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

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.

So if a woman refuses to sleep with me because my penis touched something that once touched another penis then she's homophobic?

I feel like this pick up line might not work.

Woke PUA: Hey I just had sex with a woman who had sex with some other guy before me. Will you have sex with me?
Woman: Hell no! Get away from me you creep!
Woke PUA: So you're homophobic?

Oh, wait. I missed this in my giddy glee.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

We are talking about pornstars and you are admonishing me for being exploitative. :pac:

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Her prejudice was based solely on the fact he had previously engaged in homosexual behavior. That's pretty homophobic sounding to me.

In this case and for a nice change the term "homophobic" may actually be somewhat accurate. A "fear" of.

Fact: Penetrative sex between homosexual men as a group is statistically the most risky sexual behaviour as far as the transmission of the HIV virus goes. Fact: women during heterosexual penetrative sex are more vulnerable to infection than men are. Fact: a woman who choses to not sleep with men who have has penetrative sex with men is lowering her risk of contracting HIV. Ergo it makes perfect logical sense that a woman when presented with this choice chooses to turn down such a man.

Would you take issue if she had turned down sexual intercourse with an intravenous drug user? Would you have accused her of being "phobic", or would you have regarded this as reasonable? Even though the risks are lower with that demographic.

major bill wrote: »

You created this Garbage pile tbf

Nah, merely added to a preexisting ****fest

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

The adult entertainment industry isn't particularly concerned with employment legislation and health and safety regulations, so that's exactly why it is so important that people draw attention to these issues and are supported rather than condemned for it, because only by highlighting the issues can legislation and regulation follow.

Wibbs wrote: »

In this case and for a nice change the term "homophobic" may actually be somewhat accurate. A "fear" of.

Fact: Penetrative sex between homosexual men as a group is statistically the most risky sexual behaviour as far as the transmission of the HIV virus goes. Fact: women during heterosexual penetrative sex are more vulnerable to infection than men are. Fact: a woman who choses to not sleep with men who have has penetrative sex with men is lowering her risk of contracting HIV. Ergo it makes perfect logical sense that a woman when presented with this choice chooses to turn down such a man.

Would you take issue if she had turned down sexual intercourse with an intravenous drug user? Would you have accused her of being "phobic", or would you have regarded this as reasonable? Even though the risks are lower with that demographic.

Fact: She worked in Porn.

Fact: Her job was high risk either way

Wibbs wrote: »

Would you take issue if she had turned down sexual intercourse with an intravenous drug user? Would you have accused her of being "phobic", or would you have regarded this as reasonable? Even though the risks are lower with that demographic.

If they were tested and cleared. It is reasonable to suggest prejudice. Yes. It's the job. Again she can refuse, but don't go mouthing off like a brat on twitter

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

If they were tested and cleared. It is reasonable to suggest prejudice. Yes. It's the job. Again she can refuse, but don't go mouthing off like a brat on twitter

I thought you were going off to celebrate your victory?

Candie wrote: »

Of course this is horrific, but since it only happened over the course of a few days I would imagine that the poor girl was in a bad place to begin with and this tipped her over the edge. You don't go from complete wellness to suicidal in the space of days, even with vicious bullying.

None of which excuses any of it.

You'd be surprised how quickly a person can be driven to it. Especially if they've been publicly shamed or embarrassed. An eg would be the nurse who killed herself after she`unwittingly put through a radio prank call to Kate Middleton's hospital room in 2012.

A mother, a wife and devout Christian (very relevant) shamed into ending her own life.

Other egs would people who suffer sudden catastrophic financial loss, the crash of 1929 for instance led to many people ending their lives in a matter of hours. Some even threw themselves off the stock exchange.

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I suppose from the tweet, the internet moral police decided it was because she was homophobic and loathe to work with someone who is gay rather than it being a valid health concern with logical reasoning behind it.

Doesn't matter why she didn't want to have sex with someone. It's her absolute right to decide who she has sex with. I wouldn't hacecsex with men who sleep with men either, not about dat life, doesn't do anything for me. She is not compelled to sleep with anyone she doesn't want and she doesn't need to excuse herself either

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Fact: She worked in Porn.

Fact: Her job was high risk either way

Why should someone actually put the risk to their health above anyone else's opinion? If there's any good will come of this particular case, it will draw attention to the fact that people don't have to accept that they should have sex with someone they don't want to, and nobody should be ashamed of that.

the poor girl is dead and still getting abuse

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

You'd be surprised how quickly a person can be driven to it. Especially if they've been publicly shamed or embarrassed. An eg would be the nurse who killed herself after she`unwittingly put through a radio prank call to Kate Middleton's hospital room in 2012.

A mother, a wife and devout Christian (very relevant) shamed into ending her own life.

