NBC 'Today' Panel Agrees: 'Shame on People' Who Object to Porn Star Reading to Kids
Updated [19:19 ET]: Video added after the jump.
During a panel discussion on Wednesday's NBC Today, all of the pundits agreed that it was perfectly acceptable for a school in California to let former porn star Sasha Grey read to a classroom of first graders. Advertising executive Donny Deutsch went so far as to admonish critics: "Shame on people, she's volunteering for underprivileged kids." [Audio available here]
NBC medical correspondent Nancy Snyderman also praised Grey's volunteerism and added that the whole controversy was just "craziness." Attorney Star Jones concluded: "Anytime somebody wants to go into a school and help out a child, we need to let them."
Here is a transcript of the November 16 exchange:
9:12AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Ex-porn star reads to elementary school students. Sasha Grey, she's now known for her role in Entourage actually, was recently chosen by an outside talent coordinator to read to a classroom of children. Do any of you have a problem with that, given her past?
DONNY DEUTSCH: Not at all. Not at all. They're first graders, she's volunteering her time. It's not against the law. Shame on – she's volunteering her time. Now maybe if it was high school kids and they were aware who she is. Shame on people, she's volunteering for underprivileged kids.
GUTHRIE: But they have no idea.
NANCY SYNDERMAN: She's a porn star who's literate. She can read.
DEUTSCH: But, I mean, do we have a problem with that?
STAR JONES: But to be honest with you, unless the parent told the kid...
GUTHRIE: They would have no idea.
JONES: ...one, what porn is and, two, who porn stars are.
DEUTSCH: They don't know what porn is in first grade, I mean, come on.
SNYDERMAN: You know what? She's volunteering her time, she's reading to kids.
JONES: Absolutely.
SNYDERMAN: I mean, what – this is craziness.
GUTHRIE: You don't see the controversy, okay.
JONES: You know, and anytime somebody wants to go into a school and help out a child, we need to let them.
SNYDERMAN: I agree with you.
DEUTSCH: This is the good side of what people do.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Um, Helllllooooooo!
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 5:51pm.
Attorney Star Jones concluded: "Anytime somebody wants to go into a school and help out a child, we need to let them."
Can you say Jerry Sandusky? I knew you could.
I'm sorry, but "porn star" on a resume disqualifies one to interact with anyone else's children without the parents' consent. End of story.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Game, set, match!
Submitted by motherbelt on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:21pm.
And LMAO!
*Takes a Bow*
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:32pm.
Liberals (see Blowfeld, below) are little fish in a barrel.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
So, Blonde............would
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:36am.
So, Blonde............would you object to her reading the Killa a bedtime story???
Huh?
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:27pm.
How does "porn star" disqualify someone from interacting with kids? She's not a pedophile, she's a former porn star. I disagree with you on this point of disqualification.
Before the Sandusky allegations, you'd disqualify this woman at face value for being a "porn star" whereas there was no problem with the local football coach, priest, scout master, etc.
Maybe all women who interact with children should list out all sex partners and the freq they had sex with their partners and to make sure to include any videos of the acts. When it comes right down to it, aren't we all unpaid porn stars? LOLOLOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Porn Star
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:31pm.
....well, that's quite a qualification, Blowfeld.
That little resume enhancer, in and of itself, disqualifies her. She's a person of low moral character by her very choice of profession....professional sex exhibitionist.
If she feels so strongly about volunteering, how about a homeless shelter, animal shelter, hospice care, etc?
You can take your LOLOLOL and have a blast next time you watch porn.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I will!!
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:55pm.
I being of a low moral character take pride in it! LOLOLOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Stay away from my kids!
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:00pm.
.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
While he's at it...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:06pm.
...why doesn't he just stay away from all of us?
I will!
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:12pm.
I most certainly will!
I'm inviting the porn star to my kids' school! LOLOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
What if Franklin Graham wanted to read to kids?
Submitted by nkviking75 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:25pm.
Can you imagine the uproar if Franklin Graham wanted to read to school children? Why, that would be establishing a religion, even if he read a totally secular book!
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I agree, the lady is doing a
Submitted by dan iroticiv on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:53pm.
