Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Stoya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stoya. Show all posts

Saturday, August 27, 2016

COPY OF LETTER I SENT RACHEL THOMAS OF SOWERS EDUCATIONAL GROUP

Rachel:

You say it saddens you to "see such discord among survivors and allies".

Okay.  So what are you doing about it?

I started the first hotline for this community in 1987 in the country, the world for that matter.  I did so after five years of exhaustive research for someone else to be doing it other than me before realizing "well if someone else isn't going to do anything then I guess I'm someone else".

Let me ask you this:

When have I been invited to attend any events on this subject as a guest?

When have I even been notified of events on this subject?

When have I been asked to speak at any of these events?

We're not talking "discord" here Rachel.  What's happening here is historical and history has a way of repeating itself.

Bill Wilson started Alcoholics Anonymous at a time when the world didn't believe alcoholism was a disease.  At a time when the condition was 100 percent fatal.  The way the world treated it was to ignore it, hide it, and shame and criminalize those who suffered from it.  Prohibition was created partly to try and stop these men who would get paid on Friday afternoon, and before they'd make it home that night the checks for rent and food for their families had been drunk away.  Then there'd be the drunken fight, and domestic violence with women and children cast into the streets homeless.

Society didn't understand it as a disease so they tried to make it illegal in the hopes it would stop this behavior.

After Bill started onto not only the program which was the first one to produce long term sobriety, but further led to the recognition some had a disease - a whole field of study sprouted up to address this new disease of alcoholism.

At about 20 years of age - AA "blacklisted" Bill Wilson.  He was cast out of writing the Grapevine.  Further, banned from speaking at conventions, even meetings.  The character assassinations started in order to take the program from being "Bill's" to being "ours" as the medical, scientific, and legal communities started wanting in on the action.  Sober living homes, alcohol treatment centers, alcoholism counselors, schools teaching about alcoholism, medical research into alcoholism - all started to sprout up - including a complete transformation of our whole legal and political system.

Politicians who had built their whole platform on Prohibition had to recreate themselves.  Small town jails who paid the light bill by putting drunks in over the weekend had to find new sources to fill up those beds.  Courts for drunk and disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace had to find new defendants.   Teams of police who used to look for speakeasy's and bootleggers to arrest had to find new criminals to pursue.   Churches who used to get most of their donations from coming into town and getting the drunks to sign "pledges" had to find a new cause to create.

The addict replaced the system.  Delete the word "alcohol" and insert the word "drugs" and the system goes right on functioning only now the new "cause" is drugs.  As more and more addicts started getting clean in AA however, the awareness they shared a disease also soon led to Jimmy Kinnon founding Narcotics Anonymous.

Only Prohibition had been lifted the year AA was formed.  Yet drugs were still illegal when Jimmy started NA.  So police were actually arresting addicts for coming to meetings to get clean.  The National Council on Drug Addiction was formed to create the same reforms for their disease that had been given the alcoholic.

Then about 20 years into creating clean addicts - the same people who "monetized" the treatment of alcoholism came knocking on Jimmy's door.  Only he'd seen what this had done to the alcoholic.  So he fought back and refused to help them create the same changes.  Didn't matter though as the Board of Directors and Trustees in NA had an illegal meeting and illegally locked Jimmy out of his own office.

But like Bill Wilson, Jimmy had his supporters.  To fully cast him out of the house he created the same thing had to be done to him which was done to Bill - he had to not only be smeared and ostracized from his own creation but further his supporters had to be chased out of any positions of power.  In AA, this split created the "Ohio Group" who broke away from the NY General Office.   In NA, it led to what's been dubbed "The Tradition Wars".  Anyone in Jimmy's sponsorship family, or who supported his views against professional treatment or drug courts for the addict - was literally pushed out of service, the rooms, and some were even physically driven out of meetings with violence.  To be replaced with people who wanted to support the creation of treatment programs who charged $10,000 a week for treatment - some even promising to "cure" addiction now.

