A STORY OF DENIAL OF TRAFFICKING/PIMPING
I'm inviting you to see what someone who was trying to tell America she was being "trafficked" in 1980 looked like back then compared to now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EJz79sVg4U Now keep in mind Linda was telling the world she was forced to make a film as well as into prostitution at the hands of her husband and men in organized crime.
Linda was being "trafficked" in connection with the mob of the her day. https://af11.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/fbi-files-show-wide-mob-owned-deep-throat-investigation/ Now we didn't have "trafficking" laws back in the 1970's. There was nothing on the books then.
All law enforcement had in the tool box was a case for "obscenity". So when people were coming to Harry Reems defense on the obscenity charge in this case - little did they know at the time law enforcement was trying to build a case against the men who were responsible for what happened to Linda - which was she was forced to be raped on film. The reason I'm showing you this is because I would like you to decide for yourself if there is a modern form of this happening today in connection with James Deen and Kesha's case against Dr. Lucas. Please keep in mind that we're also talking about Sony. There is no way to cover what I know in one blog post. This is part 1 in a series so I can show you the connections between many cases that show a pattern of behavior.
Now Linda was really the first adult star who was truly made into a type of "rock star" for us back in the 1970's as a "sexual revolution" in she not only made the film, but she would act like she really wanted sex all the time. That was because behind the scenes, Chuck coached her to be acting like she wanted to act this way when in public. If you'd like to read more about her story in detail the book "Ordeal" is on Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/Ordeal-Linda-Lovelace/dp/0806527749
When asked why she came forward with "such a fantastic story" - her response was she was "trying to warn Marilyn" about not only what Chuck was really like, but also she could come to her if she wanted help to leave him.
So when she was warning Marilyn via the press she "might need help to leave and she could call her" she was also saying the people might not believe her AND they might refuse to help her because she's in the adult industry. Which was the case then. Notice these women were giving interviews on TV and no one seems to have a gun pointed at their heads forcing them. They aren't handcuffed or chained. They're giving TV interviews. So when audiences were trying to understand what Linda is saying when she was saying she was "forced" to make the XXX film, and her fears about what Chuck might be doing to Marilyn, this is what they're seeing is Marilyn also saying "no one is being forced here". But what no one seemed to ALSO notice was Chuck was standing behind Marilyn off camera also when she was giving interviews. In fact, not one interview was given by Marilyn without Chuck there behind her either on or off camera. Meaning did the interviewers really expect her to say otherwise with Chuck standing right there?
(Which by the way - it's wonderful to applaud Lady Gaga for getting up and singing about abuse and rape. But I want to say to her is why isn't someone been arrested for that assault? What because of money? Career? Yep more than one way to be a whore ladies and sell our your sisters. Linda however stood up and pointed the finger at her rapist in public with the whole world against her. Bravo Linda.)
Also realize Linda represented a new "archetype" for women. Up until the adult industry, the birth control pill, the sexual revolution, women were either housewives with kids, career women who were usually not married and who the world tended to kind of look at as lesbians, or "ladies of ill repute" like Mae West, or "Peaches" played by Marlene Dietrich, who was a "hooker with a heart of gold". Linda had been built up to be the "third archetype" of a woman who made her living in the sex industry using her sex as a commodity.
The idea of a woman who COMBINED sex and work together as a career was a whole new TYPE of woman. In the series "Mad Men" when they talked about "are you Marilyn Monroe or Jackie Kennedy?" Now here was Linda presenting a whole other type which prompted the group COYOTE, or Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics, about how we had the right to do with our body as we please with abortion, our sexuality, and even about how to make money.
Being she was truly the "poster child" of the porn industry at that time being at the top of her career and the most recognized porn star - audiences again are scratching their heads going "how could she be forced?"
Back then what she did was like if President Obama being the first African American president suddenly stood up in the press and said "I was being forced to accept being President". It just rocked people's minds - and no one was buying it at the time either. I mean look at the guy - a violent vicious pimp she's describing?
Linda's story was really conflicting with a character they had been hearing about as a "pimp" back then. Contrast this interview with Chuck we as the public see him giving and then contrast with what the public thinks of when you say "pimp" or "trafficker" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDOdNSiFvDw
Now contrast that with the stereotypical image one would think of back then as a "pimp". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_aDNj0dS8E This is why people were confused about what Linda was saying. But also people didn't understand that a street pimp and someone who is connected with organized mob activity is going to look different. Now what's the best way to hide? In plain sight.
