anyway to get early tracy lords videos...the underage videos that were banned..maybe somebody knows a site overseas or somewhere i can purchase these videos...

ARE YOU F-ING NUTS????

just asking...

the site is in canada

check out P2P networks... you'll find some good copies to download.  Might I suggest LimeWire?

providing a specfic link to download some of her movie clips!! always been a fan ..

Thanks

Forget about the fact that those vids were declared illegal because she was underage, and just stick with the fact that this was a 16yo girl turned into a wild ho by tons of cocaine and then ask yourself, am I the kind of guy who would arouse myself with those vids knowing the truth?

Don't believe me, read her autobio.

If memory serves me, Traci lords and Tracy lords are 2 different people.  Traci came later and capitalized a bit off of the infamy of Tracy’s name.

Don't you know that if you get caught with that, you'll be charged with possession of Child Pornography?

Do you actually beleive her auto biography is totally factual and isn't self-serving??? Let me guess... you are convinced that Area 51 exists, right???

Of course her autobio is self-serving.  But I saw those vids years ago and I've spent a lot of time with providers and porn stars since.  That girl was 16 and coked up to the nines.  Those arent porn movies.  Those are documentaries of child abuse.

First of all, if she'd been 18 instead of 16, the vids would have been LEGAL and you could still get them.

Second, if she were 12 would you think her age mattered?

Third, do you have children, asshole?

Name calling and a request for personal information after reading a simple question often warrants a reciprocal flame, but I'll just reply instead.

To answer the last question first, my personal life is mine to disclose, is not the issue here and has no bearing on the validity of the question I posted earlier.

As for your second question: Yes, I see the differences b/w 8, 12, and 16 age males and females.  B/w 16 and 18, however, it's harder to  judge females.

There are very few changes in maturity between 16 and 18 for females, according to many studies. Males do show significant changes in maturity. Google sometime when you're bored.

Since many studies also show that females mature physically and mentally 3-4 years faster than males, I believe the age of sexual consent for males should be higher than females.  There's opposition to this statement, I'm sure.

Even I might be surprised if a poll was taken on what the minimal sex age should be for each sex.

The Age of Sexual Consent (age 16, give or take in the States, but certainly in CA in the 1980s) is not at issue here but helps to deal with the larger issue of Age of Film Sexual Consent.

Can you or anyone explain to me how a person (of any age) is more exploited by displaying sexual acts on film than by having sex at all?  She/he is not any more at risk for STDs or pregnancies than if she/he was simply promiscuous or indiscriminate in choice of partners?

The difference to me is that the sex acts on film are documented and sold for profit, nothng more.  

After all, Traci Lords made films while she was 16, 17 yrs old.  She was old enough to have consensual sex in CA. She was also able to legally change her age and name with the approval of a US Passport that she then used to get other forms of ID.

With that, she became a new person in the eyes of the Law, an older person by law with the rights and privileges granted by law.  She did this until it suited the feds to revoke her passport (but only after She came clean about her age).

The Traci Lords affair is one that has endured. She wasn't the only underage PS, just the one of the best of all time.

I do not think I'm alone in my assertion that the age of film sexual consent (AoFSC) and age of sexual consent (AoSC) should be one in the same.

Folks in CA raised to 18 only b/c it's every 8 minutes a teenager has a baby, not because she had sex on film.

As for Traci Lords (To quote Nina Hartley), "She walked like a woman, She talked like a woman. She Made Love like a woman."

Useful links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
http://www.ageofconsent.com/california.htm

ga_kosh,

I agree with on your remarks about females between 16 and 18. You know what, reading your post I realize that this issue is a problem for many countries. I will give you an example: Here in my country in South America it is legal for a 16 y/o female work as a prostitute. However, it is ilegal for her to have a manager (pimp I guess is the word you guys use) or to work at a brothel. I have always asked myself what's the logic of this?

Your response was, to your credit, thoughtful.  Your original asked why her age should matter, and gave no clue that your point was limited to the proposition that a 16yo is no different than an 18yo.  Had I understood your point, I would not have reacted so harshly.

As to your argument for the sexual emancipation of 16yos, I respectfully disagree.  It does not bother me that the laws re X-rated films overprotect under-18 girls, even in states where they can have consensual sex.  All the statistics in the world won't convince me that a 16yo is more vulnerable in a Traci Lords type situation than an 18yo.  As for Nina Hartley's statement, it's fine if her point is that nobody could have known she was underage.  But we know now.  IMHO that means we should not try to find these vids and we should not watch them.  I speak to some extent from experience.  I used to own a couple of the TL vids until they were stolen by movers.  I'm glad they're gone.    

Finally, even if you are right that it is not  immoral for male adults to have sex with 16yo girls, it seems painfully obvious to me that the allure is to push the "Barely Legal" envelope.  That's a little scary to me.  Why not just stick to 18 and older?  Not taboo enough?

Apology accepted, miscommunication gone, what have you.

I am always amazed at how widespread the Age of Sexual Consent laws are.

South Carolina has a constitutional 14 yr old AoSC. I disagree with this.

To me, 16 is about right.

Why? Age 16.  Traditionally this was the age that debutantes were introduced to the world.  At age 16, a girl was introduced to the world as a woman.

To your credit, that same young woman was often married to a man in his 20s when she was 17-18, just out of school. This might be the basis of your argument.

I dated older women, as in 5+ yrs. older. Maybe I matured faster than most girls my age, but they were so childish. As a hobbyist, I like women 25-35.

My biggest point of contention is that if someone is of legal age to engage in sex and produce children, why is it illegal to show her having sex?  

Avas, you and I are not necessarily in that market, but the legal justification I just can't fathom.

AoSC laws are intended to lessen the number of teenage pregnancies - without success.  This was mention in the links I provided.

We live in a society that allows us to show teenagers murder each other with guns and such but if they have sex, then that's somehow worse.

Why not lay off the desensitizing violence and embrace the beauty of the human form?

Then again, I also think that a fat man showing his man-tits should get a larger fine than Janet Jackson's boob.

Maybe I'm a sexist pig.  I prefer Libertarian. LOL

Kosh