Talk:Traci Lords

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Traci Lords is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 17:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Age (again)

Problem solved! according the Internet Adult Film Database, Lords was indeed sixteen (16) at the time of shooting What Gets Me Hot. Therefore I am going to change the fact stated in the article which implies that Lords was fifteen (15). And, ofcourse, I will pos the link as a direct source.

Fernandicus 12:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course that is not verifiable. The problem being is that before Traci Lords the porn industry did not have to keep accurate or extensive records - and they didn't. So why would the IAFD claim quibble over 15 versus 16? Because it makes a big difference for distribution outside the US where 16 has typically been considered the age of consent for such material. As an example in England Samantha Fox was one of the famous topless girls featured in their equivalent of National Enquirer at age 16 - but 15 would have been illegal (see the Wikipedia). I suspect the late May 1984 date is actually when the tapes hit full national distribution rather than when they were filmed, especially since I have strong memories of seeing her VHS tape in late March or early April in Sacramento CA (local distribution effect). Traci herself says 15. PS I believe Britain, like Thailand, may have updated their porn laws under US pressure since the 1980s for new porn (old stuff would be grandfathered and even sheltered as cultural art). 69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Age

According to this article - doesn't she have to have been 15 rather than 16? The article states her birthday as May 7, 1968 ... yet it also says that she made two films in the "first half of 1984" - yet she turned 16 on May 7th of 1984. Thus, for both statements to be true, BOTH films had to be made between May 7 and June 30. It's not impossible - is it accurate? 68.52.36.162 18:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Wasen't she 16 in her first film?

I had heard she was 14. (no that's not a typo.)
You would need to find a film made in 1982 according to her date-of-birth. - Stoph 05:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I found on Google, her first movie is from 1984. If the movie was shot before her birthday that year, she was 15, otherwise she would have been 16 at the time. That would match with [1], which states that she was 15 when she appeared in Penthouse.

What I find a bit funny (in the sense cosmic irony tends to be funny) is that according to most accounts she was the one taking the initiative and fooling everybody about her real age at the time. The idea of a "child" producing "childporn" and fooling an entire industry into thinking it's legit "adult porn" seems absurdly funny, in a very wrong way -- kinda like lolicon and tentacle rape. -- Ashmodai 18:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I was thinking the exact same thing Ashmodai was thinking. What are the odds of that? 75.24.215.160 06:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect you guys aren't old enough to remember the pure erotic impact of Traci's early films. :-) I think it's been pretty clearly shown that she was under 16 when she made "What Gets Me Hot" -- but she easily passed for 18 or 20. She got into the biz via a forged birth certificate and driver's license, having taken the initiative in getting hired. And no one suspected she was underage, not even her live-in boyfriend, Tommy Byron. When her true age came out shortly after her 18th birthday, most of the porn industry wanted to see her lynched -- she cost a number of studios a ton of money and gave the bluestockings lots of ammo. Traci has NEVER been the victim in any of this and no one she ever worked with feels the least bit sorry for her. --Michael K. Smith 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks the porn studios lost a lot of money is gullible. Porn was and still is primarily a cash wholesale business. Once sold to distributors or retailers they have their cash and no fiscal liability for what happens to product delivered. No refunds except for defective tapes. Studios don't keep giant stocks of porn on hand. They periodically duplicate based on demand. Distributors would have taken a bigger hit but they still generally don't keep inventory far in advance of sales and profit. The big losers and actual target of the government was the porn retailers who invest heavily in inventory after studio and distributor charges and must then sell or lose money.

Government strategy was apparently to ensure the widest possible distribution of illegal porn in order to eliminate the retail market by mass scale fiscal injury, local prosecution and rallying permissive locality to the cause of total porn ban. Unfair but potentially more effective than prosecuting a studio or distributor then having someone new pop up tomorrow to replace the supply -- which had happened before. But America loves its porn and its freedom of speech more than they rallied to the moral cause and then the Supreme Court backstabbed the pure legal side of the Morality Police effort. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I think it is nonsense to link all those films and create (sub-stub) articles for each and every of them. It would be better to decide on a few that are noteworthy and about which you can write, say, two paragraphs, and only link those. Lupo 13:28, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I've toned down the blatant sympathy for mercenary child molesters expressed in this article a bit. Fire Star 21:10, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

