SJW campaign leads to porn star suicide.

Saruhashi

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.

suicide_circus

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.

silverharp

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.

JackTaylorFan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

I know, I'm leaving...

One eyed Jack

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.

RayM

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.

JackTaylorFan

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

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.

Rory28

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.

JackTaylorFan

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:

Mutant z

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.

JackTaylorFan

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.

JackTaylorFan

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...

retro:electro

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...

Rory28

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.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cantdecide

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Lol..

Pull the other one...

Oh wait... never mind...

LAST!

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

JackTaylorFan

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

suicide_circus

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.

JackTaylorFan

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.

Saruhashi

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?

JackTaylorFan

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:

Wibbs

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.

JackTaylorFan

major bill wrote: »

You created this Garbage pile tbf

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

One eyed Jack

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.

JackTaylorFan

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

JackTaylorFan

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

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?

DEFTLEFTHAND

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.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

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

One eyed Jack

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.

eviltwin

the poor girl is dead and still getting abuse

DEFTLEFTHAND

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.

PeterParker957

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!!!

Gijoseph

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.

Rory28

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

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.

PeterParker957

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.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

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.

PeterParker957

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.

eviltwin

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

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

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

Gijoseph

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

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.

PeterParker957

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

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.

JackTaylorFan

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

GarIT

Lennox Wide Violist 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.

PeterParker957

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 ?