[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(02-24-2014 03:33 AM)Peregrine Wrote:  

Quote:

I bet she would have made more money if she had filmed "gentle porn" like X-Art instead of all this kinky stuff. However, she's not pretty enough for that.

http://x-art.com/models/belle

I stand corrected. My apologies to Belle

[megatron]

(02-23-2014 03:53 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

There was no need to post her name on this thread. Although DoBA was able to find it pretty easily, he correctly refrained from doing so. She's already been outed online so no one can say that we outed her, but it would be better if her name were kept out of the thread entirely.

This 18 year old slut is not our enemy, and her inane ramblings on xoJane are something to be lightly dismissed, not taken with any seriousness. She will have to bear the consequences of her actions in any case, but there is no need for us to play the role of an internet virtue police. Her wish for anonymity was never going to be respected given the realities of the internet but we don't need to be (and thankfully, were not) the tabloid breaking the story.

As for why she did what she did, it is obvious that both money and the ludicrous ideological justifications are merely excuses, and the real reason is that she is deeply sexually excited by it. She loves the idea of being sexually "humiliated" and "degraded" in public. And as a "classy" and relatively educated girl, she is even more turned on by the idea of being abused by men that she sees as dumb brutes. Although most girls will be too timid, conventional, and mindful of the consequences to actually realize these fantasies, they are a huge part of normal female sexuality, so I don't get why some guys are acting all mystified as if there was something strange going on here.

And there is no need to invoke the bugaboos of "abuse" or "molestation" which are extremely unlikely in any case, and particularly for a girl from an upper middle class American family. Female sexuality is typically submissive and incited by various kinds of domination; some girls are just sluttier, kinkier and crazier than other. That's about the size of it.

I agree with a lot this and that's a lot of women enjoy being dominated sexually (and even abused), but doing so in public/pornography is not common or normal. It's usually a symptom of childhood sexual abuse and/or mental illness (as her cutting shows). The vast majority of women, no matter their slutty desires, do not enjoy the entire world watching themselves get skullfucked nigh the point of vomiting.

[redbeard]

Thedude said it best.

"I know she's only 18 and too green to understand what she's doing with her life, but that's no excuse. We were all 18 once and we lived with our stupid mistakes and hopefully made the better of it, so why does she deserve any special treatment? There are certain common sense scenarios that most of us know to avoid. Don't put on a ski mask and wave an air rifle around in public. Don't start fights with people bigger than you. Don't hop into a lion pit at the zoo.

Oh yeah, and don't forget; don't suck dick on camera and then expect anonymity and respect."

This girl deserves no special treatment. Live and let die.

[Wutang]

This chick is fascinating to me - she's pretty much a collection of the worst young feminist/hamster stereotypes we harp on all the time on here:

http://collegiateacb.com/schools/viewtop...&start=315

A guy who claimed to have gone to high school with her posted this in response to someone asking for more stories about the girl in question:

"Like the fact that she would openly bash those who self-harmed (many of which suffered from documented clinical depression) whilst whining about her first world problems and self-harming herself? Or maybe the fact that she would try to break multiple couples up because she thought it was fun, and pulled the rape card after it was discovered that she cheated on a long term boyfriend would be of interest."

From an upper middle class background - check
First world problems galore - check
Pulling rape card - check

[RockHard]

(02-21-2014 10:09 PM)lurker Wrote:  

The patriarchy doesn't fear female sexuality, it represses it for social stability. There's a big difference.

Only problem I have with this thread is you guys talking about "the patriarchy" like it's an actual thing.

[runsonmagic]

(02-24-2014 07:35 PM)RockHard Wrote:  

(02-21-2014 10:09 PM)lurker Wrote:  

The patriarchy doesn't fear female sexuality, it represses it for social stability. There's a big difference.

Only problem I have with this thread is you guys talking about "the patriarchy" like it's an actual thing.