I agree, the lady is doing a good deed. A good deed done by a bad person is a victory for good deed doers. Porn takes two gentlemen, all those who have not sat in their bathroom with porn in one hand and imagination in the other, raise that hand, I want to shake it.
Hope she doesn't show up for Career Day
Submitted by gobnait06 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:54pm.
Part of the reason that this society is going to hell in a jet-pwered hand basket is that so many people refuse to take a stand against immorality any more. Contrary to popular belief, pornography is not harmless. It brutally exploits children in crisis by luring them into acting in the films to survive, it grossly demeans women, and repeated viewing of this garbage desensitizes people to sexual violence. This woman CHOSE to act in these films and that suggests that she has no moral compass. The fact that people know who she is, are angered by her presence in the school and she refuses to back down tells me that, for her, it's not AT ALL about the kids but rather about her trying to reinvent herself at their expense. If it was bout the kids, she should step away and find some other sort of charity in which to volunteer her time.
Morality, oh, good grief.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:25pm.
Teachers are human beings. Human beings have sex whether you like or not. These are the same people who teach your kids everyday. Of course, not everyone gets paid to sit in front of a camera to do the act. There are teachers out there who do immoral, dirty things behind closed doors with their partners/spouses. You want to rant on the immorality, go right ahead, I'm sure there is an audience out there for you. The immorality stand you take is against the Sanduskys of the world and the organizations that allow his ilk to exist. Going after a former porn star reading to kids is ridiculous.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
On film?
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:27pm.
Really?
This is the argument you are making.
Where's your proof, Blowhard?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
LOL
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:45pm.
"Proof!!! I want proof!"
Prove me wrong.
There ya go.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
A background check is legally required of everyone...
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:05pm.
...who even volunteers to work with children in any educational situation, perhaps with the exception of Penn State.
If the agency that she wishes to volunteer at has standards that may preclude her from volunteering based on that security background check, they would be within their legal obligation to maintain a protected environment (to the extent humanly possible) for the children they serve.
Sorry the law intrudes upon your indignation, Bloff. The laws requiring background checks were largely passed through bipartisan agreement on the need to maintain a safer environment for children. Don't like it--by all means contact your state legislator and let them know. Of course, you may need to explain why you believe those restrictions, who most consider are still not stringent enough, are somehow desirous of having a porn star read to children. Does the term "bad optics" register to you?
Doc Sam
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:14pm.
Regarding background checks...In PA they are required for anyone who works at a school. However, they are not required for volunteers, unless and individual district mandates it. Most likely because schools rely on parent volunteers, at the discretion of the teacher.
As us internet trekkies would say,
Submitted by Kaleidoscopic God on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:11pm.
"Not sure if trolling or very stupid."
+1 Kaleid.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:14pm.
Kind of a Trekkie too, but only the original series. I kissed a girl over the "Tribbles" episode when it originally aired so many decades ago. Very fond memories of Kirk and those metal bikini clad spacebabes.
You're reaching.
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:40pm.
I never knew that being a "porn star" was a crime. Besides, if a first grader knows what a "porn star" is they have bigger problems at home then they do at school.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
Oh Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:44pm.
The porn star thread shines the light on all of the sto'bought and seminar trolls.
Sasha should go clean kennels at the animal shelter....keep her away from other people's kids without their explicit consent.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You lost me
Submitted by afanofcommonsense on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:53pm.
The only thing I agree with you on is that if someone is gonna speak at a school the parents should know about it regardless of who it is. The point I was trying to make is that comparing her to Sandusky is a bit of a reach. He's a pedophile who committed a crime, and she's an adult who has made some pretty poor choices in her life. Two totally different issues there.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
-- Martin Luther King Jr
That was my point.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:27pm.
Blonde thinks a "porn star" and a pedophile like Sandusky are equal.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
You know what, Blowhard
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:31pm.
You prove that idiot statement, right now.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Sure...
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:39pm.
Your comment-
"Attorney Star Jones concluded: "Anytime somebody wants to go into a school and help out a child, we need to let them."
Can you say Jerry Sandusky? I knew you could."
That was easy.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
No
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:49pm.
That does NOT prove what you said I think.