Other egs would people who suffer sudden catastrophic financial loss, the crash of 1929 for instance led to many people ending their lives in a matter of hours. Some even threw themselves off the stock exchange.

Perhaps, but she was known to suffer from depression and had confided in her friends, so in this case at least, it's likely to be a last straw scenario if she was already fragile.

It's just desperately sad.

anna080 wrote: »

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...

Sinatra's was shorter!!!

Candie wrote: »

Perhaps, but she was known to suffer from depression and had confided in her friends, so in this case at least, it's likely to be a last straw scenario if she was already fragile.

It's just desperately sad.

You've posted enough crap in this thread already. Stop victim blaming and move on.

Gijoseph wrote: »

You've posted enough crap in this thread already. Stop victim blaming and move on.

How is what Candie said victim blaming? She clearly showed compassion for her.

Rory28 wrote: »

How is what Candie said victim blaming? She clearly showed compassion for her.

It wasn't, and he knows that. He just has an agenda he wants to push and is trying to shoehorn it in wherever he can.

I'd just ignore him, tbh.

I was bullied in school before the online days mind.

If I had depression would that somehow mean the bullies were given a pass I'd I took my own life???

My arse they should be.

Let's hope she's at peace and the b*****rds who CAUSED This are ashamed. I doubt the second part.

IMO you take a person as you find them. If you choose to bully a fragile person then yes, it is your fault if they can't take it and they kill themselves. Would that level of online bullying affect a reasonable man or woman in a negative manner? Yes, it would.

Vihaan Rancid Muck wrote: »

IMO you take a person as you find them. If you choose to bully a fragile person then yes, it is your fault if they can't take it and they kill themselves. Would that level of online bullying affect a reasonable man or woman in a negative manner? Yes, it would.

This. Saying "oh but she had depression so it was kind of inevitable" may not be victim blaming per se. It's certainly bully-forgiving though.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear had a great line in one of his earlier posts: "if someone is on a ledge you don't give them a push"

Her depression possibly contributed to her mental state and we have no way of knowing what she was feeling before these tweets, we also don't know if the abusers knew she was vulnerable but it shouldn't matter. There has to be zero tolerance of bullying regardless of the medium.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

This. Saying "oh but she had depression so it was kind of inevitable" may not be victim blaming per se. It's certainly bully-forgiving though.

If anyone said that, maybe.

Pointing out that an already vulnerable person was bullied and that might explain the speed of events is something altogether different. If she had been completely well, it wouldn't make her less bullied but it may have changed the sequence of events, but we'll never know.

There is no forgiveness for bullies, it's unforgivable. Do not even attempt to suggest I think the bullies deserve a pass.

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. 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.

I can actually see sjw morons soon saying stuff like don’t be homophobic If a gay lad wants a shag with ya even if your straight

Yes of course I have an agenda I want to shoehorn. Its with people trying to belittle the fact that this young woman was the victim of a bullying campaign and all you can say is "oh but she had depression". I hope people ignore your little agenda Candie.

Gijoseph wrote: »

Yes of course I have an agenda I want to shoehorn. Its with people trying to belittle the face that this young woman was the victim of a bullying campaign and all you can say is "oh but she had depression".

Nobody belittled it, you're imagining that.

I'd wonder why, but then it seems obvious enough.

Candie wrote: »

Gijoseph wrote: »

Yes of course I have an agenda I want to shoehorn. Its with people trying to belittle the face that this young woman was the victim of a bullying campaign and all you can say is "oh but she had depression".

Nobody belittled it, you're imagining that.

I'd wonder why, but then it seems obvious enough.

Given you effectively bullied me on another page this week till told to stop, you can see why your defence of bullying holds water.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Given you effectively bullied me on another page this week till told to stop, you can see why your defence of bullying holds water.

I think you're seriously out of line here.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my posts again, but it seems to be your stock in trade.

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought you were going off to celebrate your victory?

I wanted to share it with you guys, down here in the dregs of after hours

TheDavester wrote: »

I can actually see sjw morons soon saying stuff like don’t be homophobic If a gay lad wants a shag with ya even if your straight

It's already common in some LGBT communities and kink community mainly only with trans people though. I have witnessed, in person, someone being told that they were homophobic because they refused to have sex with someone who was born a man, dressed like a stereotypical drug-addicted hooker outside a motel that you'd see in American movies, hadn't had any surgery but said she was a woman on a girls night out. The guy sort of walked himself into it after saying something along the lines of he was desperate and would ride anything but he didn't deserve the abuse he got when he said no to the transperson.

Candie wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Given you effectively bullied me on another page this week till told to stop, you can see why your defence of bullying holds water.

I think you're seriously out of line here.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misrepresent my posts again, but it seems to be your stock in trade.

Short memory.... let me get the unrelated and snidy posts up from earlier this week and the Mod post saying "enough" k ?