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; } } }

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: »

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

you must be a troll, there is nothing irrational with making a risk based decision.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

Yes. Exactly. YOU are saying it. Because she sure as hell didn't.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

Which is her right to do.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

So she shouldn't be able to refuse to have sex with someone? Meaning you believe she should be forced to have sex.

I mean, you're just contradicting yourself, "mate".

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in homosexual actgay porn

FYP can we move on now?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

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.

It was the snowflakes that got up in arms over her comments cos they did not have the brain capacity to understand what her concerns were.

silverharp wrote: »

you must be a troll, there is nothing irrational with making a risk based decision.

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

Given the reported health risks.....what is the issue here??

She should just have sex with someone and gamble on her health....so as not to offend you?

major bill wrote: »

It was the snowflakes that got up in arms over her comments cos they did not have the brain capacity to understand what her concerns were.

Kinda like how you are getting up in arms here over SJWs?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

You're the one assuming things. You're assuming things on behalf of a dead woman who asserted a sexual preference. Get over yourself.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

Your logic is that this woman should be forced to have sex, because her refusing to is homophobic.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Kinda like how you are getting up in arms here over SJWs?

Hardly

tomwaterford wrote: »

Given the reported health risks.....what is the issue here??

I have explained: guy was shooting straight porn, therefore would have had to comply with straight porn testing. It only follows.

Therefore her decision was based on prejudice

For the record: I have not argued once, that this woman did not have the right to choose who she "worked" with - simply suggesting her motives were based in prejudice

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

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

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

Nope, that's not her job description. She is an actor. She has employment law on her side, whereas all you appear to have is just your opinion.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I have explained: guy was shooting straight porn, therefore would have had to comply with straight porn testing. It only follows.

Therefore her decision was based on prejudice

An sti test takes 7-10 working days to come through afaik

Pretty sure some more tests take couple weeks
(Possibly months) to show up...if sex education we got in school was accurate?

Unless anyone shooting gay porn waits months between shoots,which is irrational

Anyone should have right to refuse sex with them,otherwise your essentially saying their health means nothing vs offending someone?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

My logic is sound; as sound as everyone else here working on assumptions.

even our blood bank makes risked based decisions , I think the young lady was entitled to her's. So not irrational you are simply wrong

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

For the record: I have not argued once, that this woman did not have the right to choose who she "worked" with - simply suggesting her motives were based in prejudice

Your whole argument is that someone does not have the right to refuse sex with someone based on how they feel personally. Your argument is flawed and is the very essence of a snowflake. You feel that having a personal choice and preference is somehow offensive and not allowed.

Do you want a safe space next?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I have explained: guy was shooting straight porn, therefore would have had to comply with straight porn testing. It only follows.

Therefore her decision was based on prejudice

I think I can see where you're coming from. The problem with the test is that HIV has a two week to a month period where the sufferer will test clean.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I have explained: guy was shooting straight porn, therefore would have had to comply with straight porn testing. It only follows.

Therefore her decision was based on prejudice

Are you in the porn industry?

If not, do you not think that this girl, as an insider who has real-life experience of it, might know better than those of us who only read articles from the outside?

She clearly did not trust the guidelines were sufficient to protect her. I don't know whether they were or weren't sufficient, but I do believe someone in the industry would know better than me, considering my only experience of the porn industry is in my browser history.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

For the record: I have not argued once, that this woman did not have the right to choose who she "worked" with - simply suggesting her motives were based in prejudice

So what if it was based on prejudice?

Help!!!! wrote: »

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

Again, you are assuming it was the abuse she got online alone that caused her suicide. And within the space of this thread beginning and now, other factors have come to light - i.e. she was suffering depression.

I would also suggest she shouldn't have tweeted her comments in the first place. She knew it would cause an outcry, it's what she wanted. If I have a problem with
co-worker, I don't go tweeting about it unless I want a reaction.

Help!!!! wrote: »

So what if it was based on prejudice?

Well, then she deserved some of the abuse she got. fair is fair.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Nope. I am saying she refused to work with someone because they had previously engaged in a homosexual act

But you are saying she was frustrating her contract by refusing to have sex with actors who had acted in gay porn scenes?

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Again, you are assuming it was the abuse she got online alone that caused her suicide. And within the space of this thread beginning and now, other factors have come to light - i.e. she was suffering depression.

I would also suggest she shouldn't have tweeted her comments in the first place. She knew it would cause an outcry, it's what she wanted. If I have a problem with
co-worker, I don't go tweeting about it unless I want a reaction.

Nope, thats why I wrote "may or may not"
But all these people tweet because they think people care what they are up to

tomwaterford wrote: »

Hmmm

Where does it say I said she didn't have the right not to? I said in a work place, I grin and bear it. I don't quit and complain online.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

For the record: I have not argued once, that this woman did not have the right to choose who she "worked" with - simply suggesting her motives were based in prejudice

Well of course her motives were based on prejudice, against males who had previously had sex with other males, and she has good reason for it too, because of the lack of standards and regulation in the porn industry. You were first trying to suggest that her opinion was homophobic, but her opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with a prejudice against gay men. Her opinion was relating to straight men!

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Well, then she deserved some of the abuse she got. fair is fair.

She can be called out on it, for sure but no one should be told to kill themselves.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Nope, thats why I wrote "may or may not"
But all these people tweet because they think people care what they are up to

No, she was pretty much spewing **** about a co-worker who had done gay-porn. This wasn't a going to the gym tweet - this was a scaremongering "those dirty gay boys" tweet, which she is entitled to do. But expect a backlash.