Before I created our 12 step program, out of which came Brenda Myers-Powell, we had become the replacement fodder for this "machine".  As now both addicts and alcoholics were now being given special courts which recognized these were not criminals, but instead "sick" people needing "help" and "treatment", jails were being cleared out.  Church donations were going down.  Politicians weren't able to "crack down on drugs" in the same way.

There's a machine in this country that depends on someone to target to function.  First it was the alcoholic, then the addict.  For a short time, this system tried to turn onto sex offenders.  Only it hit a big snag in that most sexual predators, child molesters, rapists, etc. ARE the system.  They ARE the church, the politicians, professors, doctors, lawyers, judges, etc.  I know because I was there when this blip started to get off the ground - and then was quickly shut under because it was the same people running this system who didn't want to subject themselves, nor their associates who also covered for them, to this system their jobs and paychecks depended upon.

No - we needed to find a new victim to throw into this machine.  So the "prostitute" was targeted.  Soon buses were going out weekly doing "sweeps" to drag 100's of prostitutes into the jails for booking.  Courtrooms were churning out women handing over fines weekly.  Defense lawyers were getting huge retainers from women afraid of losing their kids because of the prostitution charge.   Jails had beds to fill and all the addicts and alcoholics were now being replaced with prostitutes.  When I did a survey in 1987 of a jail in Los Angeles, and Allentown, PA - out of 2000 inmates 1800 of them were prostitutes.  All of them were repeat offenders.

Churches used to organize campaigns to "clean up their town" identical to the ones that used to go out shutting down speakeasy's and crack houses.    Neighborhood Watch along with parents groups and church groups would go out and drive prostitutes "out of their backyard" like they were cockroaches.

Alcoholics had Betty Ford.  She proved that "anyone", even someone "decent" could be an alcoholic.  George W. Bush used cocaine and even Clinton joked about smoking weed.  So the addict had their "respectable" poster child.  Anyone knows the Catholic Church is chock full of priests who are child molesters - but they're also "respectable decent" people.

Who is left to push around, throw into jail, put on probation, force onto a counselors, couch, slap on medications, and treat like a "scourge that needs to be stamped out of our neighborhoods" but the "prostitute"?  Then throw into the mix that those same judges, attorney's, politicians, etc., who are seeking for a way to have power over these women so they can force them into sex can further gain that power by making sure prostitution is illegal - and you've found the new "criminal" this country is going to focus on "cracking down on".

Only God had a different idea and HIV/AIDS started raging.  Suddenly, those jails, courtrooms, hospitals, counselors, homeless shelters, domestic violence shelters, drug treatment centers, and churches didn't want these anywhere within 100 miles of their doorstep.

Along comes this 12 step program who says "give them to us".  By the year 2000 - we not only saw the Trafficking Act of 2000 pass giving us federal recognition that not all of us were "criminals" but some were actually "victims", which is about the same as giving us a "disease" like the alcoholic/addict, but we were being used as an "alternative to incarceration" in every major city of the USA, and three cities in Canada.  Our hotline was the only one where you'd call if you wanted help to leave any part of the sex industry, as well as the one any reporter would call if working on a story, or film maker working on a project on the subject.  

We had no "discord" or "lack of unity" when the system WANTED us Rachel.  But soon we were creating a system which actually worked to get people out of the sex industry.  The pharmaceutical companies came up with a drug cocktail that was putting HIV/AIDS under control.

"For profit" prisons started sprouting up like wildfire.  They had beds which needed to be filled.  All that money spent on HIV/AIDS drugs needed to be paid for.  Anti-depressants were created selling for sometimes $1000 a month.   Drug treatment programs had empty beds which needed patients.  The religious right and the church was losing money.  People were getting bored donating to starving children in Africa.

