Just saw this on twitter, long story short


Committed suicide


After getting on Twitter and saying she's not doing scenes with guys who do gay porn. Got dumped from some gigs after the roasting and then killed herself a couple of days later.

_______________________
We rationalize dumb shit

name sounds familiar and I was about to hit command+T and enter that name.

***********************************************************
https://soundcloud.com/swageyph/yph-die-with-me

and for good reason. i dont get why people got mad at her about it.

<--- Big Baller World Order

she could have just held that opinion between herself and her agent

***********************************************************
https://soundcloud.com/swageyph/yph-die-with-me

they went in

_______________________
We rationalize dumb shit

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

How you gonna tell her what he can and can't do with it

<--- Big Baller World Order

don't believe in it when they become the subject of who she didn't wanna associate with. In this case, gay men.

Rest In Peace, Bad News Brown

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4473285

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

What were those good reasons.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

I’m sure those three letters are the reason.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

https://www.queerty.com/first-on-set-hiv-infection-in-ten-years-hits-gay-nevada-shoot-20141231

2014

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

"Its for safety, I know what they do in their private lives" - Ames

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

But even beyond that if she doesn't want to take a dick for basketball reasons she doesn't have to

<--- Big Baller World Order

It's ok to just leave it as a preference. But is there something inherently worse about fucking men that have fucked men as opposed to men who've only fucked women? Because that's what for good reasons implies.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

<--- Big Baller World Order

But ok.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE

2014. And that was a couple of people testing positive
And if your argument is that gay porn is less regulated, she's not doing gay porn, she's doing M-F porn which by deduction you're implying is regulated.

All I'm asking for is what good reasons
People could say she'd lose fans, or her overall industry value would decrease ... those are good and measurable reasons.
But y'all are running in here with statistical outliers and it's just not selling well.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

You posted the last outbreak. I’m sure she was more concerned with her individual safety.

That’s a good enough reason for me to be ok with her reason. I’m sure there are all types of stats that support your angle but personally, I understand and respect her reason.

I can’t believe people called her homophobic.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

there aren't big HIV outbreaks in the gay porn or straight porn arena. And if the last STD outbreak was in 2014 and it's 2017, her risks at catching anything is relatively low. It's not greater than if she sleeps with whoever on her own personal time. It's probably lower due to the amount of testing.

That said, if she doesn't sleep with crossover performers, then FINE let that be the reason and let it stand alone. A lot of women in general do not want to sleep with bi or gay men (or straight for pay men). And it's just about your comfort level and what you are attracted too.

But she came through mad ignorant in her first statement by calling him out as crossover then said no it's not that THEN double downed by saying its about her own safety. It was all ridiculous. She didn't have to bring up or say anything on the TL. She could have kept it to herself because no one knew she turned down any work. She put it out there and then couldn't deal with the backlash.

people just feel bad because she killed herself but she was depressed prior to this incident so anything could have been a trigger.

I would be concerned with my body, not the industry as a whole.

and is it really that messed up to turn down dudes who are bi or do gay pron out of fear of getting HIV?

apparently so, but IMO I don't think she did anything wrong.

now women have to be quiet about why they don't want to sleep with gay dudes?

it's like living in Japan and telling someone it's cool to live close to a nuclear facility because the last meltdown was 8 years ago. Nah nigga, I'm good on that.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>it's like living in Japan and telling someone it's cool to
>live close to a nuclear facility because the last meltdown was
>8 years ago. Nah nigga, I'm good on that.

This is one of the legit dumbest things I've read on here in a while. Are you poasting or is this the comparison that your brain really goes to?

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>there aren't big HIV outbreaks in the gay porn or straight
>porn arena.

Now we making distinctions between Big and small outbreaks? Tell me what size outbreaks you are cool with?




And if the last STD outbreak was in 2014 and it's
>2017, her risks at catching anything is relatively low.

First off, Why you acting like 2014 was a long time ago?!?? Secondly, I think the most recent Outbreak was in 2016 so there's that.


It's
>not greater than if she sleeps with whoever on her own
>personal time. It's probably lower due to the amount of
>testing.

This is not true at all if she only sleeps with me who don't engage in gay sex or other higher risk activities in her personal life. That's really the whole point of this.