By "unable to afford serious accusations of child pornography", I meant literally unable to afford it financially. For awhile police routinely did random raids on some "adult" establishments to help "root out" anybody who might have missed removing a video or magazine (and prosecute the owners to the fullest extent of the law for it). I would have added that bit but it doesn't really seem to help the article. Reene (リニ) 02:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a fine line here. Clearly there was a government campaign against the adult industry at that time. The lord incident was very convenient for them, since it allowed prosecuting almost anybody. You could critise this movement, and probably make a good case. But is it fair to pin it on lords? Hardly I suppose. Moreover, in the only case for which I have seen documentation United States v. X-Citement Video things were not as innocent as you seem to put it above. X-citement Video send out videos by mail, after being asked specifically if these were the underage ones (on more than one occasion). You can read it for yourself in the online court documents. So I would say that, at least in this case, there was no innocent mistake. Sander123 09:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That likely was the case with many of the larger distributors and pornography establishments, but in the case of small, localized establishments the situation changes. This is one of those cases that I wish they had some kind of punishment for "children" (I use the term very, very loosely) like Traci Lords who actively and knowingly break the law on a massive scale and get a lot of other people in trouble in the process. There is being a victim and there is (as good as) victimizing others, this was certainly a case of the latter in plenty of circumstances. Reene (リニ) 10:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The government has always asked questions about whether porn is underaged -- being asked the question doesn't prove they knew or suspected. As far as the porn industry would have been concerned it would have been considered a standard question. The real question is when the government knew. You'd think they would have immediately stopped distribution. But some government statements say they let things go on for quite some time in an effort to let as many people get involved as possible. It is quite obvious that few retailers would have any opportunity for direct knowledge. Yet retailers were likely the real target as an effort to dry up the market. Today the government would be reluctant use this strategy because entrapment is now acknowledged as an unfair legal tactic and might expose the government to lawsuits for financial loss by porn retailers.69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

- But there is punishment for children. If somebody of 17 commits a serious crime he can be punished, tough perhaps not as severely as an adult. IANAL, and I do not know what the situation would be for id fraud but I imagine that it could be serious enough. I think that government has chosen not to persecute Lords *because* she has worked for years in an abusive industry not in spite of. You may disagree with the government’s decision, of course, but that doesn't alter the fact that knowingly trafficking in child pornography is prohibited. (Ignorance is a valid defense in these cases by the way.) Anyway, I suppose you agree that once it was known that Lords was underage, her video's had to be removed, desperately or otherwise. And to continue to--knowingly--sell her material would be punishable. I suppose that there is room on Wikipedia to write about (history of) government policy regarding pornography. (iirc one of the websites in the external links section has exactly such an article)

How is ignorance a valid defense? I was under the impression that for crimes of this nature ignorance is never a valid defense no matter what the circumstances (IANAL). I do agree with distributors needing to yank the videos and magazines off the shelf but there were a lot of witch hunts going on at the time because, as you said yourself, the government was running a campaign of sorts against pornography. You do bring up something interesting though...Was Traci Lords ever charged for using false IDs or committing fraud? Reene (リニ) 02:13, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As I recall, she had gotten a fake driver's license too - not just a fake ID, but she fooled the government into thinking she was 18. Since they were played as much as the companies, they weren't as harsh. --Golbez 03:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

- - Replying both to Reene and Golbez. First of all, Lords was never charged for fraud. She could have been, but government choose not to prosecute. Why? We do not know, maybe to avoid attracting attention to the fact that they were fooled themselves. Maybe they took pity on her. Maybe they thought their case wasn’t strong enough. Maybe they thought they would look very foolish if they punished an abused girl for being in a 100 porno movies. Who knows? Second, the ignorance defense. (ianal). In the X-citement case the single reason for it ending up at the Supreme Court was that the relevant federal statue regarding trafficking in child pornography did not indicate clearly that you had to traffick knowingly. This was a big deal to them (even though there was no question that X-citement was in fact knowing! don't you love the law?). I quote from the majority opinion:

If the term "knowingly" applies only to the relevant verbs in 2252 - transporting, shipping, receiving, distributing and reproducing - we would have to conclude that Congress wished to distinguish between someone who knowingly transported a particular package of film whose contents were unknown to him, and someone who unknowingly transported that package. It would seem odd, to say the least, that Congress distinguished between someone who inadvertently dropped an item into the mail without realizing it, and someone who consciously placed the same item in the mail, but was nonetheless unconcerned about whether the person had any knowledge of the prohibited contents of the package.