A new "victim" was needed.  Especially one where most of the men running these systems needed their "fix".  Not about sex.  They could well buy a prostitute.  But about "power".  You can see what I mean with the prosecutor in Michigan who was exposed not long ago of coercing 100's of women literally into sex with him by threatening to throw them in jail.  Now that guy certainly didn't want those women knowing that all they had to do was ask the judge to court order them into a Sex Workers Anonymous meeting.  Jails needed someone in their cells which didn't require months of investigation and a huge budget to create stings or to properly investigate a case.  They needed something quick, cheap and easy they could throw into a jail cell.

The TVRA of 2003 was passed giving the money for these newly recognized victims to solely "faith based groups" who further signed a pledge they would not even "associate" with any group who claimed that the sex industry was in fact an "industry".  Unless the group stated that "prostitution" was a "human rights violation" - no money for you today.

The movement we had created, just like how Bill Wilson created his movement for the alcoholic, and Jimmy for the addict, but the one we'd created to create help for men and women to exit the sex industry, and to provide services for those who were trafficked, as well as victimized while in that profession, was now official "hijacked" by the same people - the church, politicians, courts, doctors, lawyers, etc.  

They came to me Rachel and asked me if I'd go along with spreading their "message" which isn't ours.  As a 12 step program however, we can't "express an opinion on outside issues".  So to take a stance that "prostitution is a human rights violation" IS taking a stance.  We can't blame the men who buy our services anymore than AA can blame a brewery, or NA can blame the pharmaceutical companies for their issues.  The very crux of a 12 step program is that the focus is on ME - and not the world, the substance, or whether or not something is "right" or "wrong".  The addict for example doesn't distinguish between a street drug or a legally prescribed drug.  BOTH must be abstained from in order to recover.

Meaning we also have to abstain from all "legal" forms of the sex industry.  Which include such things as legal brothels, webcam performing, pornography, even strip club work.  Only guess what the politicians, jails, lawyers, and the church want to focus on?  ILLEGAL STREET prostitution.  For example, Polaris has gone after Rhode Island prostitution which was decriminalized but hasn't TOUCHED the issue of the legal brothels and sex clubs in Nevada.   In fact, you haven't seen one organized raid for "sex trafficking victims" in a legal brothel or sex club of Nevada.  Let alone a porn set or webcam studio.

Oh no - we can't talk about the "industry" of the "sex industry" but only about "prostitution" or we lose all that wonderful federal grant money, as well as the checks being written by the Catholic Bishops.

So Rachel there's no "discord" here.  There are powerful, wealthy factions who are DELIBERATELY SILENCING AND OSTRACIZING US.

Why?  Because if they do treat us as this being what it is - the "sex industry" then it becomes open for discussion that the REASON why it's workers are being so easily victimized isn't because of the "traffickers", but because it's (1) illegal, and (2) not unionized.  Meaning our message as it is calls for decriminalization of prostitution so that witnesses and evidence can be easily obtained to prosecute traffickers.  Decriminalizing prostitution does the same thing for the sex industry that ending Prohibition did to the power men like Al Capone had as well as the wealth generated by alcohol and drugs being illegal.  In other words, the traffickers themselves don't want to see this industry decriminalized because then look at all the power and money they LOSE.

The reason why traffickers flourish in the sex industry is because it's not unionized.  There's a Brothels Owners Assocation in Nevada - do you see the workers have a union, advocate, lobbyist etc.?  Let me ask you something - when's the last time you saw a woman who works at one of the NV legal brothels giving an interview to the press WITHOUT Dennis Hof sitting right by her side?

APAC had James Deen as it's director.  A man accused of now raping over 9 women in the industry.  Who did the AVN back up when Stoya said she didn't want to stand next to him on stage to present an award the same year she'd been raped by him according to her?  HIM.  Who, what group, what advocate, what association, protested this on her behalf?

There's a Gentlemens' Club Association - but yet strippers aren't unionized.  So take a good look around at what associations do exist in the USA - and they eacn and every one are on the side of the MEN, the owners, the corporations, etc.  NOT ONE  represents the "worker".