If a woman avoids higher risk sex partners in her personal life than she should be able to do so in her professional life if she chooses to do so.

>
>That said, if she doesn't sleep with crossover performers,
>then FINE let that be the reason and let it stand alone. A lot
>of women in general do not want to sleep with bi or gay men
>(or straight for pay men). And it's just about your comfort
>level and what you are attracted too.
>
>But she came through mad ignorant in her first statement by
>calling him out as crossover then said no it's not that THEN
>double downed by saying its about her own safety. It was all
>ridiculous. She didn't have to bring up or say anything on the
>TL. She could have kept it to herself because no one knew she
>turned down any work. She put it out there and then couldn't
>deal with the backlash.


I think you missed the point. From what I understand she rang the alarm because she believed woman should have the right to know if they are doing scenes with people who engage in higher risk sex.

You don't think a woman in that industry has a right to know that there scene partners are engaging in higher risk activities like IV drug use or gay sex?

Or even in women's personal life, do you think a partner has the right to keep relevant information like that away from their partner when they know their partner would want to know they are engaged in high risk activities?

Crazy that folks AND WOMEN are defending people hiding information that puts mainly women at risk.



>
>people just feel bad because she killed herself but she was
>depressed prior to this incident so anything could have been a
>trigger.




>there aren't big HIV outbreaks in the gay porn or straight
>porn arena. And if the last STD outbreak was in 2014 and it's
>2017, her risks at catching anything is relatively low. It's
>not greater than if she sleeps with whoever on her own
>personal time. It's probably lower due to the amount of
>testing.
>
>That said, if she doesn't sleep with crossover performers,
>then FINE let that be the reason and let it stand alone. A lot
>of women in general do not want to sleep with bi or gay men
>(or straight for pay men). And it's just about your comfort
>level and what you are attracted too.
>
>But she came through mad ignorant in her first statement by
>calling him out as crossover then said no it's not that THEN
>double downed by saying its about her own safety. It was all
>ridiculous. She didn't have to bring up or say anything on the
>TL. She could have kept it to herself because no one knew she
>turned down any work. She put it out there and then couldn't
>deal with the backlash.
>
>people just feel bad because she killed herself but she was
>depressed prior to this incident so anything could have been a
>trigger.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

small as in Mr Marcus catching something and it just being him was SMALL.
big as in this is more than one person becoming infected on set.

Again, her reasoning is HERS and it's fine whatever she believes. The issue was with her bringing it up for NO REASON at all. No one would have known she turned down a role period if she hadn't posted about it. She brought it up and as such, she's gonna catch that L.

The LAST (documented) HIV case that happened in porn was in 2004. I just mentioned STDs in general and her risk is no greater than if she was fucking random people. Again, I stand by that. She's safer because they are actually tested more often. BUT LIKE I SAID if she's not comfortable then fuck it

But WHY does anyone need to announce to anyone else (other porn stars) ON TWITTER that she turned down a role because the star is a crossover? Many women in porn are okay with this and some aren't. It was unnecessary and tacky so fuck that and fuck what she said.

unfortunate that she died but people can't act like an ass and think other people are going to be okay with it.

The ONLY person you can control is yourself. Protect yourself, protect your mind. She protected her body but what good is it if you open yourself up mentally to abuse?

>small as in Mr Marcus catching something and it just being
>him was SMALL.
>big as in this is more than one person becoming infected on
>set.
>
>Again, her reasoning is HERS and it's fine whatever she
>believes. The issue was with her bringing it up for NO REASON
>at all. No one would have known she turned down a role period
>if she hadn't posted about it. She brought it up and as such,
>she's gonna catch that L.


I have a hard time understanding why a woman would be arguing that it is wrong for a woman to try and inform other women that a person in the industry is engaged in risky behavior. Sure there are women who would be willing to have sex with a crossover actor but at the very least every woman should be allowed to make an INFORMED decision about who they are having sex with. Would she be wrong if rang the alarm about an actor IV drug use?

Also, it's not like she breached any confidence. THE Dude appeared in PORN for people to see it. Probably on the low and probably under a different name but she can't be wrong for publicizing something a guy made available for the public.




>The LAST (documented) HIV case that happened in porn was in
>2004. I just mentioned STDs in general and her risk is no
>greater than if she was fucking random people. Again, I stand
>by that. She's safer because they are actually tested more
>often. BUT LIKE I SAID if she's not comfortable then fuck it

Where you get that 2004 date from? This article??

http://www.laweekly.com/news/hiv-is-officially-a-bedfellow-in-porn-6591475

Should have read the whole article because after that opening sentence it mentions that's no longer the case and a 2014 outbreak.

THen this more recent article mentions a 2016 outbreak.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4419082/Porn-industry-shuts-amid-fear-actor-HIV.html

That weekly testing is great but the fact is there still remains a window between contracting the disease and it showing up in test if you fucking 50 people a week and their is a 3 month window before HIV shows up in test than testing alone ain't going to protect you. You have to take extra measures which includes avoiding dudes you KNOW engage in risky behavoir.






>But WHY does anyone need to announce to anyone else (other
>porn stars) ON TWITTER that she turned down a role because the
>star is a crossover? Many women in porn are okay with this and
>some aren't. It was unnecessary and tacky so fuck that and
>fuck what she said.


Like I said before. Women should be allowed to make informed decisions about who they having sex with in porn and she was helping other porn actresses make informed decisions. To argue otherwise is to argue that actors should be allowed to conceal their risky behavior and women don't have a right to make informed decisions who they are having sex with.



>
>unfortunate that she died but people can't act like an ass and
>think other people are going to be okay with it.
>
>The ONLY person you can control is yourself. Protect yourself,
>protect your mind. She protected her body but what good is it
>if you open yourself up mentally to abuse?

Can't protect yourself without being informed. She was trying to inform other people. She was a whistleblower.

It's crazy to me to see women attacking her.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

ignorant.

Again, my statement said "ON TWITTER" (Why did you overlook that part)
Let's be clear. You tweeting to the whole world is NOT warning other actresses...its' being an asshole to everyone else working on the movie. She didn't even @ the new actress or the old one. Who is she warning? that's subtweet. If she wanted to warn anyone, she could have went to the woman and told her. That's not what she did.

Let's define outbreak--a sudden rise of incidence. The incidence rate at which HIV occurs didn't rise because 1 or 2 people contract HIV. It's a negligible amount that is a standard risk for anyone having unprotected sex with anyone else. You're no more at risk being in a porn than picking up a one night stand. Actually less risk because they are tested more often. how is this hard to understand?

But I am the ignorant one. CDC calls it an outbreak but it ain't an outbreak to you? mmmkkkay.

And also out here spreading the mistruth that somehow porn stars are safer from HIV transmission because they are tested weekly or even daily. Nevermind the window it takes for a positive to show up. Nevermind the outbreaks we know that happened in the past. Nevermind porn star can have sex with up to 50 people a week.

Stop trying to act like their aren't higher risk having sex with a dude we know is having gay sex and lots of it. That's just dumb. Stop it.

Let me ask you this, a dude said he had sex with 50 people in the last week (male and female), but his STD test that morning came back negative, you cool with having sex with that person? Of course not.


Also can't understand she was wrong to go public with it. Dude made a video and released it to the public. She is wrong for pointing that out to others why? Just try to explain why?

If you believe women have a right to know if a scene partner is engaged in risky activity, then a woman has a right to go public if she knows someone with in the industry is doing so.

It's as simple as a woman has a right to go public with the fact Harvey Weinstein likes to invite women to working dinners than make a move on them.

Can't understand why you would think any woman has an obligation to cover up some shit a dude is trying to hide from women that puts other women at risk.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

actors in gay porn arent vetted and tested the way they are in the mainstream, and ahe disnt want to fuck actors who were involved in that

why are you so pressed?

WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE

It's that simple.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

lol.

you would make SoWhat SoProud

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

It's riskier sex.

That's a reasonable and obvious reason for not wanting to engage in it.