Try again. FAST.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm trying to figure out...
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:53pm.
...what we were arguing about...
when you have me search for the "proof" I get sidetracked by soooo many "hot for teacher" websites!
Naughty, immoral, dirty websites filled with hot women...LMAO
I'll say it again- porn star does not equal pedophile
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
sorry blofeld*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:06pm.
drsam could do this better but let me try to explain it to you...
This woman made a movie "having sex " with a child. That is child pornography, since I have not seen the film, how far she went in the film determines whether or not it was a crime. But the significant factor here in this discussion is the porn and fantasy are feed pedophiles. This is how they their perversion morphs into the real world. They become tired of the "fantasy" and begin seeking out real "play partners". Child pornography is the feeding group for the developement of already disturbed individuals into active pedophiles. Get the picture?
sorry,
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:13pm.
not to jump into this argument, but I wasn't aware she had starred in a child porn? Where was this established? I'm pretty sure that's illegal... I'd imagine she would have been penalized somehow for this, no?
Just to let you know, Blo-ie, it is called a "paraphilia".
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:21pm.
A paraphilia is an abnormal sexual attraction to non-consenting parties. In the group termed "paraphiliacs", there is necrophilia (desirous of sex with dead bodies), bestiality (sex with animals), pedophilia (sex with children) and a whole host of other sexual and gender identity disorders falling under the category. These are termed "Axis I" or major psychiatric diagnoses indicative of mental illness requiring treatment. The danger with paraphiliacs is that they are more likely than not to act upon their sexual impulses and attractions and to commit crimes that will put them into the sexual situation that they desire. All paraphiliac sexual actions are illegal in almost every jurisdiction. That is what makes even the mention of sex with children a very serious matter to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals. Try treating one of those victims sometime and you will see why those lives are shattered and why we take it so seriously.
Oops, Fail Again, Blowhard
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:34pm.
You SAID I think the two are the same.
Furthermore, you were unable to prove your assertion that I think so.
Toodles.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Having someone with
Submitted by rbosque on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 5:54pm.
Having someone with questionable values reading to my kids is a bit unnerving. I suppose she wouldn't mind a child sex offender reading to her brood?
Kinda mixed about this
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 5:57pm.
I got mixed feelings about this one, saw this a few days ago myself.
On one hand, you have to commend her for getting out of the porn life, some of those people get in there and get messed up for life, while others seem to come out of it ok, it's a mixed bag. Sasha Grey (or whatever her real name is) seems to be one of the ones coming out of it ok. I don't remember what cable channel it was, but there was a show on about former porn stars and how many of them want to get away from that stigma that comes with it. Many of them will say it was a mistake.
Quite honestly, unless you deliberately draw attention to her past, most people probably wouldn't have heard of her unless they were watching porn or Entourage(saw a couple of episodes of it at a friend's suggestion, won't be watching that dreck again any time soon, saw her on there). So is there a need to draw attention to her porn past?
Having said that, while I applaud her for doing the volunteer thing, I find it reprehensible that they try to focus on her having done porn rather than just respect her desire to not deal with that kind of past anymore and focus on the more positive things she wants to do. The only reason to bring it up is to embarrass her and drive her away.
-Jon
two things
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:13pm.
as long as she's not coming in with an agenda (ie picking out books that are inappropriate) I don't see an issue and as long as someone such as a... ex Catholic Nun was treated with the same respect.
Regardless, it would be a good idea to get parental consent - which Compton did not do. In fact, the LA Times is implying the Elementary school actually lied to the parents about her appearance. (editing to add that the School District did indeed lie about who was coming to read to their children)
The thing is that when you volunteer (as I did for 7 yrs at my kids Elementary) you have to submit yourself to an extensive background check. When you are dealing with the safety of children there should be NO PC boundaries. The school breached trust by not keeping them properly informed.
and
I'll reserve judgment until I can see if she's not using this foray into volunteerism to bait media outlets into boosting her career.
True story
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:28pm.
That's why I said I was of mixed feelings about this, but I have a reason for stating the thing about why bring it up if only to serve as embarrassment. Here's a true story, happened in vegas in 2002 when I went there for a friend's wedding.(yeah, cliche elvis and everything, it was my second time to go and I figured what the hell).