Your forum name is awesome on this thread. You sure you didn't do a scene with her?

[Excelsior]

Pops is proud of his little girl

[The Lizard of Oz]

(02-24-2014 11:03 AM)megatron Wrote:  

I agree with a lot this and that's a lot of women enjoy being dominated sexually (and even abused), but doing so in public/pornography is not common or normal. It's usually a symptom of childhood sexual abuse and/or mental illness (as her cutting shows). The vast majority of women, no matter their slutty desires, do not enjoy the entire world watching themselves get skullfucked nigh the point of vomiting.

Is it?

"Child sexual abuse", despite the hysteria, is extremely rare. The likelihood of it occurring in an upper middle class American family is near zero.

Plenty of young girls "cut". Are they all mentally ill?

Yeah most sluts are not reckless enough and whorish enough to do hardcore porn even if they fantasize about it. That doesn't mean that the ones who do are mentally ill or have suffered from all-too-readily invoked "abuse". They're just a little crazier and a little sluttier than the rest.

Occasionally "a little crazier" will rise to the level of outright mental illness, but most of the time it's just a certain level of recklessness that stops well short of it.

[megatron]

(02-25-2014 10:17 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Child sexual abuse", despite the hysteria, is extremely rare. The likelihood of it occurring in an upper middle class American family is near zero.

Overall, it is, but it's much more common in broken families. Single mothers attract a lot of predator boyfriends. What's this girl's background?

(02-25-2014 10:17 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Plenty of young girls "cut". Are they all mentally ill?

Insane? No. Mentally ill? Yes, definitely.

(02-25-2014 10:17 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Yeah most sluts are not reckless enough and whorish enough to do hardcore porn even if they fantasize about it. That doesn't mean that the ones who do are mentally ill or have suffered from all-too-readily invoked "abuse". They're just a little crazier and a little sluttier than the rest.

Most people in the industry admit that the vast majority of these girls are 1) drug addicts / alcoholics 2) Come from abusive backgrounds.

[The Lizard of Oz]

megatron,

All these "predator boyfriends" of single moms eh? I feel they occur more frequently in online fantasies than under the harsh light of reality.

In any case, this girl is from an intact upper middle class Catholic family, as has been documented upthread.

I don't know exactly what is your definition of "mentally ill" as opposed to "insane" but I don't see "cutting" as being either. It's just a bad habit girls pick up because it's a fad and because they're stupid and prone to fads and fascinated by "the body" and by their own psychology. In almost every case it does not amount to anything like mental illness.

It's true that many if not most porn girls are into drugs and drinking, but that just goes hand in hand with their generally reckless nature and typically lower class background (though there are exceptions). As for "abusive" backgrounds, I'm not so sure. Anyone will claim an "abusive" background at the drop of a hat these days. I think the reality is quite different.

[Wutang]

She sounds more like some bored rich chick that loves drama and attention based on the information posted online by people who claimed to have known her. I would say she's "crazy" but not should be locked up in a room with padded walls for her own safety sense - more in the typical hysterical woman sense but multiplied by two. Just think of the girlfriends you've had in the past that you would describe to friends as "crazy".

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-25-2014 10:37 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

megatron,

All these "predator boyfriends" of single moms eh? I feel they occur more frequently in online fantasies than under the harsh light of reality.

In any case, this girl is from an intact upper middle class Catholic family, as has been documented upthread.

I don't know exactly what is your definition of "mentally ill" as opposed to "insane" but I don't see "cutting" as being either. It's just a bad habit girls pick up because it's a fad and because they're stupid and prone to fads and fascinated by "the body" and by their own psychology. In almost every case it does not amount to anything like mental illness.

It's true that many if not most porn girls are into drugs and drinking, but that just goes hand in hand with their generally reckless nature and typically lower class background (though there are exceptions). As for "abusive" backgrounds, I'm not so sure. Anyone will claim an "abusive" background at the drop of a hat these days. I think the reality is quite different.

"All these "predator boyfriends" of single moms eh? I feel they occur more frequently in online fantasies than under the harsh light of reality."

Your feeling is statistically incorrect.

Multiple studies have show co-habitation sends the risk of child abuse sky high. It's a stereotype because it's true. Father's rights advocate Glenn Sacks has spoken on this, but since he's not here, I can link to a blog post analyzing the latest study.

Here is the money quote:

"This new federal study indicates that these cases are simply the tip of the abuse iceberg in American life. According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents."

There is a link to the study in the blog post.

This, by the way, is one reason society has always scorned single mothers: they put their kids in harms way with their successions of boyfriends and "lovers" who have little to no investment in the child, except in rare circumstances.

This is also a reason that in these parts we tell each other to avoid single mothers. We warn other men not to take on responsibilities that aren't theirs. That sentiment alone is a good indication of the mindset boyfriends bring to the table when they date single mothers.

This also goes on in the animal kingdom, and I'm sure some of you reading know more about this than I do.

[The Lizard of Oz]

DoBA, I think that this study would be an excellent candidate for the kind of analysis that I talk about in this post in my stats and numeracy thread. I've looked at more than a few of these studies and I know the score.

You have to look at:

1. What was the definition of "sexual physical and emotional abuse" used in this study? I have no doubt that if you look at the fine print, you'll find that most of the cases of abuse fall under a category (probably "emotional") whose definition is so broad as to render it almost meaningless.

2. How were the numbers obtained? Were they self-reported by the kids? How can one know what fraction of what was reported actually happened?

3. Taking the "11 times" figure literally for the sake of argument -- how many cases does that really amount to? This goes to the point that a large relative increase in risk for a given outcome may still amount to a tiny absolute increase coming from a very low baseline. If the baseline is 1 in 1000, then an "11 times increase" would be 11 in 1000 which is still an extremely low risk.

It is very important to look under the hood of these studies and understand what is really going on -- I will once again make a plug for my thread on these matters, although it's just getting started. Otherwise we are helpless in the face of any bogus headline number that might not mean anything like what you'd think it means.

That said. I have no doubt, and indeed know for a fact, that kids in broken families, kids of single moms, etc tend to have less happy childhoods and are very likely to experience less love, warmth, affection and attention than kids from intact families. This is an important subject, and I strongly disapprove of thoughtless frivorces and people who have kids and then don't take the time and effort to give them a good childhood. But there is no need to cheapen this serious matter by invoking a non-existent army of "predator boyfriends", a swarm of imaginary Humberts constantly in search of their ideal Charlotte and Lolita set-up.

[Bacchus]

NY Mag has a interview with her, chock full of the expected musings about privilege and objectification as well as the boldfaced lies about needing money for tuition.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/02/qa-the-d...-star.html

Most striking is that she takes absolutely no responsibility for her actions. She views the person who ruined her life as the man who revealed her identity.

Quote:

Q: You wrote in your xoJane essay about how unfair it is that women carry the full moral burden of sexuality, so I wanted to talk about the guy who outed you to a fraternity. It seems like he’s the one who morally transgressed, here.

A: I begged him not to tell anybody. We went to a party that same night, and he got really drunk. I wasn’t with him when he told all the people. He knew I didn’t want people knowing, but he told people. Immediately after I realized that he told people, I told him, “You have just ruined my life,” and I completely meant that. I’m not sure he understands the gravity of what he did.

No, you did not understand the gravity of what you have been doing. She cannot wrap her head around the fact that being fucked on camera for money could have consequences.

Also, the list of her offenses keeps growing. She's a supreme cockblocker.

Quote:

I’m not very fun to go to parties with. All my friends are getting drunk and when guys are hitting on them I’m always saying, “You better not rape her, you better not take advantage of her.”

This girl is a true believer in the cause of feminism, and she's ruined her life because of it.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(02-25-2014 06:03 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

DoBA, I think that this study would be an excellent candidate for the kind of analysis that I talk about in this post in my stats and numeracy thread. I've looked at more than a few of these studies and I know the score.

You have to look at:

1. What was the definition of "sexual physical and emotional abuse" used in this study? I have no doubt that if you look at the fine print, you'll find that most of the cases of abuse fall under a category (probably "emotional") whose definition is so broad as to render it almost meaningless.

2. How were the numbers obtained? Were they self-reported by the kids? How can one know what fraction of what was reported actually happened?

3. Taking the "11 times" figure literally for the sake of argument -- how many cases does that really amount to? This goes to the point that a large relative increase in risk for a given outcome may still amount to a tiny absolute increase coming from a very low baseline. If the baseline is 1 in 1000, then an "11 times increase" would be 11 in 1000 which is still an extremely low risk.

It is very important to look under the hood of these studies and understand what is really going on -- I will once again make a plug for my thread on these matters, although it's just getting started. Otherwise we are helpless in the face of any bogus headline number that might not mean anything like what you'd think it means.

That said. I have no doubt, and indeed know for a fact, that kids in broken families, kids of single moms, etc tend to have less happy childhoods and are very likely to experience less love, warmth, affection and attention than kids from intact families. This is an important subject, and I strongly disapprove of thoughtless frivorces and people who have kids and then don't take the time and effort to give them a good childhood. But there is no need to cheapen this serious matter by invoking a non-existent army of "predator boyfriends", a swarm of imaginary Humberts constantly in search of their ideal Charlotte and Lolita set-up.

It might not be "predator boyfriends," but I have noticed a phenomenon.

When you're a parent of a teenage daughter, you know her from the time she was a baby. So she's always a kid to you, plus she's related and it's a stretch to see her as sexual.

When you date an older woman with a teenage daughter running around the house, you're essentially meeting a teenage girl you're not related to...who you might have flirted with had she been your waitress or something. And although most guys won't act on impulses, IMO most would have to admit they at least had fleeting thoughts.

So sexual abuse in the first scenario seems twisted; in the second it's not so odd to think about it happening.

That said, it seems like she comes from an intact family so this is probably all a moot point, except to hammer home how broken homes can royally screw up kids.

[Veloce]

A quote from her in that NYMag interview:

Quote:

You have this extremely intense school that’s really competitive academically and then you add into the mix a social scene that’s rooted in social hierarchy and wealth, and then you combine that with male privilege and chauvinism and misogyny and what you have is this really horrible rape culture.

This girl doesn't even know what she's saying. She's the embodiment of a fem-centric women's studies class, just spouting off catch phrases and terminology with zero fundamental understanding of the words' meaning. If she's not living, walking proof of the poison that is feminism, I don't know what is.

Here she is, running her mouth off about patriarchy. And then, in her free time, she's voluntarily getting skullfucked by a man, filmed by a man, produced and directed by men, distributed by men, for other men to jerk off to! OHHHHH but there are oppressive men that want to keep women in traditional roles where their dignity and safety are preserved, THOSE men are the ENEMY!

[The Lizard of Oz]

Yeah I mean it's an 18 year old slut. She ain't Milton Friedman.

The funny thing is not the goofy nonsense she spouts but that she is being interviewed by this rag in all seriousness for the "thoughts" she has to offer, rather than the far more relevant and rewarding thoughts that can be offered by her 18 year old mouth, 18 year old pussy and 18 year old asshole.

[Black Knight]

Classic BPD case. She's reveling in her 15 minutes of fame and the avalanche of attention it brings. She certainly has read up on the vernacular of the feminist and anti slut-shaming movements to position herself as the victim.

Honestly, is there anything a woman can do in modern western society that will get people to publicly disapprove of her actions? What does a woman have to do to be labeled as someone with low character?

[Teutatis]

This girl is obviously trash and damaged but like others have already said, some sad guy will try to "save" and wife her up for sure, but it made me think, if you had to choose, and all else being equal (face, body, age...) would you rather take a feminist or a porn actress? I'd take the feminist, at least with her there's still a possibility to educate and open her mind, with the porn actress there's no way to erase her past.

[Captain Gh]

(02-26-2014 11:25 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

This girl is obviously trash and damaged but like others have already said, some sad guy will try to "save" and wife her up for sure, but it made me think, if you had to choose, and all else being equal (face, body, age...) would you rather take a feminist or a porn actress? I'd take the feminist, at least with her there's still a possibility to educate and open her mind, with the porn actress there's no way to erase her past.

I understand where you're coming from, but if you could set aside the # of dicks that the pornstar took, you could establish yourself as the leader of the relationship way more easely with her. The feminist mind is full of false knowledge that you would need to reframe and that would be painful.

Of course they are both shitty choices, but a pornstar knows deep down that she ain't all that, therefore making it possible for her to at least let the man be the general of the relationship. With a feminist, don't even try since all is lost!!

They want the pair of balls and want you to be her prince too. And to close this out a little quote from Patrice O'neal: Never forget what the Queen is... The Queen is the King's Bitch!!

[assman]

(02-26-2014 11:25 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

This girl is obviously trash and damaged but like others have already said, some sad guy will try to "save" and wife her up for sure, but it made me think, if you had to choose, and all else being equal (face, body, age...) would you rather take a feminist or a porn actress? I'd take the feminist, at least with her there's still a possibility to educate and open her mind, with the porn actress there's no way to erase her past.

Porn star, no question. For starters, at least she'll be attractive.

So basically, I get to bang, let's say, Whitney Westgate, while you have Lindy West sit on your face.

But hey, at least you can open up her mind after you're done rimming her. [Apologies in advance for guys who were eating while reading this.]

[Glock]

^^ Much rather have a feminist. In their private relationships, most feminists lighten up on their ideology quite a lot. All women are attracted to the same basic formula, even if it disagrees with their national party politics.

Take a look at this story:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/14/rich-l...ative-men/

Quote:

Rich liberal women prefer conservative men

Turns out, they prefer conservative men in and out of bed. Darren Shuster, the publicist for MillionaireMatch.com, the company that commissioned a survey, stressed in an email, “Especially in bed. Don’t kill the messenger.”

Hot off the presses from Silicon Valley, MillionaireMatch.com has released the results of a survey showing that show that rich ass females prefer their men on the “right” side of the political spectrum. According to site stats, 81.4 percent of female millionaires prefer a conservative man rather than someone liberal (this includes Republicans, Democrats and independents). A whopping 76.6 percent of Democrat female millionaires said they “would prefer to date a conservative man.”

Some comments from rich females to the site:

“I don’t want a liberal man, I want someone who believes in a traditional family.”

“I want to be with a man who is ambitious, liberal men simply aren’t as ambitious.”

“Conservative men plan for the future, they’re in it for the long run.”

“Liberal men are less masculine.”

“Politics doesn’t matter to me when we’re inside the bedroom.”

“I’m very liberal, but I’m open to other opinions.”

It's common for people to publicly support politics that they don't actually put into practice in their private relationships. Most women who are pro-abortion have not actually had one, for instance, and would never want to have one.

A porn star, on the other hand, engages in behavior that is disgusting, degrading, inherently damaging. They will never be faithful and are all emotionally unstable and unsuitable as wives or mothers to various degrees.

[Humanist]

The guy who outed her to fellow Duke students, Thomas Bagley, looks like a major fucking omega male. Here is Thomas Bagley:    

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of revealing her identity, this goofy little worm clearly had no chance of getting any action from her.
   

[Hotwheels]

He's no Tucker Max...

[Draugr]

I guess Thomas fucked her in a way she hasn't been fucked before!