>It's that simple.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

You don't know that HIV rates are higher among gay and bi-sexual men? First source then

https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics

You don't know that hetero women, in general, are more susceptible to the transmission of HIV than hetero men based on traditional sex practices (ie., women being on the receiving end of bodily fluids)? Second Source then...

http://amfar.org/articles/on-the-hill/older/women-and-hiv--there-is-no-debate/

Not aware that there is an epidemic of HIV infections among hetero black women in particular in the South and cities like baltimore? Another Source for ya

http://www.newsweek.com/why-americas-south-still-has-high-hiv-rates-626004

http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-aids-women-20120308-story.html

And there is this huge question of why a heterosexual women, like Patrice Henry (from the Baltimore Sun article), who doesn't use drugs or otherwise engage in high risk activity get exposed to HIV? The conclusion that people who studied this is exposure for these type of women is coming from having sex with partners who are engaged in high risk activities.

In the 10 minutes I used to find all those other sources I can't find the on point source I had read before but feel free to do your own research.

This whole convo is so crazy because people's desire to not appear homophobic has them arguing positions that are harmful to women by not acknowledging that it is riskier for a woman to have sex with a man who engages in gay sex than a man who only engages in straight sex AND a woman should have the right to KNOW whether she is having sex with someone in a higher risk group and CHOOSE not to engage such sex.

August tried to inform other women of the information she received that made her decline to perform in the scene with dude and for trying to share that relevant information to other women she got flamed for it.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Do you have the stats for the actors? If not you're looking at the wrong data.
From a stats perspective your population samples would be porn actors, then you'd do a subset of cross over male actors, and your control would be non cross over male actors.
Then you'd break down the data in what they do in their personal lives and how long they've been performing.

Those would be your stats.

I say all this because you're treating sex work like sex, and none of the stats on regular ass people could lead you to come to certain conclusions.

She's free to make that decision herself. Whether it's stats, or opinion, but in this poast y'all are trying to conflate that. Y'all want to make this about how I feel about her (I don't, she was free to her life choices) or how she got treated (I'm not part of that).

But y'all aren't gonna sit here and state "and for good reasons" and be all the way wrong and not get called on it. There aren't any common knowledge good reasons, only biases, assumptions, and opinions. Don't confuse those with facts. The facts don't support you.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

I am not sure what your agenda is, but's its really really fucked up.

Look at this ridiculous shit you just wrote.

RE: Cross over actors are the population sample, not gay or bi men

>Do you have the stats for the actors? If not you're looking
>at the wrong data.
>From a stats perspective your population samples would be porn
>actors, then you'd do a subset of cross over male actors, and
>your control would be non cross over male actors.
>Then you'd break down the data in what they do in their
>personal lives and how long they've been performing.
>
>Those would be your stats.


The population sample would be men who engage in gay sex. We know that group has a much higher rate of HIV infection. Within that group is a subset of men who have gay sex participating in the porn industry. Do you deny that if we were doing Vinn Diagrams, the Gay & Bi - Male Porn Actors Circle would always be wholly inside the men who engage in gay sex circle? I think we can agree that's indisputable.

Accordingly, the burden is on you to argue somehow that Gay & Bi - Male Porn Actors somehow has a lower rate of HIV Infections then Gay & Bi Men in General. Have you produced any facts or statistics to support that?

You can try and argue that Gay & Bi - Male Porn Actors are somehow a lower risk because of the weekly testing but even the CDC says that's not enough because of the window it takes for HIV to show up in test.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/02/13/hiv-porn-stars-testing-spread-disease/80336986/

So let me get this straight.

We know men who engage in gay sex have a much greater risk of HIV infection in general.

We also know frequent testing can't prevent the spread of HIV.

We also know that all the Porn HIV outbreaks we know of can be traced back to men who have engaged in gay sex.

And you going to sit up here and try to argue that we can't conclude that having sex with male porn stars who have gay sex because is inherently risky because....I can't point to a study specifically narrowed to gay and straight porn stars?

And yet I am the one who isn't dealing in facts? Not sure what your agenda is, but it's absolutely this sort of propogating of misinformation that led to black women HIV epidimic seen in Baltimore and other poor black cities.

Shame on you dude. Fucked up. Please stop. Dead Wrong.


