has to be explained on this forum staggers the imagination.

Sadly, I'm not sure that's true.

980 posted on 06/03/2004 8:41:45 AM PDT by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 974 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 941-960961-980981-1,0001,001-1,003 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson