Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

12357…10

Comments

  • #202
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    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.


  • #203
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    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?


  • #204
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    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.


  • #205
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Help!!!! wrote: »
    So what if it was based on prejudice?

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


  • #206
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    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?


  • #207
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    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


  • #208
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    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.


  • #209
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,204 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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!


  • #210
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    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.


  • #212
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    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.

    But you can quit at any time...Unless your a slave? ?

    .....your trying to run rough shod over someone's right to not consent to sex.....no matter how much you shout and say homophobic over and over...it's what it looks like to me



    Your health is alway worth more than any money you'll ever earn


  • #213
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Help!!!! wrote: »
    She can be called out on it, for sure but no one should be told to kill themselves.

    This is the internet. A woman working on a Mass Effect game gets told to kill herself. ****. It happens. Turn off your twitter if you don't like what you are reading.


  • #214
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    Help!!!! wrote: »
    She can be called out on it, for sure but no one should be told to kill themselves.

    We also don't know what kind of abuse or threats she was getting privately.

    I don't like the "kill yourself" thing, but at least it's just a suggestion. Usually when someone's getting that sort of crap, they're also getting private messages along the lines of "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm going to hack all your accounts and release your private information."

    That kind of stuff needs to be really strongly dealt with, because it's so easy to do but can create such absolute terror.


  • #215
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    But you can quit at any time...Unless your a slave? ?

    .....your trying to run rough shod over someone's right to not consent to sex.....no matter how much you shout and say homophobic over and over...it's what it looks like to me



    Your health is alway worth more than any money you'll ever earn

    Don't you know that bad grammar triggers JackTaylorFan?


  • #216
    Help!!!!
    Registered Users Posts: 2,965 ✭✭✭Help!!!!


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    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.

    Are you in the porn industry as well? Bit different having to put up with some ar$ehole of a colleague rather that some colleague trying to put something up your ----


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    This is the internet. A woman working on a Mass Effect game gets told to kill herself. ****. It happens. Turn off your twitter if you don't like what you are reading.

    Grim AF

    She can't say xy and z.....but your ok to go online and abuse the crap outta her


  • #218
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    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

    Sure, and for the most part I even agree with you. The distinction however is WHERE we think that prejudice lay.

    She said, and I take her word for it, that it was with the gay porn industry. You think, for some reason, that it was against homosexuals. That being, you might have noticed, what the word "homophobia" actually means.

    I can only repeat for you that:

    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.
    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    Well, then she deserved some of the abuse she got. fair is fair.

    Nope. If someone (she certainly didn't) expresses an abhorrent attitude or idea through free expression, then similar free expression should be used to combat the ideas or attitudes thus expressed. Escalating that to abuse however is not "fair" at all.

    "Abuse" tends to be the go to approach for people who can not actually articulate a rebuttal to what a person espoused. If she expressed a position that was wrong or erroneous or harmful or damaging (she didn't, but if) then the "fair" response is to clearly and maturely explain to her the error of her ways.

    Abuse is rarely (ever?) an approach that is "fair". Let alone at the level of the mob.


  • #219
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Don't you know that bad grammar triggers JackTaylorFan?

    :pac: "Triggers" is one of those buzzwords bellends use on social media


  • #220
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    :pac: "Triggers" is one of those buzzwords bellends use on social media

    Seems appropriate so.


  • #221
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    This is the internet. A woman working on a Mass Effect game gets told to kill herself. ****. It happens. Turn off your twitter if you don't like what you are reading.

    Shouldn't the people offended by her tweet not abide by the same logic, then?

    It's not acceptable to post public attacks about your colleagues online no matter what industry you work in, but equally it's not acceptable to threaten people or tell them to kill themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Don't you know that bad grammar triggers JackTaylorFan?

    Tbh I'm a bit tick on the grammer front :(

    I could never get me head about it


  • #223
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,204 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    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.


    What's wrong with someone standing up for themselves because they choose not to grin and bear being subjected to poor working conditions? Instead of condemning her for drawing attention to the ill treatment and disrespect shown to women in the adult entertainment industry, she should have been commended for her actions, because far too many women are afraid to speak out for fear of condemnation, and your attitude only contributes to that fear of being condemned for speaking out.


  • #224
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    Tbh I'm a bit tick on the grammer front :(

    I could never get me head about it

    Ever use Grammarly? It's f*cking amazing, if you haven't.


  • #225
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Ever use Grammarly? It's f*cking amazing, if you haven't.

    This is an app...i assume

    May check it out✌


  • #226
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    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".




    All the above are interchangeable statement and all amount to the same meaning - i.e. She refused to work with a guy because he had gay sex. Your argument is circular.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »


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



    Nope. If someone (she certainly didn't) expresses an abhorrent attitude or idea through free expression, then similar free expression should be used to combat the ideas or attitudes thus expressed. Escalating that to abuse however is not "fair" at all.

    "Abuse" tends to be the go to approach for people who can not actually articulate a rebuttal to what a person espoused. If she expressed a position that was wrong or erroneous or harmful or damaging (she didn't, but if) then the "fair" response is to clearly and maturely explain to her the error of her ways.

    Abuse is rarely (ever?) an approach that is "fair". Let alone at the level of the mob.

    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.


  • #227
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    This is an app...i assume

    May check it out✌

    It's an extension that works with Chrome. It works as a spell check, but also checks grammar.

    https://www.grammarly.com/


  • #228
    B.A._Baracus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,206 ✭✭✭✭B.A._Baracus


    People are as*holes.
    Give them twitter etc and watch them be as*holes online.

    Let's be naive here too... There would be some who after reading about her suicide will smile and say "good" to themselves.


  • #229
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    It's an extension that works with Chrome. It works as a spell check, but also checks grammar.

    https://www.grammarly.com/

    Looking into this now....no android app yet :( ...but should have laptop back up and running next week


  • #230
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ever use Grammarly? It's f*cking amazing, if you haven't.

    Grammarly is ****e, to be fair. It's mostly about enabling introverted misanthropes. I no longer follow it on my Facebook


  • #231
    Saruhashi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Saruhashi


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    If her reasoning for not consenting is based on any of the terms covered by the discriminatory in the workplace laws in her country? Yes.

    To be honest here if the workplace laws in any country are such that, in the porn industry, an employer can order a woman to have sex with someone and she cannot refuse then those laws need to change.

    There has to be some kind of clause that allows her to say "no, I don't want to do this" and she can walk away without punishment. Anything else is immoral to be honest.

    I don't really care what her reason is. If an individual doesn't want to have sex with someone for any reason at all then that's the end of it.

    It's kind of disgusting and disturbing that there are people trying to find a way around this.

    Why would you even want to find a way around it?

    If she says no then that's it. The end.

    What good does it do anyone if we develop the idea that refusing to have sex with someone could result in being branded "phobic" and that could come with severe social shaming and/or backlash?

    So women will always have to consider that some people can't be refused because there might be consequences if you say "no".

    Didn't we just spend months having this kind of thing exposed in Hollywood and we all agreed that it's wrong?

    I guess future Weinstein types will be saying "just come up to my room for a drink baby, it would be a real shame if the Twitter mob was calling you a Nazi tomorrow".


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Saruhashi wrote: »
    To be honest here if the workplace laws in any country are such that, in the porn industry, an employer can order a woman to have sex with someone and she cannot refuse then those laws need to change.

    There has to be some kind of clause that allows her to say "no, I don't want to do this" and she can walk away without punishment. Anything else is immoral to be honest.

    I don't really care what her reason is. If an individual doesn't want to have sex with someone for any reason at all then that's the end of it.

    It's kind of disgusting and disturbing that there are people trying to find a way around this.

    Why would you even want to find a way around it?