And from Scalia's dissent (who advocated to strike the trafficking statue altogether)

I would dispose of the present case, as the Ninth Circuit did, by reading the statute as it is written: to provide criminal penalties for the knowing transportation or shipment of a visual depiction in interstate or foreign commerce, and for the knowing receipt or distribution of a visual depiction so transported or shipped, if that depiction was (whether the defendant knew it or not) a portrayal of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. I would find the statute, as so interpreted, to be unconstitutional since, by imposing criminal liability upon those not knowingly dealing in pornography, it establishes a severe deterrent, not narrowly tailored to its purposes, upon fully protected First Amendment activities. (emphasize mine, removed internal quotations)

So, If you buy an adult movie from a reputable source (as far as that is possible ;-). And you have no reason to believe it contains illegal (underage) material. Then ignorance would be a valid defense. I agree tough that in the case of porn retailers, things are not that clear cut. A case can be made that in your chosen profession you *should* have known, and are consequently liable for lack of due diligence. But is that so bad? If it turns out that you were selling child pornography would you not clear you're store very carefully? And if you do not do so, would you not be rightfully liable?

Traci Lords fooled a lot of people, not just one or two. I don't know if you've ever seen her while she was at her "peak", but she certainly looked as old if not older than some of the "barely legal teens!" you see floating around on porn websites/movies these days. As for clearing stores...Well, pardon my language, but shit happens- there are plenty of understandable circumstances. I also wondered about the ignorance defense because in the case of things like statutory rape, ignorance is NEVER a viable defense even if the "victim" could very easily pass as 18 or older and actively solicited the accused. It seems odd this would not be the same case for child pornography- but it very well might be now with the recent changes in the law. Reene (リニ) 13:57, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but when we are talking about sending tapes, there are First Amendments implications. A law that would prohibit unknowing distribution would be an undue burden. *Completely* different situation than rape, prostitution etc. Sander123 13:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More over I once read that this opinion is actually partially rooted in prior precedent Supreme Court porn cases where people were receiving porn material that they did not order. That was finally booted out due to it becoming a favorite political trick during the McCarthy period...if we cannot get you as traitor we can manufacture a crime to jail you or embarrass you out of power. Unfortunately only the specific Postal regulations were addressed. This is typical Supreme Court behavior of revisiting similar law cases over and over again when the issues touch "morally sensitive" areas. The Court likes to avoid sweeping change in such cases. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The assertion above that ignorance is "never" an excuse in statutory rape situations is simply not true. In my state, if the minor is over a certain minimal age, and claims to be older, then the adult is not committing a crime. In other words, if they assume the guise of an older person, then they also assume the responsibility! This is to prevent the victimization of adults who might not otherwise have any reasonable way of knowing. As mentioned above, sometimes minors can appear physically to be quite adult, and sometimes they can also seem to be mature beyond their years. The law -- all United States law -- is supposed to be based on the "reasonable man" principle. If someone has no reasonable way of knowing he or she is breaking a law, then the law is defective and either needs to be repaired or simply does not apply. That is about as universal a truth about the law as exists anywhere.

Not knowing should be a valid defense in the case of statutory (i.e so-called) rape. Age of consent and being considered adult are entirely arbitrary anyway.

Depends on the jury (nullification) and state laws and attitude of prosecutor and local public outrage (political pressure). So ignorance is not a reliable legal defense. But if believed (credibility) the jury may say to hell with the law if the underage person pisses them off more than the offender. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Passport citation

I've never heard the US Passport allegation. Can we get a citation for that?

And, perhaps, tone down the moralizing here a bit? Whether you think child pornography is bad or horrible, clearly, the Traci Lords material only qualifies in the strictest reading of the law: that law was *not* passed to prohibit what she did, it was passed to prohibit child molestation. She may have been 15, but even by American standards, she was not acting at that time as a child.
--Baylink 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Errors in article

According to the A&E channel biography of her, Traci Lords is now her legal name, so it is incorrect to list her original name as her true name. Also, the show stated that her original sexual abuser was her mom's boyfriend, not her father as described in the article. Her father may have been alcoholic and abusive but she did not state he was sexually abusive towards her. I would change the article but there is no point as some ignorant idiot anal admin would just revert it.

[edit] Other actresses performing while under age

http://www.tranquileye.com/historyofporn/traci_lords.html This site names other stars who performed while under age. Is there a list somewhere?