>
>I say all this because you're treating sex work like sex, and
>none of the stats on regular ass people could lead you to come
>to certain conclusions.
>
>She's free to make that decision herself. Whether it's stats,
>or opinion, but in this poast y'all are trying to conflate
>that. Y'all want to make this about how I feel about her (I
>don't, she was free to her life choices) or how she got
>treated (I'm not part of that).
>
>But y'all aren't gonna sit here and state "and for good
>reasons" and be all the way wrong and not get called on it.
>There aren't any common knowledge good reasons, only biases,
>assumptions, and opinions. Don't confuse those with facts. The
>facts don't support you.
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

It's not you

I have no agenda. Don't mix facts with opinions externally.
If you wanna draw your conclusions from small samples as your own personal life, hey go for it, some people are anti vaccinators for that very same reason. It's dumb, but it's their life choice.
But the second they try to put those half baked ideas into the world for everyone else, they get called on it.
You're no different.
She had every right to not want to fuck whoever she didn't want to fuck, but the second she put those words out to the world, it was open season on her words. It's a shame people couldn't separate her words from her right, but nuance is lost on the internet.

And stop with the HIV stats. That's a population sample that's not tied to the male on male for video sex. It posits that every male or even most men that engage in on camera male on male sex, do it off camera too, and that's debatable.
It makes assumptions off a concentrated demographic, in a concentrated location, with loose application from casual sex for recreation to sex for pay, and applies that to an industry. It's pure bullshit to try to use that.

Do NASCAR drivers get better insurance rates, less car crashes, fewer tickets?
Do doctors get fewer diseases than the populations they serve?
Do dentists get fewer cavities
What inferences can you tangentially draw between what someone does professionally and how that loosely relates to their activities outside of the work place?
Few
Which is why it needs to be studied and why opinions don't amount to a Hill of beans


You want so much for this to be about PC culture and tolerance and a liberal agenda, when it's anything but that.
I don't care that she didn't want to fuck those guys
Legit not one iota
I wouldn't care if was crossover men or black men or short men or bi racial men
And I don't care what her reasons were
Her logical conclusion was hers
But I'm not about to sit here and treat these cross over men as if they're somehow intrinsically worse without facts
And I damn sure am not about to take a conversation about porn actors and use that as a vehicle to shit on gay men or bi sexual men
This was a conversation about porn actors, men and women who perform sex acts for video in a regulated industry. That's it.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

I'll make it dead simple and ask you point blank questions which you can either evade or answer, either response will be telling:


1. Do you acknowledge or believe that men who engage in gay sex are at higher risk of contracting HIV then men who do not?

2. Do you believe that men who engage in gay sex professionally are some how at lower risk of contracting HIV than men who engage in gay sex generally? If so, what is the basis for that belief?

3. Do you acknowledge that there have been HIV outbreaks in the porn industry? If so, are you aware of any such instance that did not involve men who engaged in gay sex?

4. Do you believe women have a right to know if their sexual partners engage in risky (as far as exposure to HIV) activity?


>It's not you
>
>I have no agenda. Don't mix facts with opinions externally.
>If you wanna draw your conclusions from small samples as your
>own personal life, hey go for it, some people are anti
>vaccinators for that very same reason. It's dumb, but it's
>their life choice.
>But the second they try to put those half baked ideas into the
>world for everyone else, they get called on it.
>You're no different.
>She had every right to not want to fuck whoever she didn't
>want to fuck, but the second she put those words out to the
>world, it was open season on her words. It's a shame people
>couldn't separate her words from her right, but nuance is lost
>on the internet.

There is no substance here to respond to.



>
>And stop with the HIV stats. That's a population sample that's
>not tied to the male on male for video sex.

This the first wrong thing you keep repeating. Why do you believe that HIV stats regarding gay male sex EXCLUDE men who have gay sex professionally? The studies aren't people engaging in gay sex only personally. It's people who have gay sex period. Doesn't matter if they do it professionally or personally. Or conisder themselves straight or bi. How are you arguing that men who have gay sex for pay AREN'T a part of the sample? What is the basis for excluding them?



You went from show me some stats, to well the stats don't matter because of these non-relevant distinctions you have made.



It posits that
>every male or even most men that engage in on camera male on
>male sex, do it off camera too, and that's debatable.