    If she says no then that's it. The end.

    What good does it do anyone if we develop the idea that refusing to have sex with someone could result in being branded "phobic" and that could come with severe social shaming and/or backlash?

    So women will always have to consider that some people can't be refused because there might be consequences if you say "no".

    Didn't we just spend months having this kind of thing exposed in Hollywood and we all agreed that it's wrong?

    I guess future Weinstein types will be saying "just come up to my room for a drink baby, it would be a real shame if the Twitter mob was calling you a Nazi tomorrow".

    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.


  • #233
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    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.

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


  • #234
    Call Me Jimmy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,449 ✭✭✭Call Me Jimmy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I feel like SJW is like "f*ckboy". It's a term that's thrown around quite a lot lately, but if you ask people exactly what they mean, nobody really has a definitive answer.

    ??? Ask someone what they mean by social justice and you'll have a much more difficult time.


  • #235
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.

    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?


  • #236
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,676 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    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.

    you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. Everyone makes risk based decision, Ive decided not to go to Somalia for my summer holidays because its too risky, does that make me racist? (No is the required answer here)

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #237
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    Call Me Jimmy wrote: »
    ??? Ask someone what they mean by social justice and you'll have a much more difficult time.

    This.

    People who throw around the term Social Justice Warrior do it to try and belittle valid points. It's ad hominEminem - or however you spray it


  • #238
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,242 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    All the above are interchangeable statement and all amount to the same meaning - i.e. She refused to work with a guy because he had gay sex. Your argument is circular.

    Had gay sex =/= Had gay sex in a gay porn film

    She refused to work with a guy who had performed in a gay porn film. Yes, that brings about all sorts of health risks and she felt it wasn't a risk worth taking, especially as it could affect not only her health but also her career.

    Her actions were not discriminatory, as it's quite obvious that when it comes to the industry she works in, there can be segregation based on sexuality as part of the job (eg. people's sexuality is an important factor in most cases as opposed to being discriminated against where sexuality does not affect the job). There is also a much higher risk of contracting an STD through what their job entails compared to simply working in the same environment as someone with an STD.

    You simply cannot treat this case as being along the same lines as if she refused to work in an office job with a gay man in case he had HIV/Aids. The porn industry is not a normal workplace and there are inherent risks involved in same. It's not discriminatory to protect yourself from those risks.


  • #239
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,204 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Saruhashi wrote: »
    It's kind of disgusting and disturbing that there are people trying to find a way around this.

    Why would you even want to find a way around it?


    For their own ends, basically. It's really not all that new, the idea of shaming and condemning women in order to guilt trip them into having sex with someone they don't want to. "The Cotton Ceiling" is the term used in some quarters -


    Cotton ceiling is the situation of trans women of being excluded from cisgender-dominated women's and gay spaces — specifically within the dating scene, but also society in general. The term was coined by Canadian trans woman and activist Drew DeVeaux. The term has been criticized by supporters of other feminist movements who claim the term suggests that sexual access to women is a right, the denial of which constitutes oppression or marginalization. These critics of the term also view trans women as people targeting lesbian women who assert their boundaries.


  • #240
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    JackTaylorFan wrote: »
    This.

    People who throw around the term Social Justice Warrior do it to try and belittle valid points. It's ad hominEminem - or however you spray it

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


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    silverharp wrote: »
    you keep using that word but I don't think it means what you think it means. Everyone makes risk based decision, Ive decided not to go to Somalia for my summer holidays because its too risky, does that make me racist? (No is the required answer here)

    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 her deep seeded fears and prejudices. End of.

    I'm out this garbage pile.


  • #242
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    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.


  • #243
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    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.


  • #244
    major bill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,421 ✭✭✭major bill


    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


  • #245
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #246
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    gctest50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    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





  • #248
    RayM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    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.


  • #249
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #250
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #251
    JackTaylorFan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,452 ✭✭✭JackTaylorFan


    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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement