nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/august-ames-dead-porn-actress-suicide-body-adult-films-actor-a8096496.html

So basically August refused to do a scene with a male star who also does Gay porn scenes. This was apparently because gay porn actors do not get tested because they wear condoms. However there was huge backlash against the girl for this by women and gay men on social media platforms to the point where they told the girl to kill herself.

Is it time to start handing out harsh punishments for bullying on social media?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Do you have any proof it isn't?

Well?

You're the guys working on assumption here, before I showed up

You made the claim she signed a contract...you back it up???

You unwillingness to accept someone not consenting to sex is a worrying development aswell tbh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Will you listen to yourself:

Someone is homophobic because they wouldnt fcuk someone...

I'm personally not attracted to heavy women. Guess I'm weightest or some sh1t. And my personal preference is white women. I'm also probably racist.

Christ on a bike. Since when did personal preferences become something bad?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Do you have any proof it isn't?

Well?

You're the guys working on assumption here, before I showed up

Bahahaha.
Yes. What did we ever do here before you showed up and showed us the light.

Go away to fcuk.

Wonder is she still up for shooting a scene...

tomwaterford wrote: »

You made the claim she signed a contract...you back it up???

You unwillingness to accept someone not consenting to sex is a worrying development aswell tbh

No mate, you guys started with all these preconceived notions. How 'bout ye back up some of your ridiculous ****e first.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No ****... Well thanks for the lesson...

No problem. So now armed with this knew knowledge we can progress further to lesson two.

Given that her issue then was with people who have done that work in that industry......... who we now acknowledge might not even themselves be gay.......... the use of the term "homophobic" for it is a misnomer. A category error. She would likely have had EXACTLY the same issue with an ENTIRELY straight man who had worked in gay porn.

So her issue is with gay porn, not gay people.

s15r330 wrote: »

Wonder is she still up for shooting a scene...

****, there's a market for that, you know.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No mate, you guys started with all these preconceived notions. How 'bout ye back up some of your ridiculous ****e first.

What preconceived notions have I started with??

People have right not to consent to sex is hardly earth shattering stuff??

People have right to look after their health and welfare is hardly ridcolus???

What issues have you with these?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No problem. So now armed with this knew knowledge we can progress further to lesson two.

Given that her issue then was with people who have done that work in that industry......... who we now acknowledge might not even themselves be gay.......... the use of the term "homophobic" for it is a misnomer. A category error. She would likely have had EXACTLY the same issue with an ENTIRELY straight man who had worked in gay porn.

So her issue is with gay porn, not gay people.

Look, as I've already pointed out, and which should be obvious to anyone following logic and straight porn regulations: the guy was shooting straight porn -ergo tested. Her reasons were based on prejudices - nothing else.

Candie wrote: »

I dunno, a cake is a food item. A human being is an individual with preferences and a desire to avoid health issues as far as possible.

Call me crazy, but I think one might be slightly more important than the other with more complex issues as a result of their sentience.

I hope that doesn't come across as discrimination against cakes.

my point was that in a pervading climate in which ones personal preferences can be superseded by the law or the mob when it comes to you the work that you do, we should not be surprised if unpalatable consequences arise. This woman chose to make her body a commodity and while the abuse she got from the hive mind on social media is utterly vial, if obvious comparisons to other cases present themselves then we shouldn't shy away from shining a light on them.

tomwaterford wrote: »

What preconceived notions have I started with??

People have right not to consent to sex is hardly earth shattering stuff??

People have right to look after their health and welfare is hardly ridcolus???

What issues have you with these?

Look, if you're gonna give me a lecture about backing up wild assertions - you might want to start pointing the finger at everyone else in this thread. Otherwise it all seems a tad hypocritical

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Look, as I've already pointed out, and which should be obvious to anyone following logic and straight porn regulations: the guy was shooting straight porn -ergo tested. Her reasons were based on prejudices - nothing else.

That is a different set of goal posts than the one we were playing a moment ago.

You are now discussing whether her issue with shooting a scene with someone who has done gay porn is warranted or not. That is a different discussion that I am happy to have after the current one if you wish.

I was discussing your claim that her reasons, whether you think them fallacious or not, for not wanting to do the shoot were "homophobic". Not whether they were right or wrong.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Look, if you're gonna give me a lecture about backing up wild assertions - you might want to start pointing the finger at everyone else in this thread. Otherwise it all seems a tad hypocritical

Your the only one accusing me of x,y and z....noone else?

What wild assertions elsewhere do you think are occurring elsewhere??