Not at all. Again, there is no basis for making a distinction between men who do it professionally or personally. No basis for making a distinction between men who consider themselves gay, or bi, or straight but do it for money. You are making up all these distinctions (personally or professionally, gay versus crossover) to try to exclude them what we all know to be the case, that engaging in gay sex has higher rates of HIV infection. The fact they do it PERIOD is what's relavant UNTIL you can provide a basis as to why this sub group should be treated differently.



>It makes assumptions off a concentrated demographic, in a
>concentrated location, with loose application from casual sex
>for recreation to sex for pay, and applies that to an
>industry. It's pure bullshit to try to use that.

Again you are making assumptions about a subgroup (somehow they have a lower rate). I am taking what we know about the larger group and assuming that to be the case about a subgroup until presented with information showing otherwise.



>
>Do NASCAR drivers get better insurance rates, less car
>crashes, fewer tickets?
>Do doctors get fewer diseases than the populations they
>serve?
>Do dentists get fewer cavities
>What inferences can you tangentially draw between what someone
>does professionally and how that loosely relates to their
>activities outside of the work place?


Again you are making distinctions based on occupation. I have no idea whether male race car drivers are more at risk of getting in car accidents than male non race car drivers. Until I am presented with evidence or a basis for believing that they are less at risk, I will take what we generally know about male drivers and assume it applies to all subgroups until presented with evidence that says otherwise. Which goes back to one of my bigger questions up top, why do you believe what we know about gay sex in general is not applicable to gay sex that happens on camera professionally?

>Few
>Which is why it needs to be studied and why opinions don't
>amount to a Hill of beans
>
>
>You want so much for this to be about PC culture and tolerance
>and a liberal agenda, when it's anything but that.
>I don't care that she didn't want to fuck those guys
>Legit not one iota
>I wouldn't care if was crossover men or black men or short men
>or bi racial men
>And I don't care what her reasons were
>Her logical conclusion was hers
>But I'm not about to sit here and treat these cross over men
>as if they're somehow intrinsically worse without facts
>And I damn sure am not about to take a conversation about porn
>actors and use that as a vehicle to shit on gay men or bi
>sexual men

Ahhh, see this is what is really going on. You perceive a discussion about HIV transmission rates as a form of shaming. You think that just acknowledging the higher rates of HIV transmission associated with gay sex is somehow shaming gay sex participants. That's your own moralizing and shame.

It's also the reason we have a lot of black women who unknowingly get infected because men are unwilling to acknowledge what we know to be true. You are part of the problem.


>This was a conversation about porn actors, men and women who
>perform sex acts for video in a regulated industry. That's it.
>

Again, you imply that somehow gay sex within the industry is safe by the mention of the regulated industry. Since we all know that there have been HIV outbreaks within this industry, that is not the case.

Again, it's shameful.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

vetted and tested the same as straight stars because GUESS WHAT...they also do straight porn.

STOP.

>It's ok to just leave it as a preference. But is there
>something inherently worse about fucking men that have fucked
>men as opposed to men who've only fucked women? Because that's
>what for good reasons implies.

that's what these folks are implying

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

>It's ok to just leave it as a preference. But is there
>something inherently worse about fucking men that have fucked
>men as opposed to men who've only fucked women? Because that's
>what for good reasons implies.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Who cares if its low risk, it's still a lot higher than dealing with strictly hetero dudes (all other things being equal).

Like if she said she would not have sex with people she knew who dabbled in Heroin because of the safety issue, that wouldn't be acceptable?

>
>
>
>>It's ok to just leave it as a preference. But is there
>>something inherently worse about fucking men that have
>fucked
>>men as opposed to men who've only fucked women? Because
>that's
>>what for good reasons implies.
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Brooklynwhat stated "and for good reason"
Never stated what those reasons were
And everything after has been tangential hypotheticals with zero clarity
There's risks in the sex worker industry, some large, some small but are those the "and for good reason" he's talking about?
And if so is there something inherently more risky about fucking men that cross over?
Can those same risks be attributed to women that fuck say Brian Pumper?
There's room to have a real conversation but nah.
Y'all really wanna make this about me being overly open, which really I'm not, as opposed to y'all taking your hang ups, not working through them, then projecting that on the world.
Just say you find that shit icky and be done with it. I'll judge you just the same but won't knock the honesty.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

>Brooklynwhat stated "and for good reason"
>Never stated what those reasons were

He stated it in #28.

>And everything after has been tangential hypotheticals with
>zero clarity

Not at all hypotheticals. He pointed to past HIV outbreaks which can be traced to men who engage in gay sex.

>There's risks in the sex worker industry, some large, some
>small but are those the "and for good reason" he's talking
>about?

It's the main reason discussed in this post. People keep pointing it out and you try to down play it.

>And if so is there something inherently more risky about
>fucking men that cross over?

YES. If all outbreaks can be traced back to men who engage in gay sex, clearly it's more risky.

>Can those same risks be attributed to women that fuck say
>Brian Pumper?

I don't know. Does Brian Pumper have sex with people in high risk groups? If BP was into fucking Herion addicts, I'd say he would be a riskier person to have sex with than someone who doesn't have sex with people in high risk groups.


>There's room to have a real conversation but nah.
>Y'all really wanna make this about me being overly open, which
>really I'm not, as opposed to y'all taking your hang ups, not
>working through them, then projecting that on the world.
>Just say you find that shit icky and be done with it. I'll
>judge you just the same but won't knock the honesty.
>

Oh I can easily say I don't like male gay sex. I don't want to see it. I don't want to have it. I don't think that's controversial or a big deal because that speaks to my own sexual preferences and has nothing to do with how I view or treat gay men. I also don't like foot play, but that doesn't pass any judgement on people who engage or like foot stuff. I don't think my lesbian friend is a male hater because she says she finds the idea of having sex with a dude gross.

If you believe not being a homophobe requires being open to gay sex, well I don't know what to tell you. I disagree and that sounds like crazy talk to me.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

And everything else you typed is wrong since you got that part wrong.
And I'm not even being pedantic. Legs started talking about STDs, I brought up stats, dude just responded to something about stats.He didn't clarify what he started off saying was "and for good reason", not once.
When he did respond to "and for good reason" he stated that it's her body.
Which is where I'm still at.
Which is was my whole point.
Yall wanna talk stats or risks or preference or all of that other goobly gob, fine, have at it. If that's what dude meant by "and for good reason" then let him say that. But he hasn't. Those are yalls words, those are yalls arguments, that I don't care much about.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

but BKWhat never said reasons. You keep asking for more reasons when most folk keep telling you the GOOD REASON

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

My question was to him, what's the good reason. Yall gave opinions. I disagree with them, but those are yalls reasons.

In that sentence the audience is judge what "and for good reason is"
And when you substitute that shit with any other noun you can tell it's a soft nod towards bigotry.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Softer regulation is a perfectly reasonable reason on her part, especially when her body is at stake. and Even IF it was said in ignorance (which I don't personally think it was), it wasn't with malicious intent. But the people who disagreed with her decided it was, and that she was a bigot.

>In that sentence the audience is judge what "and for good
>reason is"
>And when you substitute that shit with any other noun you can
>tell it's a soft nod towards bigotry.
>

its two different things
if the person stating their reasons feels that way, it's their life
if the second hand person starts trying to relay that opinion, without stating their own, its bigotry.

if a baker chooses not to make a cake for a gay couple due to their biases, thats on them
but if you tell me the story of that baker and simply say "and for good reason", I'm gonna ask what that reason is

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

First, cake maker is a pretty horrible example if you think about the difference in a cake maker and August Ames situation for half a second.

Second, he said with good reason based on HER reason. You're assigning your own presumption to what BWs intent was even after he answered you which is how people did her

>its two different things
>if the person stating their reasons feels that way, it's their
>life
>if the second hand person starts trying to relay that opinion,
>without stating their own, its bigotry.
>
>if a baker chooses not to make a cake for a gay couple due to
>their biases, thats on them
>but if you tell me the story of that baker and simply say "and
>for good reason", I'm gonna ask what that reason is
>

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

Everyone sees it but you because you’re blinded by an agenda

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

I care that you try to make her myopic opinion seem like rational thought and something so reasonable to be agreed upon that you leave it as "and with good reason"
That's it
Some people are scared of elevators
Some people are scared of ghosts
Some people are scared of roller coasters
And in spite of statistics and risk they shape their actions around their fears. That's their prerogative. But just as those risk factors are statistically insignificant, so too is what she was talking about in this case
So no someone isn't gonna tell me they don't ride elevators "and for good reason" and I'll just blindly agree with it
And no someone wont say that some random porn actress won't fuck crossover men "and for good reason" and I wont question it.
That's it. That's all it is.