I was at home then watching this case unfold in front of my eyes. I was born in 1960, so in 1976 I was 16 years old. In 1980, I was 20 years old when she came out with the book "Ordeal". In this book she was claiming the film, which was a comedy by the way, was financed by the mob first of all.
Then on top of saying it was financed by them, she was saying Chuck, who was her husband at the time of filming this, was forcing her to shoot it by pointing a gun at her from off-camera. She told stories of him kicking her with his cowboy boots until she was black and white to get her to do the film, as well as turn tricks after filming.
He would coach her on "how to be the greatest porn star of all time is to act like you really like to screw anyone all the time - that you just can't get enough". So he would take her into bars and then have her "take all comers" to show what a sex fiend she was. Of course it also got him an audience of people who would then say she was a "willing victim".
Linda also talked about how her mom and dad came to the door of their apartment asking if she was okay because they could sense something was wrong. Chuck was supposedly behind the door demanding she answer it completely nude. Then to tell them "I'm just fine". Otherwise, he threatened to kill both of her parents if she didn't act like she was there consensually.
There's a few things you have to understand about the times back then. First, that all XXX films were not allowed to be played in "regular" theaters anyone could go to. They used to only be able to be seen in "adult" theaters which were usually in back alleys in bad neighborhoods. They were also done in "super 8" which is like a home camera. This film was done in regular film stock also. What made it unusual and proved the mob ties was that every theater owner had been "told" to air the film, and to clear off any other movies but this one. They were trying to make sure they made their money fast before the censors could come in and shut it down. As it was, Harry Reems, the male actor in the film was arrested on "obscenity" charges. This was what would normally happen if you tried to play an XXX film in a regular theater back in the 1970's. http://www.thefileroom.org/documents/dyn/DisplayCase.cfm/id/1115
The biggest thing was the audiences kept revolting and calling her a liar for a couple of main reasons. One being they couldn't believe that some man would beat her, rape her, and then put her on camera and film in in an XXX film doing things she didn't want to do, with everyone on the set just allowing it to happen.
Well contrast that with stories which have come out now in the Bill Cosby case where women say they were taken back to his dressing room right on the set during filming of "The Cosby Show", and then coming out clearly drugged and upset, with no one on the set reacting or saying anything like "what's wrong?" to them even.
What people didn't understand was regular films are just shot and they can get anyone to shoot a regular film. But to get someone to film an adult movie, which could get them arrested for it back then, wasn't so easy. The adult industry was a very tight knit "family" type of system for which I found the movie "Boogie Nights" a fantastic explanation of how the industry grew and developed over the years because of technology advances.
It showed how Burt Reynolds was basically "the man" to go to for adult films, with everyone being in a family type of relationship. Not like today where anyone with a camera can shoot a porn and post it online. I explain this because think how people don't like to "get involved" in a domestic dispute. Now wrap that up in if you come forward and support Linda's story - you've just kissed your career in the industry goodbye.
Chuck being the smart man he was, had gone on to manage Marilyn Chambers almost immediately after Linda escaped. He thus had her running around talk shows then insisting "oh no I have no problems like that with Chuck" and "I've never seen him do anything like that". While at the same time I'm seeing her come forward in an Narcotics Anonymous meeting a few years later in 1985. My point being Chuck DID NOT DEFEND HIMSELF. He let Marilyn, and others who wanted to protect their careers, DO IT.
In fact, my first NA meeting I heard her explain Chuck had drugged her, got her hooked, and then she just agreed to do whatever he wanted - so no argument for her to have with him to see the bad side Linda saw. I can say that now that she's passed without breaking the confidence of what she shared with me back then.
As for the others on the set, are they going to admit to the press "oh yeah I just let him do it and didn't go call anyone and didn't stop him".
Linda was having audiences deny her story, the other people on the set deny her story, Marilyn deny her story, and guys who had gotten head from her in one of those bars while she "acted like she totally was into it", was denying she was being trafficked by Chuck into prostitution, porn and stripping so ALL were "denying she was coerced". Again, put into perspective here we didn't have the word "trafficking" back then, nor any laws. So it wasn't like the government could come in and charge the film makers with "trafficking".
I'm showing you how the mob/criminal operations, not street pimps, deny what's going on. Now, last December APAC, or the Adult Protection Advocacy Committee, held a panel on "exiting the porn industry". I asked if Sex Workers Anonymous could present at that panel. Keep in mind we've been helping men and women leave the porn industry since 1987. I have interviews up at www.leavingtheliferadio.com with women who have been in Playboy and Hustler who belong to our program. We are not a group like Shelley Lubben. We are not religious, and have Jewish, Buddhist, and atheist members. So please explain to me why James Deen, their person in charge refused to have a member of our group come present on how SWA can help someone exit the porn industry? Was he trying to hide something?
He ignored me completely when I was asking why we could not present at that panel. So I told him "I think you are making a mistake that I need your group to present us as an option. If anything, the fact you don't present us will be noted as a form of deliberate concealment of us from women in the porn industry. Now why would you not want them to know about us James?" To which he responded he wanted to "meet me for coffee to discuss it". I did not meet with him because frankly I was getting a "bad vibe". One that I get when I sense a predator around.
So I declined his offer. I have the emails on file showing this if anyone wants to see the exchange. My point being James was deliberately concealing our group from the industry as a means to exit the industry. Why are we different than groups like Shelley Lubben? Because we acknowledge that sometimes to leave the industry requires more than just another job. Sometimes it means escaping really bad dudes that's why. Dudes like the mob that Linda was having to get away from.
Let me show you something about Chuck Traynor people of the 1970's weren't seeing. Hmm. That's interesting - not one video on Youtube about how Chuck would market his guns using topless models. Strange. Well here's a reference to him anyway - https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=8&f=22&t=210119 and another about him and his "wife Marilyn Chambers" http://www.handgunforum.net/general-discussion/4878-nevadan-work-early-age-gun-shop-owner-had-career-his-sights.html In fact, it appears Chuck had a third wife in porn http://www.vegasretro.com/vegas_visitor/38_bo_vv.html Criss "Bo" Bozlee. So it would appear that maybe, just maybe, the gun rights people don't exactly want it validated that Chuck was holding a gun to Linda to make "Deep Throat" for reasons that are way bigger than her story. Reasons like gun control. But I digress.
I used to talk to Marilyn when she first got clean in NA. I told her I couldn't stay clean and remain in the sex industry and warned her that she may also have a hard time herself if she tried to stay in the adult industry. She insisted she was "done" at first. Caused quite a battle in fact when she at first said she wanted to retire from the industry in order to stay clean during our conversations in 1985 in those NA meetings, at coffee, etc. Finally, Marilyn insisted to me that she could do it WITHOUT being nude. We argued. I told her a "porn is a porn whether you're nude or not". Because to me it's not about the nudity. It's about the people, the culture, and about whether I'm truly doing something from my own heart or being coerced. Whether I'm surrounded by people who truly love and care for me - or who are exploiting me.
So I sat back and watched as a few of those first films had her "introducing" other girls who would do the nude and sex scenes while she remained clothed. In fact, the first film I remember her doing after this argument we had was her prancing around in a corset introducing other young actresses' who would then do the hardcore stuff.
Then I saw her topless.
Then I saw her nude.
Then I lost touch with her entirely. The men around her refused to let me keep speaking to her. I was a "bad influence" I guess in that I was warning her about not staying clean this way.
It seems she didn't stay clean. Her body was found recently with pain killers in her blood stream. http://www.today.com/id/30194893/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/adult-film-star-marilyn-chambers-dies/
I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that another actress has been found dead from pills who was charging James Deen with rape. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/porn-star-amber-rayne-accused-james-deen-dead-31-article-1.2588111
The allegations of James raping these women could have something to do with why he wouldn't want anyone within the industry to know about our organization. Why? Because we know all too well that it can be impossible to leave the industry sometimes when you have no other source of income, and certain people know where you live. I didn't have some man running around behind me with a gun pointed at my head 24 hours a day back when I was in the industry - but coerced I was. Because I knew what these men were capable of, and I knew they knew where I lived, where my mother lived, and where my grandmother lived. I knew they knew my habits in that I walked my dog a couple of times a day. They knew my "regulars" who knew my phone number and address so moving would have been a waste of time unless I was willing to ditch my regulars also. They knew my friends and where they lived - so unless I wanted to walk away from all my friends they would know where I was living and my phone number. I mean leaving was a big deal for me.
I had to move my whole family, and I had to leave every single one of my regulars, and my friends, and anyone who could know what I looked like (I changed my appearance when I left so I couldn't be recognized walking down the street), what car I drove (a woman who was blond like me who was driving my car was plowed into by an illegal alien going 100 mph who told the cops he was paid to do it when arrested at the scene), where I lived (a man showed up at the motel room I was staying at supposedly and the woman I let stay there said the man wasn't leaving so she called the cops. He pulled a knife on the cops and refused to leave or disarm himself so they shot him dead.)
So WHY possibly would James Deen NOT want anyone from our organization presenting at APAC on how to exit the porn industry? Because to my knowledge we're the only ones who advocate a complete breaking away from everyone and everything connected to it. I saw Marilyn talked back into it by people offering her large sums of money and insisting she didn't even have to disrobe. I also saw her dying with drugs in her system.
I however am still clean. I also don't have friends around me forcing me to stand next to the man who raped me, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/06/james-deen-is-back-in-porn-why-has-the-adult-film-industry-forgiven-the-accused-serial-rapist.html Which by the way NO she was "not forced by contract to stand next to the man who raped her". That is a lie. When one person breaches a contractual agreement by physically harming you and breaking the law - the contract becomes null and void. The court will not uphold she breached that contract. So whoever is advising Stoya is LYING to her. I know people who would have explained to her how to not be forced into doing this and how she would not be sued for breach of contract. But then again I'm not being allowed to be near these women to tell them this am I?
I will make a caveat here. I do know many of these type of men do have judges who are "friends" with them because they make political contributions to them the women, or victims, don't. So I will say that in a lower court, if you have the wrong lawyer, then like Kesha, yes you may have a judge actually violate the law by telling you that you have to continue being in the presence of a man who raped you whether proven or not.
However, in that case I would say appeal to a higher court because I have seen many a case by a corrupt judge can be straightened out by the Supreme Court number one. Number two, one needs to examine if the lawyer working for these women is not being bought off or intimidated to not give the proper defense of her case. Which I also have seen with attorneys. I am working on a case right now where an attorney lied to a trafficking victim and claimed her prostitution record which had been faked against her by the cops had been expunged and she no longer needed my help.
However, suspecting a rat I went and ran her records myself to find she had not had her record expunged. Meaning the attorney lied to her. Why? Because she's not the one paying his bills - her traffickers are. So I am going to add that yes a lower court judge MIGHT rule you have to work next to a man who raped you. Which I will then say one needs to carefully then examine who this judge is, who your attorney is, and to appeal to a higher court until it's straightened out.
Nor do I have people in my life who would applaud me being raped on film. http://www.thefrisky.com/2015-12-02/adult-film-actress-kora-peters-comes-forward-about-being-raped-on-set-by-james-deen/
Nor am I in an industry who won't stand up and defend me on general principle either. http://fusion.net/story/258486/avn-porn-oscars-consent-panel-rape-stoya-deen/
By the way, I had asked the AVN organizers if they would allow me to distribute a booklet to women in the industry about why they did NOT want to move to Nevada to work in the porn industry there. Which I believe James is involved in a plot to move the industry there also by the way. I will write more on the plot to move the industry to Nevada in another blog post. What I'm trying to show here is how the industry covers itself when there is a criminal element behind the cameras.
Which includes by the way years from now people saying "well she couldn't have been too upset about it because she stood there on stage with the guy" who won't hear her defense about being told she had to do it because of a contract.
No these people have years of knowing how to defend themselves behind them. They know the game way better than some actress, or a singer like Kesha, or even Lady Gaga, whose only been in the game a few years, if that, and who is being kept shielded from those who have left they can't control like our members. This by the way is the best defense I can think of for there to be a union brought into this industry that speaks on behalf of these female performers.
Because right now I challenge you to find me one lawyer in Nevada or California willing to defend these women against their attorney who defends them.
JLo taught us how she'd deal with it in "Enough" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278435/
Comments
Post a Comment