Now if you instead of calling these people "sex trafficking victims" and classifying them as "human rights violation victims", you instead DO call the sex industry and "industry" - then those who are being "pimped" and "trafficked" mean that protections need to be set up for them just like exist for farmers, manufacturers, diamond miners, coal miners, even football players and actors.  Even actors have a union so that producers have to pay a set amount of pay and work them only so many hours so that they aren't exploited.  So I ask you then - what's the difference?

Words.

You instead of calling those exploited within the industry the issue - you say there "is no industry" and that "all are victims" guess what discussions you now completely bypass?

Union.

Labor laws.

Decriminalization.

All things brothel owners, porn producers, strip club owners, jails, treatment centers, and the church don't want to hear hear talked about.

Nah - they want us "criminals" and "victims".  
I mean what a gig.  I'm now talking to "victims" who were put into this new "system" to "rescue" them.  They're all in section 8 housing next to crack dealers, in minimum wage horrible jobs they have to take or they lose their housing and benefits, they're saddled with $1,000's of dollars in student loans for jobs they can't get because of their past, especially if they have porn online, they're being researched as part of some grant some professor or doctor's getting a lot of money for while they get nothing but poked and prodded on, they're on multiple psychiatric medications that their doctors are getting paid kickbacks to put them on, while the pharmacies are averaging $3,000 a month for their medications, they're paying off fees for classes or diversion to the court, they're seeing some counselor who is getting paid weekly who isn't changing their lives - I mean the "system" is pimping these women in a way that would give Bishop Don Juan lessons in the game!

When we refused to support their agenda, they went to our top members such as Brenda Myers-Powell, and Kathleen Mitchell, just to name two women who had broken their "anonymity at the level of press, radio and films" in order to help us get that federal recognition in the first place when this was a subject NO ONE wanted to support, endorse, or help in any way because who on earth would want to be known as "helping some hookers" as we were known pre-Trafficking Act of 2000, and like Satan to Jesus in the desert - offered them "money, property and prestige" if they'd turn on the program who created them and espouse "other"views.

Why they've given Brenda and Kathleen awards, paintings of themselves, Brenda's even had THREE documentaries made about her which create a very vivid "impression like she's the founder of our program.  Can't get the founder to say and do such things because it's a violation of our Traditions?  Well hell let's get Brenda to do it for x amount of dollars and a film made about her.   That way we can make it appear the program Jody created believes in this even if it's not the truth.

Why use them?  Well don't you know the Nazi's knew well the Jews would cooperate more with walking "nicely" into the showers if another Jew led them that's why.  Even farmers know well the use of a "scapegoat" to get the cow to walk down the chute to it's death.

Because controlling the language is what it's about you know.  No politician, judge, psychiatrist, attorney, celebrity, Fortune 500 company like Microsoft or Amazon, or church leader would DARE help out "sex workers" or "hookers" because that would be just career suicide.  But boy call it "sex trafficking" and you get award dinners, fund raisers, checks written, film projects, and all the "unity" you want.

You also get talks about unions, decriminalization, and labor laws to protect workers.  You also clear out the shelters, the courts, the jails, and the treatment programs.

So you Rachel there's no "discord" among your group.  The "discord" is between your group of people who were involved in that event in any fashion and MYSELF.

Only that's not "discord" Rachel - that's being CUT OUT.

Not at all unlike how the native Americans were sitting here in this country until the white man came along and then acted like they were the vermin who needed to be chased out of their home.  They did it all while saying they were doing it to "civilize" them.  In this movement however, it's called "saving us".

Only let me ask you this - you say you "had nothing to do" with any of that event.  You didn't "pick the film" or have anything to do with organizing it.  Well I certainly didn't either.  Nor did any of the active members of our program who belong to the oldest, and largest, program of survivors in the world.