As some of you who watch TV might know(I've seen this on Gene Simmons' Family Jewels too), Vegas is often a choice for various conventions, including the porno circuit. But in this case, while my friends and I were putzing around Vegas seeing what's going on, there was some convention(open to the public) going on involving fitness and had muscle-type men and women(some of it scared the hell out of me up close! Including the women!!) and one athlete guy who was there was someone who used to be part of a TV game show doing an autograph table. Turns out he was married to a former porn star and she was sitting next to him at the table, just looked like any normal good looking wife.
Turns out one of the people coming to the convention recognized her, disappeared, came back with some photos of her thinking he could get her autograph. DUMB DUMB DUMB and extremely inconsiderately STOOPID. Suffice to say, the reaction was bad. She started crying, got real upset, while the hubby who apparently went to the bathroom and came back to find her crying, got upset/angry as well, which for good reason didn't like anyone upsetting his wife who was a real nice lady I should add.(I got this from one of the security guys working there, btw, threw that perv perp off the premises) She had left the porn scene in the late 80s and had been trying to put that behind her, became a Christian and has two boys. She tries so hard to do right, but every now and then she runs into someone who does that and what is she supposed to do? Kill herself, fall on a sword for recanting her past and trying to do good for her kids?
That's what I see Sasha trying to do, trying to do better, and this was badly handled, I agree. But people do things in life that they will regret, doesn't matter what it is. I also agree that I hope she's not doing this as a boost to her career, but I wanted to pass along a story that I haven't forgotten to this day. She just has to prove herself.
-Jon
it's a good story
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:38pm.
I'm glad you took the time to type it out.
As I said, I'll reserve judgement but she's already telling her sob story to whomever will listen. If she really wanted to do this on the up and up, knowing the crapstorm she'd generate, she should have made sure the district wasn't going to be underhanded about settling her in there to talk to the tots.
This is nothing new
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 5:59pm.
There used to be a kids show that was syndicated in the US hosted by a former Brazilian porn star named Xuxa. To libs it's all the same. Suggest Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann read to kids? THE HORRORS!!!! You might warp their little minds! /sarc
Just to set the record straight
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:46pm.
Xuxa was not a porn star. She posed for Playboy once, like many actresses have, and was then the host of a kid's show years later. Far from a porn star.
Do some research like I did
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:13pm.
It was more than just Playboy:
The movie Amor, Estranho, Amor was controversial due to Xuxa's role in a sex scene where she is naked on top of a young boy. Xuxa, until 1986, defended her participation in the movie, saying that it was essential to her career. However in 1986, after being a national hit with "xou da Xuxa", CIC Video released the movie to VHS. Xuxa changed her stance on the film, not wanting her "baixinhos" (as Xuxa called her children audience) and their parents to see her seducing a 12-year-old boy.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080328140614AAVEBDW
Child porn apparently. That's even worse
I did the research
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:38pm.
Acting in a film with a sex scene is not porn. Many movies have sex scenes-sure it might have been a controversial scene that she later tried to distance herself from (like she did with her playboy photo shoot), but it was not a porn film.
Are you trying to make the claim that every film with a sex scene is a porno?
No, you did not do....
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:58pm.
...the research. You said it was a only a Playboy spread. You never mentioned the porno film
"....but it was not a porn film."
How do you know this? Have you seen it? Do you peak Portuguese? The film, being from Brazil, was probably in that language
Any film with a sex scene with a minor is reprehensible and qualifies at least as soft core porn
I didn't mention
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:19pm.
the "porno film" because it wasn't a porno. You can look it up on wikipedia or imdb (Amor Estranho Amor). Granted, it sounds like it might be a bit of a "steamy" drama-but that's all it is. It features some female nudity and a couple simulated sex scenes. No more than many respected modern dramas.
Not that this is a respected drama-I'm not trying to make that claim. And also, your point about a sex scene with a minor is a case of personal taste-as long as no laws were broken, you can't call it child pornography. Many films imply sexual situations with younger actors, and I understand if that offends you-but that does not qualify the film as a porno. I'm just trying to make my original point. Xuxa is not, nor has ever been, a pornstar. Next time do more than ask yahoo answers.
sorry bos*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:26pm.