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are now discussing whether her issue with shooting a scene with someone who has done gay porn is warranted or not. That is a different discussion that I am happy to have after the current one if you wish.

This is what I was arguing since I arrived in this dumpsterfire thread.

Keep up, mate.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her job is to **** people.

No it isn't, and you really need to brush up on your employment law and health and safety conditions in the workplace because it's attitudes like yours are exactly what she was objecting to, and rightfully so.

She's more than likely ****ed tons of guys who haven't been tested, but didn't object to it because they were straight.

No, you've got that wrong again. Her objections were based upon the fact that she was not prepared to engage in any sexual activity with male performers who had performed sexual activities with other males because of the increased risk to her own health. It's widely acknowledged as a problem in the adult entertainment industry that straight men engage in gay porn and that the use of condoms is discouraged.

anna080 wrote: »

Bahahaha.
Yes. What did we ever do here before you showed up and showed us the light.

Go away to fcuk.

Yeah, good counter-argument, there.

So, we're wasting too much time and effort on JackTaylorFan.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

This is what I was arguing since I arrived in this dumpsterfire thread.

Keep up, mate.

Keep up yourself given you have lost track of what YOU said. Here again is your statement: "Her comments were pretty homophobic though."

And that is the statement I am commenting on.

So again:

1) You acknowledge that not all people who do gay porn are, themselves, homosexual.
2) Her issue was with people who have done gay porn.
3) Therefore her "phobia" was towards the gay porn industry, not homosexuals.
4) Therefore the term "homophobic" to describe her comments is a category error and misnomer.

Which part of 1-4 are you having an issue with and I can expand on it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it isn't, and you really need to brush up on your employment law and health and safety conditions in the workplace because it's attitudes like yours are exactly what she was objecting to, and rightfully so.
.

What the **** are you banging on about?

She's a porn star - her job description only has one aspect: **** and be ****ed.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What the **** are you banging on about?

She's a porn star - her job description only has one aspect: **** and be ****ed.

And she's not a slave....she can refuse to do x,y and z at any stage?

Wow quite a lot of your definitions are off today. Not all porn starts have sex you know? So saying that the job description has only one aspect is..... well... false.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Look, as I've already pointed out, and which should be obvious to anyone following logic and straight porn regulations: the guy was shooting straight porn -ergo tested. Her reasons were based on prejudices - nothing else.

So are you saying she should shut up and force herself to have sex with someone so as to not offend them?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Keep up yourself given you have lost track of what YOU said. Here again is your statement: "Her comments were pretty homophobic though."

And that is the statement I am commenting on.

So again:

1) You acknowledge that not all people who do gay porn are, themselves, homosexual.
2) Her issue was with people who have done gay porn.
3) Therefore her "phobia" was towards the gay porn industry, not homosexuals.
4) Therefore the term "homophobic" to describe her comments is a category error and misnomer.

Which part of 1-4 are you having an issue with and I can expand on it.

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

How many times does it need to be explained to you for the penny to drop? nowhere in her comments was she Homophobic.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

What the **** are you banging on about?

She's a porn star - her job description only has one aspect: **** and be ****ed.

not that it matters but she wasnt an employee so she had every right to accept or not accept certain jobs.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

So you're saying that she should be forced into having sex with someone?

anna080 wrote: »

So are you saying she should shut up and force herself to have sex with someone so as to not offend them?

No, I am saying she bitched and moaned and made claims that sound a little less reliable when you consider the fact this guy would have to adhere to the same testing straight actors would on a straight shoot. Then she made a big song and dance about it on social media - kinda like a snowflake would - and got hit with a backlash for her stupidity.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior.

So "2" is the answer to the question I just asked then?

But no, again read her own words rather than change them to suit yourself.

She did say: "you’re shooting with a guy who has shot gay porn"

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has had gay sex".

She did not say "you’re shooting with a guy who has engaged in homosexual behavior".

So it seems you are reading what a person said, but simply hearing what you want to hear while doing so.

Even if she was homophobic it is her right to refuse to have sex with whoever she wants. And definitely didn't warrant the amount of abuse that may or may not resulted in her taking her own life

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me. I don't know this guy's orientation, I don't even know his name. I do know she refused to do a scene with him because of her irrational fear of homosexual sex

Not it wasn't. Her preference, not prejudice, was bound by the fact that men who shoot gay sex scenes use condoms and therefore are less likely to be tested- a decision which puts her body at risk. A fairly solid reason. She's entitled to decide who she wants to have inside her. Anything other than that is forcing her to have sex with someone against her will.