So who did?  What ex-sex worker, who may, or may not, be a sex trafficking victim, DID have something to do with putting that event together about us?  I mean it was about "us" right".  See not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic.  Not every one who uses drugs is an addict.  Not everyone who has had sex has been molested.  Not everyone who eats has an eating disorder.  Also true is the fact not every person in the sex industry has been pimped and/or trafficked.  Some have been both.  For some of us, our perception of whether we were, or not, changes over time as we grow in our recovery and the drugs clear out of our systems.  As the trauma heals - we often look at things different and our perceptions of whether or not we were in fact "victims" changes just as it does for the alcoholic.  Not every person in an AA meeting had made the admission their an "alcoholic".  Sometimes it takes years for a person to accept they are in fact one.  No different among our members.

But let's call it what it is Rachel.  What's going on here with me is NOT DISCORD.  Let's pick a word that more accurate describes what's going on here.  How about "hijacking" or "ostracizing" or "shunning" or "marginalizing" or even "blacklisting"?  I will call it "blacklisting" because I've asked to be allowed to even attend events like this as a guest and I've been either refused a ticket or straight up told by security at the door I've been "banned from the property".

I'm writing because I am curious though.  For this event about this subject - since I've now asked as many of our local members as I could reach to see if they were involved in any way with the planning of this event and they've said no - I'd like to know how many survivors, ex-sex workers, or whatever word you feel comfortable in deciding to call us since no one is asking us what we want to be called - how many of "us" were actually involved in the planning of this event?  I mean even Brenda - SHE didn't make that film.  Nor was the film produced by Prostitutes Anonymous as she insists on calling us because the people who paid for the film insist upon it even though we changed our name legally in 1995 to Sex Workers Anonymous.  So the producers are even using a name we stopped using because "they" don't agree with our reasons for changing our name so they're just deciding to keep calling us the name they want anyway whether we like it or not.

And whether you had anything to do with the "planning" of it in any way Rachel - you attended.  You supported it.  Now when I've come to you all about having an issue about this - I'm not hearing anyone coming back with any ideas or suggestions on repairing the problem.

Leaving me now in the absence of any offers to resolve this somehow with having to now move forward with legal steps since I don't exactly hear anyone coming to me with any "offers of unity" here.

In other words, I'm not the person causing the "discord" here because it's NOT "discord".  We are being walked all over and exploited and robbed and cheated and one of the things we do in our program is to teach our members to stop letting people do just that - exploit them, cheat them, use them, and basically treat them like they don't mean anything as human beings.

So I came to you to let you know there was a problem here.  I'm not hearing any offers to resolve this "nicely" and "cooperatively".  I've given this plenty of time.  So I will be moving forward with legal action.  You were still a part of this.  And enough is enough.  We're not going to continue to just stand by and have people act like we don't exist.

I'm preparing a report for the new administration when we have a new president and cabinet coming into power about this whole thing.  I need to get this report done before the election so I'm on a bit of a time frame.  So everyone involved will probably start getting legal papers in a few weeks.

Have a nice day Rachel.

Jody Williams
http://www.sexworkersanonymous.com/
(702) 488-1127

PS - oh do I write "long emails"?  Maybe it's because NO ONE WILL TALK TO ME.  








Tuesday, April 5, 2016

A STORY OF DENIAL OF TRAFFICKING/PIMPING


If you would like to listen to this in audio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBEpTTr_Fkw

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 Lovelace was in "Deep Throat", an XXX adult film made in the 1970's.  Please understand THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between someone who is being "pimped" vs. someone who is engaging in independent sex work vs. someone who is connected to criminally controlled sex work.  Linda was not a prostitute.  Linda was not doing porn as a form of sexual expression.  Linda was not being pimped out by some street corner pimp.

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 married to Chuck, so he was called her "husband".  When she got away from him, he started "managing" Marilyn Chambers.  Here's Marilyn giving an interview at that time -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z5crCMOiEM  Notice she's a very attractive woman who was standing up in front of the cameras of the day saying "Chuck is a wonderful man to me and he's bringing me to your attention for your enjoyment".  (I'd like you to note that J Lo is doing a song about female empowerment produced by Dr. Lucas right as Kesha is crying "rape".   Please note we have both Lady Gaga and J Lo saying "nothing wrong with the way he treats me.)

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/