It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Angel (1984 film) is about a fifteen-year-old prostitute in Los Angeles

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
This is far too politically incorrect of a subject to make a film about these days. I watched part of it a few years ago, and I found it to be shocking by today's standards. Molly Stewart was not pressured by anyone to become or be a prostitute. Making it legal will only make teenagers even more emboldened and confident about trying it.


www.youtube.com...


Fifteen-year-old honor student Molly Stewart (Donna Wilkes) attends private prep school in the Los Angeles area in the daytime, but transforms herself to "Angel" at night: a leather mini-skirted, high-heeled street prostitute who works Hollywood Boulevard. Angel has a "street family" made up of aging movie cowboy Kit Carson (Rory Calhoun), street performer Yoyo Charlie (Steven M. Porter), transvestite Mae (Dick Shawn), fellow hookers Crystal (Donna McDaniel) and Lana (Graem McGavin), and her landlord, eccentric painter Solly Mosler (Susan Tyrrell).

LINK


The film was successful enough to lead to three sequels. I'm posting this as a reminder concerning the repercussions of what's discussed in the following thread.

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

If it was happening over 30 years ago, it's happening today. We have a famous case of something like the above occurring in real life.


Traci Elizabeth Lords (born Nora Louise Kuzma on May 7, 1968) is an American actress, singer, model, writer, producer, and director. She achieved notoriety in the mid-1980s after authorities discovered that she was underage when she posed nude and appeared in numerous pornographic films.

LINK


Traci Lords wasn't forced to do what she did in her teen years. My point is that there will be thousands of Traci Lords in California who will come out of the woodwork to take advantage of this new law. For them, prostitution was just legalized. That is a fact.

If you watch the interview below, you'll hear Lords' story. She says she was "high" and "exercising [her] demons" for the years she was doing porn movies. There's no mention of anyone pushing her to do anything.


www.youtube.com...


According to porn industry insiders, Traci Lords made over $1 million from her X-rated movies, and even had video companies give her $10,000 a month, furnish her with an apartment and a Mercedes. Traci's take is that she made only $20,000 during her time in the industry.

LINK


This situation could be such a disaster. Imagine the lure of living a life like that as a teenage girl?
edit on 30-12-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

What's the consensual age in California?

It's 18, so therefore sex with anyone younger is illegal. Doesn't matter if consent was given, it's a crime.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Perhaps we should dissolve California's congress and start over?? This is just too over the top. Completely UNACCEPTABLE. Jail time for supporters starting yesterday!! Why even bother teaching our daughters if were just going to let them destroy themselves?? Disgusting!



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: Profusion

What's the consensual age in California?

It's 18, so therefore sex with anyone younger is illegal. Doesn't matter if consent was given, it's a crime.



The teenage girls can hook with ZERO repercussions making it legal for them to turn tricks. Sure the johns might get caught but in California they just legalized teen prostitution.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   
So, your first post about this topic about four hours ago was shown to not be the 'liberal's want to turn your daughter into a prostitute' you thought it was. That the bill in California was written to legalize underage prostitution in that state but rather to help protect young victims of the sex trade.

Over and over again, members in that thread demonstrated how this was the case yet you continued to defend the article to promote the idea that liberals are stupid.

So now, you have come back with another thread focusing on a young, underage woman who says she works that way willingly. Yet you offer no more backing to support your idea that the bill will cause more prostitution.

Bets are, this woman in your video, if she is doing this of her own volition, were she to be caught under the provisions of this new bill, might get off once. But if this were the case and she was not under the control of someone else then she would not get away with it a second time as she would not be covered by those provisions in the law that would not allow it.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I noticed a lot of people that are supporting this are banking on the assumption that under aged prostitutes are doing it by force.

Decriminalization will undoubtedly encourage more to take up the profession, since they will only get a slap on the wrist and the pimps will have more leeway with loopholes to wash their hands with.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

There are already millions of women like that. Have you seen how much porn is on the internet? There are only 7 billion people in the world but some how there are more than 10 billion naked women on the internet.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
void
edit on 31America/ChicagoFri, 30 Dec 2016 13:25:23 -0600Fri, 30 Dec 2016 13:25:23 -060016122016-12-30T13:25:23-06:00100000025 by TerryMcGuire because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Banking on assumptions. Yes, you are correct here. But isn't that the whole idea of these two hit pieces by our OP. Assumptions that liberals are stupid? Some are of course, but our OP seems to want to paint with a wide brush here.

This bill is for the protection of minors caught in the sex trade. To help protect VICTIMS not legalize underage prostitution, as the original article promoted it. The bill provides for these young people to be taken into custody by the state for protection and not just throw them into the general ranks of criminals in adult incarceration.

So basically, I see two assumptions here. One is that many of these underage people are victims themselves and the other assumption is the one you stated yourself, that ''decriminalization will undoubtedly encourage more to take up the profession". Now, while I cannot deny that your assumption may in some, and even many cases hold true, what do you care. What do I care. Why should any of us care, IF THIS IS THEIR OWN FREE CHOICE? Is this not the mantra of most conservatives, that laws should not be made to keep people from exercising their own free will, so long as that free will does not bring harm to others?

So this bill will hopefully help to protect victims and for those underage people who do not want that protection, those who willingly go back to it and are caught again, then they will be treated as willing practitioners and will be treated so.

Myself, I am in favor of that new bill just as I am in favor of any number of laws that are enacted for the protection of children, either at the hands of unmoral adults or from their own immaturity. I also do not hold with the old Victorian values that say that a grown woman cannot sell her skills on the open market.

I say, do away with the laws against mutually agreed upon conditions for sexual relations. But that is an ideal. So in the meanwhile, lets at least help to protect youthful victims in an industry that is sordid in most part to it's being illegal in the first place. a reply to: Konduit



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join