"Simulated sex scenes" involving a child is child pornography. You can justify it as many ways you wish, but anyone who even thinks about and then "simulates" sex with a child is sick
Granted, I haven't seen the film
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:39pm.
But from what I've read, none of the simulated sex scenes include the child actor-there are, however, 2 intimate scenes that imply sex occurred with the child actor off camera between scenes.
You're right, that in many states, simulated sex with a minor is classified as child pornography.
And, granted, there is controversy surrounding the film; much like Dakota Fanning in the film Hounddog a few years back, or a 13 year old Jodie Foster as the prostitute in Taxi Driver. BUT just because the film may raise the ire, does not instantly classify it as porn. That's the point I'm trying to make.
Anyway, this is a silly argument about a past-date Brazilian popstar that very few people have even heard of. I just didn't like the false argument of Xuxa being used as an example of the liberal media parading pornstars in front of children.
You didn't like it...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:44pm.
...cuz you lost ChildPornTarus. Go play with Incestmo, you'd have a lot in common, if you aren't him in disguise
We have a new Incestmo!!!!
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:42pm.
Ladies and gentlemen, may I introduce our brand new troll who believes that depicting sex with a minor is fine in a movie, and it's just a "little steamy"
"your point about a sex scene with a minor is a case of personal taste"
Really? Depicting sex with a minor is simply personal taste???? Man, you are seriously sick and hopeless. Next time take your trolling to NAMBLA and leave decent citizens alone
Thanks for posting, Coach Sandusky
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:50pm.
Surprised you took time away from polishing the lenses of the telescope you have pointed in the direction of the elementary school you live next to, in preparation for tomorrow morning's arrivals.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Also
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:45pm.
to address your link:
1. Yahoo Answers is often handy in a pinch-but hardly a reliable source.
2. Even the answer you're referring to doesn't call her a pornstar-just points out where the rumor got its origins.
I was in a hurry...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:00pm.
...didn't have time to get a better source. But you never even mentioned the porn film, but just stated that because she posed nude in Playboy it didn't make her a porn star. I showed you evidence that there was more to it
ha!
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:23pm.
quit calling it a "porn film"! Do you call every movie with nudity and/or sex scenes a "porn film"?
Sorry for....
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:47pm.
...calling that porn film a porn film. Next time I'll check with you before I call a film depicting sex between a 12 year old and an adult a porn film, to make sure that if I call it a porn film that you don't believe it's a porn film
haha
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:02pm.
Wow! And here I thought we were having a reasonable discussion about forgotten Brazilian popstars. How quickly it devolved into calling me a pedophile!
Anyhow, it doesn't sound like the sex is "depicted" as much as it is "implied". Again, I totally understand finding that offensive-but is implied sex porn? Is Taxi Driver child porn because Jodie Foster's character is an underage prostitute? Is it a porn if 2 characters start kissing and it fades to black, to fade back up post-coitus? Is the implication pornographic? If you consider that to be, than there's no discussing the issue.
Again! I haven't seen the movie-maybe it is just horrid, slobbery porn... but from everything I'm seeing online, no one else calls it porn. All the discussions about it seem to be between people discussing the film on typical film merits (story, aesthetics, etc.). Save for the people who are excited by the potential to see a young Xuxa's breasts. Do boobs make it porn?
Whatever you say
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:06pm.
ChildPornTarus. By defending child porn you've pretty much lost all credibility here. If you don't believe me, look up what happened to Satchmo
If you can't see that even depicting an adult having sex with a 12 year old is wrong, then as you say, there's no discussing the issue
well, there's the confusion
Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:17pm.
You keep using the word "depicting"-which is misleading. There are no "depictions" of an adult having sex with a 13 year old in the film. There are "implications" that the sex had occurred. Off screen. Between scenes. Not to get bogged down in semantics, but there is, in fact, a big difference.
Anyhow-you can try to ignore my argument by claiming I defend child porn-but that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the world does not consider Xuxa to be a pornstar. Sorry.
No legal difference, BosT/Incest/Satch/Perv/Whatever...
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:25pm.