Your opinion on this topic wouldn't make me think you're a bigot or not.
I think you post like white people though and I stand by that. Because you consistently try to pass soft bigotry off as something that should just be accepted.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

but to keep pretending he didn't give you an answer, or assume he's coming from a place of bigotry makes it seem that either your reason for asking was so that you could pounce and shame him, or that you just have some need to be right.

BW was smart dip out, because it's clear enough how it would have gone if he kept engaging you.

Yall post like white people. And it's old. Yall got these biases and bigotry and you try to coat them with these sly nod ass posts.
Yall can't stand by your shit. Whether it's consent, rape culture, or in this case this bigotry towards gay sex, it's always some opinion shit masked as "if you don't see it this way then you're weird".
And it's just dumb posting
If there's more risk then fucking men, simply post up the stats. There's a whole world of internet out there with facts.
But we're not arguing facts, we're debating opinions. And if your opinions are formulated from bigotry (which may not even be your own but just from the ether) then I have a problem with that
Because dumb people exhaust me
Dumb arguments exhaust me
And yall poasting like this is 1990s in living color, is lame through and through
I couldn't care less who she fucks, or why she didn't want to. That was her life and her choice
But there's nothing in her life or her choice or any of yall's posts that makes fucking men who have fucked men a problem of facts as it is a matter of opinion.
So just don't offend my intelligence, just say that's how you feel and it can stay there.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

You are trying to imply a woman not wanting to have sex with a dude who does gay porn is bigotry? All because she thinks it increases her risk of getting HIV?

Really bruh?

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Yall make nods to bigotry ... like white people
Like we're speaking a common language of stupid, bias, and bigotry.
Yall could just come out and say it
If dude had simply said, she didn't want to fuck crossover men because she felt there was higher risk. Then ok. Aint nothing to say about that.
But dude said "and for good reason" without explaining what that was for.
Just stand behind your feelings, don't make passive nods, don't try to cover it. Not everyone sees the world as limited as yall do. It's not cute to try to pin this on me making a stretch.
I have no opinion one way or the other on who she shouldve fucked, that was her life and choices.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

we’ve all stood behind it too, you’re on a mission tho

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Mynoriti was spot on.

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

https://goo.gl/images/Z8fnsr

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

Rest In Peace, Bad News Brown

You're allowed to not want to have sex with someone for any reason you can think of.


However if you go out of your way to announce to the world that you don't fuck with a bunch certain group you end up looking like an asshole and open yourself up to catching flack.

R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy
Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017

Rest in peace.

Rest In Peace, Bad News Brown

man the stories......

______________________________________

Navem nu, cuando sol
Tutu nu, vondo nos nu
Vita em, no continous non
Nos nu ekta nos sepe ta, amen

When the sun shades the ship
We sweat and life is not safe
To swim or to touch not
When we unite we hedge amen

i wonder how they will begin to address things when their kids become of age

***********************************************************
https://soundcloud.com/swageyph/yph-die-with-me

I don’t see how anyone could date a porn star after they’ve gone full porn

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

for about 5 weeks, she DID NOT come outside or do anything productive before 5pm.


Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg
http://Tupreme.com

She was a good performer. Great scenes and seemed like she was really into it. Loved the brothas too

Her and Shyla Styles in the same month...damn

Abdul Jabbar, Muggsy Malone you
I don't know what that means but you know what I meant when I told you (c) Sean Price

Rest In Peace, Bad News Brown

Shyla didn't commit suicide, but she went to sleep and never woke up

Abdul Jabbar, Muggsy Malone you
I don't know what that means but you know what I meant when I told you (c) Sean Price

searched her name on twitter and even after this, it's filled with shitty comments and jokes.

<--- Big Baller World Order

-30-
You know it's drama, but it sound real good.