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

Deleted User wrote: »

So --- the same as your pointing out grammar mistakes, then?

No, mine was merely an observation after the fact.

Anyways, I'm done. This whole thread is done. You're all just talking ****e like I am.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I am not refusing a porn star's right to deny working with someone. But when the decision is based on homophobia I think it's fair to call her a homophobe. She really didn't need to transmit a personal work matter with the whole internet. It was silly, at best. And it's very sad she killed herself over it.

Oh please. So if Kevin Spacey drops the hand on me I'm supposed to let him as anything else is homophobic? There is so much frighteningly wrong with your reasoning. I think not wanting to have sex with a gay man is valid for health and safety reasons, for the same reasons you might consider not having sex with a heroin addict ... the risk of HIV is higher.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

If they guy is working in straight porn - he is subject to the same testing as all straight porn actors. That is the crux here. She refused to work with him based on here deep seeded fears and prejudices. End of.

I'm out this garbage pile.

You created this Garbage pile tbf

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

No, mine was merely an observation after the fact.

Anyways, I'm done. This whole thread is done. You're all just talking ****e like I am.

Nope, you were doing it to belittle.

professore wrote: »

Oh please. So if Kevin Spacey drops the hand on me I'm supposed to let him as anything else is homophobic? There is so much frighteningly wrong with your reasoning.

Conflating rape with porn. Strawman argument.

Anyways, I really have to go this time.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

I am not refusing a porn star's right to deny working with someone. But when the decision is based on homophobia I think it's fair to call her a homophobe. .........

Her refusing was not based on homophobia - it was based on this :

NoelleEaston��‏ @NoelleEaston

Replying to @MJg0at23 @AugustAmesxxx @EroticaXNews

Gay performers do not have to follow the rigorous testing protocol straight performers must go through every 14 days making it EXTREMELY dangerous to work with them & then go back into ****ing straight performers after

Jay Taylor‏ @Yippieskip Dec 3

Replying to @NoelleEaston @MJg0at23

and Anyone shooting straight porn follows this protocol

GarIT wrote: »

I would never have sex with a man that has had sex with another man, does that make me a homophobe?

I would never have sex with a woman who has had sex with a man because that would mean that my penis has touched something that his penis touched, which would vicariously make me gay.

RayM wrote: »

I would never have sex with a woman who has had sex with a man because that would mean that my penis has touched something that his penis touched, which would vicariously make me gay.

HOMOPHOBE!

OK - how big can this go?

This post has been deleted.

gctest50 wrote: »

Her refusing was not based on homophobia - it was based on this :

"Anyone shooting straight porn follows this protocal"

Was this not my point?

Learn to comprehend, people.

RayM wrote: »

I would never have sex with a woman who has had sex with a man because that would mean that my penis has touched something that his penis touched, which would vicariously make me gay.

It wouldn't really. You can't become gay vicariously.

This doesn't even make any sense.

GarIT wrote: »

I would never have sex with a man that has had sex with another man, does that make me a homophobe?

In my book, no - of course not but in that scenario you are not in the workplace and therefore the decision would not come under equality legislation. There is an undefined line between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination. where is the cut off point? does a male stripper have to book a gig for a gay chap's surprise birthday party even if it would make him uncomfortable to shake is booty in front of a loads of cat calling men? does a b&b owner have to let a gay couple stay in their home even if they're uncomfortable with it?
Without the instinct to be discriminatory and prejudiced the human species would have been wiped out before we learned how to make fire. it is an innate part of our evolutionary make up that is taboo and forbidden in modern society and I think we really struggle with dealing with it.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

If they guy is working in straight porn - he is subject to the same testing as all straight porn actors. That is the crux here. She refused to work with him based on here deep seeded fears and prejudices. End of.

I'm out this garbage pile.

if she felt safer ruling out men who do gay porn, that's her choice.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope. Follow closely. I am arguing about discrimination in the work place.

I know, I'm leaving...

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Lol... Spraying some fine ass bull**** here.

I'm sure you watch porn for the Shakespearean level acting and not the ****ing part too, then?

You're making a gross assumption in assuming I even watch porn in the first place, and secondly - I don't support any form of exploitation, and I would support anyone who was speaking out against attempts to exploit them, regardless of their job description.

You appear to think it should be acceptable to exploit people for any reason you can use to justify your own prejudices against them.

Saruhashi wrote: »

It wouldn't really. You can't become gay vicariously.

This doesn't even make any sense.

Your penis has touched something that their penis has touched. Which essentially means you've touched their penis... with your penis.

If that's not gay, then I don't know what is.

silverharp wrote: »

if she felt safer ruling out men who do gay porn, that's her choice.

Again, homophobia. We have now, thanks to somebody's gracious copying of a tweet, established in this thread that all actors in straight porn adhere to the same protocol in regards testing. This voids the original claim from the actress completely. Her reasoning was therefore entirely based on a prejudice.

Thank you and bonne nuit.

RayM wrote: »

Your penis has touched something that their penis has touched. Which essentially means you've touched their penis... with your penis.

If that's not gay, then I don't know what is.

It's only gay if the balls touch.

RayM wrote: »

Your penis has touched something that their penis has touched. Which essentially means you've touched their penis... with your penis.

If that's not gay, then I don't know what is.

Its only gay if you enjoy the thought of it and then go out and have real gay sex.
Unless you say no homo of course. Then its bro jobs all around. Nothing gay about helping a bro.

RayM wrote: »

Your penis has touched something that their penis has touched. Which essentially means you've touched their penis... with your penis.

If that's not gay, then I don't know what is.

This is foolproof logic, right here :pac:

There's no way of knowing what exactly caused her too take her own life she may of had underlining unresolved issues and this just tipped her over the edge its very tragic either way RIP.

suicide_circus wrote: »

In my book, no - of course not but in that scenario you are not in the workplace and therefore the decision would not come under equality legislation. There is an undefined line between acceptable and unacceptable discrimination. where is the cut off point? does a male stripper have to book a gig for a gay chap's surprise birthday party even if it would make him uncomfortable to shake is booty in front of a loads of cat calling men? does a b&b owner have to let a gay couple stay in their home even if they're uncomfortable with it?
Without the instinct to be discriminatory and prejudiced the human species would have been wiped out before we learned how to make fire. it is an innate part of our evolutionary make up that is taboo and forbidden in modern society and I think we really struggle with dealing with it.

It's a sad day when you are looking to the porn industry for ethical and moral compasses - but that's where we are.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're making a gross assumption in assuming I even watch porn in the first place

Lol..

Pull the other one...

Oh wait... never mind...

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

It's a sad day when you are looking to the porn industry for ethical and moral compasses - but that's where we are.

This is the long goodbye, somebody tell me why...

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

It's a sad day when you are looking to the porn industry for ethical and moral compasses - but that's where we are.

Ah now here. I'll have you know the fine gentlemen at barelylegalteens.com hold to the highest and most stringent moral standards in any industry.

This post has been deleted.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Lol..

Pull the other one...

Oh wait... never mind...

LAST!

It's more usual to declare 'first' on the internet.

Rory28 wrote: »

Ah now here. I'll have you know the fine gentlemen at barelylegalteens.com hold to the highest and most stringent moral standards in any industry.

I plead ignorance on the matter of barelylegalteens.com

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Once sex is a business and business is covered by legislation the lines become blurred, do they not.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nope. Not what I argued. And anyways, I've made my case. I've destroyed you all. I'm now celebrating a win. Cheers.