Federal and state laws very specifically state that mention of sex with minors becomes pornography in the context of interstate trade or production of same, or intrastate trade depending on jurisdiction. Within the US, if that movie were to be found on the main memory drive of anyone's PC, it would be evidence enough of child pornography as legally defined in US code. If I were to encounter a patient who admitted to possession of that type of material, it is reportable to the state as suspected child abuse pursuant to every licensing agency regulations. There is simply no room or tolerance for this. Argue all you want, but those of us who are legally, morally and ethically bound to report this as child pornography would do so in a heartbeat.
I don't have the time right now...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:27pm.
...to research what you say you've been reading, but I'll go back to my original link:
"The movie Amor, Estranho, Amor was controversial due to Xuxa's role in a sex scene where she is naked on top of a young boy."
That sounds like a depiction to me. Link me to a review by someone who has actually SEEN the movie. If I feel that you've proven your point I'll say so. You can do it by PM if you wish
sorry Bos , wrong again*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:46pm.
You brought up the semantics. If any film implies, depicts, or simulates sex with a minor, how can you debate the wording or labels? To even consider the idea of sex with a minor is perverted. Now, give it a name, x-rated, child pornography, voyeurism, or invent a name. NO normal rational adult even considers sex with a child, once they do, then feel free to name that perversion anything you wish. Legally, there are already names and crimes associated. But at no time is sex with a minor, fantasy, movie or any "depiction", anything but sick.
Movies, films, books, any venue implying, depicting, or simulating sex with a minor is pornography and the basis of fantasy for pedophiles. Misdirecting child sexual abuse into an argument of semantics will get you the nickname, "Incestmo". Trust me, that will harm your stay at NB.
Does BosT live in State College or is he a Sandusky?
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:47pm.
Just wondering.
You guys need to stop
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 1:35am.
You guys need to stop implying that I am defending child porn, pedophilia, or incest. None of which I am doing. But you're making blanket statements that just aren't true.
Taxi Driver
American Beauty
Lolita
The Woodsman
Doubt
Hounddog
Superbad
Role Models
All of these films deal with sexuality and adolescence. The first five films deal with pedophilia, either implied, simulated, or depicted. They aren't porn. No one would be arrested for owning these films.
The last 2 I included because they feature a scene with a minor in a sexual situation-Christopher Mintz Plasse was a minor when he shot his "sex scene" in which the majority of the act is implied. His partner in the scene is not a minor (though she is portraying a minor). Role Models features a scene in which a boy sees a woman's breasts. One of my favorite sketch comedy shows, "Mr Show" features a sketch with a topless woman and children-crass, inappropriate, etc. But not porn. No one would be arrested for owning these dvds.
The movie we are talking about features a topless woman in bed with a 13 year old. The implication is of pedophilia-the actual acted scene is the case of Role models in which a minor is featured with a partially nude adult.
Of course pedophilia is terrible-we're all rational adults and I know you don't think I'm actually advocating for child porn. But to claim that any fiction that deals with the topic of pedophilia is classified as porn and is therefore "illegal" is an outright lie. Everyone who's ever owned a copy of Lolita would be in jail now.
We'll stop accusing you of defending child porn...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 1:57am.
...when you actually stop defending it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:12am.
Now THAT was short, sweet, and to the point.
The dude draws a target on himself and then gets indignant because he is shot at.
Chutzpah, indeed.
MD
md,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:03am.
LOL - Yeah, as busy as I am these days, I still manage to get one in once in a while. :-)
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
You've twisted yourself into a knot
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:15am.
From your post far above:
"You're right, that in many states, simulated sex with a minor is classified as child pornography."
The current post:
"But to claim that any fiction that deals with the topic of pedophilia is classified as porn and is therefore "illegal" is an outright lie."
Contradict yourself much?
I don't see how that's a
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:59pm.
I don't see how that's a contradiction. "Dealing with the topic of pedophilia" is not illegal. That's just a fact. You still haven't addressed my list of films that deal with the topic, and are clearly not porn. I'll add 4 more that I just thought of: Precious, Little Children, The Reader, Election.
