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

JayZeus wrote: »

This isn't really the place to be getting into this, but you're truly naive to think that anything about the life of a female pornstar is representative of a successful, healthy and fulfilled adult life.

Seriously, at 23 years of age, she's been in 290 porn films. That's not something a healthy and happy young woman does.

What if they just like having sex?

JayZeus wrote: »

This isn't really the place to be getting into this, but you're truly naive to think that anything about the life of a female pornstar is representative of a successful, healthy and fulfilled adult life.

Seriously, at 23 years of age, she's been in 290 porn films. That's not something a healthy and happy young woman does.

Once again that is your belief, to make an assumption on the woman and her background because of that belief is wrong! Nothing Naive about that.

tomwaterford wrote: »

What if they just like having sex?

Only profession in the world where women are paid significantly more than Men. The idea of being in Porn is very taboo in Ireland, in the USA it is not.

tomwaterford wrote: »

What if they just like having sex?

Ah here now Tom, you're going to get me in trouble!

Sure, didn't she have a husband for that?

And what kind of cuck would be okay with his wife getting seen to by other men just so a production company, director, cameramen, make-up artists and all the rest could line their own pockets with the money spent by (literally) **** all over the internet who will pay to watch said mans wife getting done by someone else?

290 time since she turned 19. That’s 4 years.

There's nobody in their right mind would actually believe there's anything normal, healthy or positive in that. Ye're fooling nobody at all. Go on, look her up on The Hun or whatever, but just remember now that most of the girls you're looking at are being paid to do things you'd die to know your daughter or wife were at. That's what the industry is about.

Call a spade a spade. She was taken advantage of by everyone she worked with and her mother and husband both failed in the responsibility they should have had to her. Blaming internet trolls are holding them primarily responsible for her death is absolute horse manure.

I've no idea what SJW means, but this group of people are the most disgusting, nasty little narcissists. Imagine leading such a miserable life that you feel the need to go online an abuse a pornstars (Those great standard bearers of society).

JayZeus wrote: »

tomwaterford wrote: »

What if they just like having sex?

Ah here now Tom, you're going to get me in trouble!

Sure, didn't she have a husband for that?

And what kind of cuck would be okay with his wife getting seen to by other men just so a production company, director, cameramen, make-up artists and all the rest could line their own pockets with the money spent by (literally) **** all over the internet who will pay to watch said mans wife getting done by someone else?

290 time since she turned 18.

There's nobody in their right mind would actually believe there's anything normal, healthy or positive in that. Ye're fooling nobody at all. Go on, look her up on The Hun or whatever, but just remember now that most of the girls you're looking at are being paid to do things you'd die to know your daughter or wife were at. That's what the industry is about.

Call a spade a spade. She was taken advantage of by everyone she worked with and her mother and husband both failed in the responsibility they should have had to her. Blaming internet trolls are holding them primarily responsible for her death is absolute horse manure.

NEWSFLASH!!!!

We don't all have husbands.

Btw the 30s called and they said even they wouldn't be that backwards.

Saruhashi wrote: »

I though SJW stood for "Social Justice Warrior" and that the "Warrior" part of that is used in a sarcastic way? As in they are anything but "warriors" and don't do much real fighting for actual social justice.

More accurate to say the OP is against Social Justice Warriors than to say that the OP is against Social Justice.

Do you think other posters are stupid and won't pick up on this?

If these bullies represent the social justice movement - which they largely do- then yes, I'm against it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions....

PeterParker957 wrote: »

NEWSFLASH!!!!

We don't all have husbands.

Btw the 30s called and they said even they wouldn't be that backwards.

Is it progressive to support the degradation of women? I suppose as long as you're in the 'right on' camp, that's all that matters.

JayZeus wrote: »

Nobody ends up in porn by going down anything other than a wrong path.

Hardly. Many people are more than happy to do it. Many people even do it for FREE on sites just because they enjoy doing it. Not commenting on any one specific actor or actress here, but your statement is simply far too general and sweeping.

Look at this woman for example. Articulate, intelligent, and working towards a good career in college she decided to subsidize her education with porn.

In the end she left porn for solid and well explained reasons. But she is quick to point out she does not regret pretty much all of what she did in porn. The sole exception being a single video she wished she had not done with "barely legal" girls.

This is an intelligent and articulate woman entirely happy with her choice to do porn, and her reasons for doing it, and even felt sorry for feeling she had to quit porn due to problems in the industry, rather than problems about porn itself.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

All the above are interchangeable statement and all amount to the same meaning

That is not a REMOTELY true statement from you. One statement is about homosexuals, another is about the gay porn industry. They are not remotely interchangeable. Not even a little bit.

So now you are merely dehumanizing homosexuals by saying they are interchangeable in a statement with the industry of gay porn.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

i.e. She refused to work with a guy because he had gay sex.

No, she refused to work with a guy because he worked in gay porn. Not because he had gay sex.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

She tweeted her reasoning for discriminating within a workplace. You may not call it abuse, but it's a prejudice she aired on a public platform.