[edit] Links

Many of the links are to commercial porn sites, and I deleted the more blatant of them under NPOV. Oldcritter 11:45 June 11, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covergirl for Duprey Cosmetics

Traci is now the covergirl for Duprey Cosmetics, a PETA-certified line of wonderful products.

Traci is so versatile! Madonna is a cheap imitation of the real thing!

Decidedly not NPOV..

Yeah, she's 'versatile" all right. She goes every which way in her movies! She's absolutely the best movie prostitute there's ever been.121.45.182.65 11:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilmore Girls

What role did she play in Gilmore Girls? Mathmo ^Talk 09:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

She plays an interior designer and is credited as Traci Elizabeth Lords, this was in the 4th season, in 2003. Dollvalley 04:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real name

I don't know if anyone's going to believe me enough, but this article (and upon internet searching) most places say that her born name is Nora Louise Kuzma, when in actuality it was Nora Jean Kuzma. I have found only one site that says this (here), but she is a family friend and I'm one hundred percent sure. My mom and her have been friends since Nora was six years old. Should it be changed? - EgyptianSushi 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Find a good source before you add it. Birth records? -- BillWeiss | Talk 16:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money she made from porn

I added facts from her autobiography concerning the amount of money she claimed to have made from porn. I can give you the exact page and an the paragraph if necessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.51.7.168 (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

In the article it now both says she made 35000 total and 100000 from one film. Can you clarify that point? Thanks. Sander123 07:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole story is that when she appeared in a movie she was paid a salary but didn't own the rights of the film, she got 35000$ in salary that way but for her last 2-3 films she and her boyfriend formed a production company where her boyfriend produced the movies and she owned part of the rights, so she received a little salary for her appearance AND something like half the rights for the movies... in a few of them she was underage so she couldn't sell the rights but the one where she was not she was able to benefit a little bit from her notoriety and sell the rights for a large amount in addition to the salary she received... From what I read in the book she was very reluctant to do that because that was around the time where she was trying to become a real actress and didn't want any porn movie of her still available... She received 100000$ for the right of her last movie in addition to the 35000$ from her career in porn... I figured the text was clear enough, but I added some more explanation, please correct me if you think it's not correct as it is.

I said that most of the money was spent on rent and drug but maybe I could add that she also buyed her infamous black Corvette, and that her boyfriend totaled it...

I added you text to the article. Can you look it over? ( I haven't got the source to check it. ) thanks. Sander123 08:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  * I will re check in the book to be certain of the details, i'll write the exact page here...

[edit] Singing career

Why isn't "singer" listed at the top of the page with her other credits? She has done a full album and I think it should be credited. Artists with smaller singing careers are listed as singers, why not a versatile one like her, especially since her singles were successes? Dollvalley 04:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, there's no doubt that as a singer - she makes a damn fine cocksucker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.182.65 (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts of Traci

There has been considerable discussion on this talk page concerning Traci Lords' age when she started making the pornos in back in 1984. Her x-rated career started early in that year when she posed for the Penthouse photographer at age fifteen. The issue was released in September, 1984, when she was sixteen and at about the same time that her first x-rated videos were distributed in the U.S. The Penthouse article was the biggest joke that I ever read in my life. She was listed as a 22 year-old model who had reportedly studied interior design at El Camino College. The article also stated that she was a virgin until she was nineteen (yuk, yuk). Apparently, Penthouse was not very good at verifying its information.

Her first adult films were shot either just before or just after her sixteenth birthday. Traci Lords was a very precocious teenager, and she carried herself with a demeanor and aplomb far beyond her years. She was a runaway who needed money, and she had a natural talent for the sex trade and took the industry by storm. One of her mainstream films of 1984 was "Talk Dirty to Me Part III, in which she has a starring role. John Holmes and John Leslie are two of the male actors in this film. Holmes appeared in the film four years before his death from AIDS at age 43 in 1988, and Leslie has an explicit hardcore scene with Lords' near the end of the film. John Leslie is thirty-nine years of age when he goes all the way with Traci, who is only sixteen. Talk about statutory rape! To my knowledge, neither Leslie nor any other male actor went to prison for the documented illegal sexual encounters with Traci Lords. I guess some laws are selectively enforced.

The sex industry is one of the few arenas where a woman can make it big in terms of fame and money without any kind of education, and Traci Lords exploited her natural talents and good looks to become the biggest draw in the history of x-rated cinema. She caused a riot when the FBI raided Jim South's studio in July, 1986, after it had been discovered that she was underage in the films. At the end, the truth comes out.