She said she does not want to work with people in her industry, who have worked in another industry. I see nothing wrong with that. But if you or anyone else do then EXPLAINING the issue you see with it is the right approach. Saying abusing her for it is "fair" is remarkable nonsense.

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.

But given her decision was NOT based on homophobia, as I explained earlier, then it clearly was not fair to call her any such thing.

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Fact: She worked in Porn. Fact: Her job was high risk either way

And what do people in high risk jobs do in every other industry? They take AS MANY precautions as they can to mitigate and reduce the risks. As is their right. And if in the porn industry that means a person in area A refusing to work with people from area B, because to do so compromises the safety of people in area A...... then that is their right too. No matter how desperate you are to spin it falsely as homophobia.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

NEWSFLASH!!!!

We don't all have husbands.

Btw the 30s called and they said even they wouldn't be that backwards.

And some of you will never have husbands. What's your point?

It's not backwards to criticise a mother and a husband for failing to do the things they should, to have helped and protected a woman who had put herself or was put by them in the position she was.

It's daft to allow yourself think I'm somehow holding a minority view of this. I'm not.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

NEWSFLASH!!!!

We don't all have husbands.

Btw the 30s called and they said even they wouldn't be that backwards.

Is it progressive to support the degradation of women? I suppose as long as you're in the 'right on' camp, that's all that matters.

If you're a woman and choose your profession (We're allowed to do that now!!!) then you won't feel you're bro g degraded.

I'd support anyone who wanted to take whatever path in life they felt best for them.

JayZeus wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

NEWSFLASH!!!!

We don't all have husbands.

Btw the 30s called and they said even they wouldn't be that backwards.

And some of you will never have husbands. What's your point?

It's not backwards to criticise a mother and a husband for failing to do the things they should, to have helped and protected a woman who had put herself or was put by them in the position she was.

It's daft to allow yourself think I'm somehow holding a minority view of this. I'm not.

No you're not. If it was 1955.

Right now we don't need our husbands to "protect" us.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No you're not. If it was 1955.

Right now we don't need our husbands to "protect" us.

Christ, I think we have a prime example of an SJW here.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No you're not. If it was 1955.

Right now we don't need our husbands to "protect" us.

Christ, I think we have a prime example of an SJW here.

Oh absolutely you do not!!!!!!

JayZeus wrote: »

And some of you will never have husbands. What's your point?

It's not backwards to criticise a mother and a husband for failing to do the things they should, to have helped and protected a woman who had put herself or was put by them in the position she was.

It's daft to allow yourself think I'm somehow holding a minority view of this. I'm not.

You should check out a documentary series called After Porn Ends. It has a series of interviews with various retired adult entertainers. Some were damaged by it, some were damaged to begin with, but there are many who have no regrets and no negative experiences. They made a good living and left when they were ready, went to college, got jobs or married and had kids.

Porn is a risky industry and has a much higher rate of addictions and suicide than other jobs but maybe it attracts a vulnerable person to begin with

major bill wrote: »

Only profession in the world where women are paid significantly more than Men. The idea of being in Porn is very taboo in Ireland, in the USA it is not.

Nonsense. That's an excuse used by men to justify watching the films/images produced by other men who pay women to let other men have sexual intercourse with them, abuse, degrade and defile them.

It's also worth mentioning that there's probably much less need to pay the male performers large fees, by comparison with the young women who would almost certainly prefer to be doing something/someone else.

eviltwin wrote: »

You should check out a documentary series called After Porn Ends. It has a series of interviews with various retired adult entertainers. Some were damaged by it, some were damaged to begin with, but there are many who have no regrets and no negative experiences. They made a good living and left when they were ready, went to college, got jobs or married and had kids.

Porn is a risky industry and has a much higher rate of addictions and suicide than other jobs but maybe it attracts a vulnerable person to begin with

But at the root of pornography is the degradation and humiliation of women by selfish men. Discussions about whether they regret it or not are irrelevant.

If a woman is willingly having sex on camera for money that's her business. If she's happy to do it and is doing it of her own free will, who cares?
If her husband is okay with it, good for him. What other people are into sexually is nobodies business once nobody is being hurt.
Women enjoy sex, shock horror. Woman doesn't want to have sex with a man who has had sex with another man, omg how dare she!

JayZeus wrote: »

That's an excuse used by men to justify watching the films/images

The term "justify" persupposes something is wrong. Your foundation assumption is at fault. There is nothing wrong with paying people to have sex. There is nothing wrong with filming people who consent. There is nothing wrong with watching people having sex.

I see no requirement to "justify" anything if no one is actually doing anything wrong. Even if I was a user of porn which I am not. But someone hating porn, or declaring it to be degrading when it is not inherently degrading, does not leave me with the feeling that anyone has to justify anything here.

What IS degrading and dehumanizing is presuming women who make such choices do not know their own mind, their own desires, their own career path, or that they somehow need "protecting" from their own choices or their own selves.

JayZeus wrote: »

It's also worth mentioning that there's probably much less need to pay the male performers large fees, by comparison with the young women who would almost certainly prefer to be doing something/someone else.