Anthony22 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The irony - Traci exploited the exploitation industry. And they weren't used to being <expletive deleted>? ROFLMAO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.124.142 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be an essay, rather than a discussion of the article. --Golbez 02:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anthony22, I think you bring a few details that could be put in the article. Especially the uncertainty regarding her age could be worked in the article. If you know of more sources that would be great too. Do you want to do it yourself or shall I put it in? Some of the other point you make I would at least rework a bit before putting in the main article. Sander123 08:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note for the uniformed - back in the early 80s, before computers revolutionized the biz, production of a glossy mainstream magazine began months before it was distributed. In fact major porn magazine with articles would be developed around the main photo layouts. Plus not all layout went immediately into the next available magazine. Even today work on major magazines begins 60-90 days ahead although certain hot features or photos might be rushed to press. In mid-1984 Traci was not yet a big enough star to rush to the press. Thus September 1984 Penthouse photos of Tracy were probably shot 4-7 months BEFORE distribution began at the end of August. Thus she was almost certainly 15 when photos were shot even though 16 when distributed. Plus Penthouse admits to the age in retrospect. 69.23.124.142 (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Golbez, my discussion of Traci Lords is just that, a discussion of Traci Lords. It was not a discussion or an extension of the main article. In some earlier Talk Page posts, users bandied about her age when she entered the adult film industry. Some people are very mature at fifteen (as Traci was), and some people are NEVER mature. Society creates many laws to protect minors, but laws cannot be created on the basis of maturity. As I previously stated, Traci Lords was far beyond her years when she entered the adult film industry, but she was still legally a minor. A lot of the male actors could have gone to prison for statutory rape. Remember Mary Kay Letourneau? That was the other side of the coin. She went to prison for seven years for an illegal sexual encounter with a 13 year old boy. A lot of people like forbidden fruit, but nobody is worth going to state prison for.

Sander123, it's okay for you to add additional information to the main article based upon what you read in my post. One thing that I don't like about Wikipedia is the way that moderators delete unreferenced and unsourced information. I would never add false or incorrect information to Wikipedia, yet I have had a great deal of my information deleted simply because it was unreferenced. It boils down to the age old issue of a handful of people who ruin it for everyone. Some users intentionally add false information to Wikipedia, and this damages the encyclopedia's credibility. Referencing is important, but I can't always supply references.

You might be interested to know that I met Traci Lords in person at a book signing in Greenwich Village, New York, about ten years ago, when she was in her late twenties. She really fascinates! Traci knew how to exploit her natural talents; she was head and shoulders above the rest. I have seen some recent pictures of her, and like all women, she has begun her downward spiral in terms of looks and physical appeal. When she was in her prime, however, she ruled the roost.

Anthony22 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, talk pages are not for discussion of the subject, they are for discussion of the article. However, since this turned into possibly a discussion of ways to improve the article, it seems kosher. --Golbez 17:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the point of adding any of this information to the article, as it is unsourced, and largely original research. Unless you have cites for this information, it's going to be tagged and removed. Ckessler 18:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

i am not editing anyone's remarks here-just wanted to respond to said quote-"like all women, she has begun her downward spiral in terms of looks and physical appeal. OH MY GOD!!!!!there are many women who look great in their sixties and a woman's appeal is based on many things not only the physical. HOW UNBELIEVABLY CRUEL!!!! shady lady —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.191.134 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] disappointing

This comment was moved from Talk:Traci Lords/Comments by user:Finlay McWalter

I am a fan of Traci Lords and who she is today not yesterday. I find it a little insulting that the largest reference on the internet only includes information about her first 18 or so years of life. She has progressed so much since then! You are missing another 25 years of her life in your Biography. I would love to see someone provide a much better biography of Ms. Lords because she truly is a wonderful actress and a very strong woman. Talking only of her background in the Porn business when she was too young to know better, and of her court battle after that is really disappointing! I love wikipedia and I did not expect this from this site. Please change this or edit this biography. If you need help contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladyxev (talk • contribs)

Eh? There is a large section on her post-porn career, and a lengthy list of her mainstream movies. Your complaint bares no resemblance to the actual article you're complaining about. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filmography

The filmography section should really be removed. Valrith 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Lords herself who tipped off the authorities to gain immunity from prosecution while profiting from the movie. No proof has ever surfaced to substantiate this claim

Why would she when according to the article, there was nothing they could have prosecuted her for anyway Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)