I think I will let women decide for themselves AND to tell us what they "prefer" rather than have people on internet forums do it not just on their behalf, but en masse on their behalf.

That SOME people would prefer to be doing something else is a given. But given that is true of ALL jobs, so what?

But I would not assume anything about what they want. Even when NOT being paid, such as free sites, there are men alone, women alone, and people together producing porn entirely for free.

If people are happy to do it in their free time, for no financial profit......... then why assume people doing it for money would be any less happy to do so?

This whole thing is so sad. I can't help but think that this woman spent most of her life being exploited (yes we all know that some women enjoy being in porn but given her issues I can't imagine that this was the case).

She tries to exert a small piece of control over her body and is harrassed and lambasted for it by people who claim to be progressive. Because getting outraged when a woman says no and abusing her to the point of suicide is totally progressive.

A person has a right to say no for any reason. It doesn't make them a bigot or phobic. Males who have sex with other males have a higher risk of being infected with HIV. That's a fact. Yes her chosen profession was already placing her at higher risk but why shouldn't she try to reduce that even just a little.

Vihaan Rancid Muck wrote: »

If a woman is willingly having sex on camera for money that's her business. If she's happy to do it and is doing it of her own free will, who cares?
If her husband is okay with it, good for him. What other people are into sexually is nobodies business once nobody is being hurt.
Women enjoy sex, shock horror. Woman doesn't want to have sex with a man who has had sex with another man, omg how dare she!

You argument is horribly immoral and selfish. Do you say the same about women working in sweatshops in Bangladesh? They are doing it voluntarily at the end of the day.

eviltwin wrote: »

You should check out a documentary series called After Porn Ends. It has a series of interviews with various retired adult entertainers.

Seen it. Have you watched Hot Girls Wanted? Interesting documentary also.

I'm not convinced that the actresses who talk about how they have no real regrets. It's much easier to bluff things are okay if you cling to positivity and the 'benefits' rather than reflect on what you were actually doing, which is effectively accepting money to have a stranger perform sex acts on you, or accepting money to perform sex acts on a stranger. Either way, that's not something that's going to rest easy with a young woman as they mature and realise that life is not all that pop culture would suggest it is.

I'll bet not one of them individually was offended by this, only when the group saw a chance to be collectively offended, they took their opportunity. The internet is toxic these days.

Good article on it here
http://thefederalist.com/2017/12/07/porn-star-commits-suicide-mob-hounds-refusing-partner-gay-sex/

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You argument is horribly immoral and selfish.

Which part? I read the users post and there was a few individual arguments in it and I can not see a problem with any of them. Let alone one that is specifically immoral OR selfish.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Do you say the same about women working in sweatshops in Bangladesh? They are doing it voluntarily at the end of the day.

I do not know the dynamics of that job in that country, or how voluntary it is. But I know I would say the same GENERAL thing about it as I do about the sex industry. Which is that if someone does enter it of their own free will, that is nobody's business but their own.

However if they entered of it of their own free will BUT a factor in their choice was that they did not see any other options for themselves..... then that is of course not ideal.

Ideally I would want to work towards a society that lets anyone in ANY career path to get out if they really want to. Initiatives like the Mature Student Grants that let people at a certain point say "No, I am not happy with the life my choices have brought me to, I want out, and I need help".

I respect people's free choices, but we also want to SUPPORT people in making their choices or unmaking the ones they regret, as best we can. Giving people more options, and more get out options, is a good thing.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Vihaan Rancid Muck wrote: »

If a woman is willingly having sex on camera for money that's her business. If she's happy to do it and is doing it of her own free will, who cares?
If her husband is okay with it, good for him. What other people are into sexually is nobodies business once nobody is being hurt.
Women enjoy sex, shock horror. Woman doesn't want to have sex with a man who has had sex with another man, omg how dare she!

You argument is horribly immoral and selfish. Do you say the same about women working in sweatshops in Bangladesh? They are doing it voluntarily at the end of the day.

That's you told!!! You're 100% spot on btw- I wouldn't personally choose to make porn and granted at my advanced age it would be some niche market- but if a woman chooses to then who can tell her not to ?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You argument is horribly immoral and selfish. Do you say the same about women working in sweatshops in Bangladesh? They are doing it voluntarily at the end of the day.

The two are not comparable. It is not up to you to decide what another grown woman does.

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I'll bet not one of them individually was offended by this, only when the group saw a chance to be collectively offended, they took their opportunity. The internet is toxic these days.

Yes. In middle ages people threw stones probably rotten food now they tweet. It's much cosier because you don't see what damage it does and you can delude yourself it is for the common good...

Vihaan Rancid Muck wrote: »

The two are not comparable. It is not up to you to decide what another grown woman does.

What is wrong with you people. When did I say I would force them to stop?

Banned.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But at the root of pornography is the degradation and humiliation of women by selfish men. Discussions about whether they regret it or not are irrelevant.

I see the Legion of Mary are back in town