Four more movies that deal with the topic that are not illegal, are not porn, and no one would get into any trouble for owning them. Or the previous films I listed, which everyone seems to be ignoring. By your black and white blanket statements, you'd think all of the above films were illegal and one could be arrested for owning them.
Maybe you consider them pornographic and don't like them-but that does not mean they classify as child porn in a legal context. You can purchase all of them (and the film we're actually discussing) on amazon. I'd consider that to be a greater challenge were they actually, legally, considered to be child porn.
I cannot be arrested for liking or owning any of those dozen movies.
It's a contradiction
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:21pm.
because you backtracked. First you admit it that it's child porn, then you backtrack
I guess I don't see where I
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:08pm.
I guess I don't see where I admitted it was "child porn"... sorry if there was any confusion. But you're ignoring the point I'm trying to make on this thread-that "dealing with pedophilia" does not a porno make, as many above seem to be claiming.
I'm guessing you guys just consider the list of films above porn then? If so, that's totally cool. Just know that your definition of "porn" doesn't jive with the majority of folks. Again, I'm only talking about the films listed above-I'll deal with Xuxa and her past "transgressions" down below.
I guess I don't see where I
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:09pm.
I guess I don't see where I admitted it was "child porn"... sorry if there was any confusion. But you're ignoring the point I'm trying to make on this thread-that "dealing with pedophilia" does not a porno make, as many above seem to be claiming.
I'm guessing you guys just consider the list of films above porn then? If so, that's totally cool. Just know that your definition of "porn" doesn't jive with the majority of folks. Again, I'm only talking about the films listed above-I'll deal with Xuxa and her past "transgressions" down below.
Exhibit A
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:13pm.
"Submitted by BosTarus on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:39pm.
But from what I've read, none of the simulated sex scenes include the child actor-there are, however, 2 intimate scenes that imply sex occurred with the child actor off camera between scenes.
You're right, that in many states, simulated sex with a minor is classified as child pornography."
There is simulated sex in the movie as established by people who have seen it. The woman undresses the boy and kisses his naked body. He fondles her breasts. THAT meets the legal defionition of child porn
I'm ignoring everything
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:31pm.
that is fallacious or irrelevant to the present argument. The present argument is: Xuxa made a film that meets the established legal definition of child porn and therefore made a porn film, as I stated in my first post. I will ignore your attempts at muddying the water with red herrings
You seem to be ignoring it
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:41pm.
You seem to be ignoring it because it goes against your own "convoluted logic". (Which I don't really think is that convoluted-just throwing your own turn of phrase back at you). You and others posted above than any film dealing with pedophilia in any way is child porn and therefore illegal. I pointed out a series of films that address that issue in a variety of ways-none of which are illegal. I think it's a valid point, certainly relevant to this debate, and shouldn't be ignored outright because it doesn't support your argument.
It is not...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:53pm.
...a valid point and will not be discussed. I avoided even mentioning this because I knew the moment I did that you'd take it as legitimizing your red herrings. We are discussing one movie and ONLY ONE MOVIE: Amor Estranho Amor. We are discussing one thing here and one thing only: Xuxa's performance in a porno. I will not have you hijacking the discussion and providing lame evidence for your untenable argument with red herrings
Well, down below I've
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 5:02pm.
Well, down below I've continued at address the film and Xuxa-so I'm not ignoring it or attempting to hijack the debate. However, on this particular branch of the debate, we've ended up devolving into a debate about what constitutes as child pornography. You, Cajun2, and Drsamherman all gave a very black and white, blanket definition of what constitutes as child porn and how that applies to this film. I, on the other hand, pointed out a few films that calls into question the black and white definition you guys are utilizing to condemn this film as child porn.
Therefore, I don't think they are red herrings, so much as they are evidence of the grey zone that exists between regular films and "pornos".
I don't see how that is not relevant to the argument. Anyone else?
Getting close Bos*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 6:03pm.
You have been accused of being "incestmo" type of poster, I have refrained from agreeing but you are getting closer.
First, it was you defending pornography. Some of us, like drsam and myself, have dealt with both victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse. We are aware of more than just "definitions" , legal or otherwise.
Secondly, I am old enough to remember the debut of Taxi Driver and Lolita. Neither of these films got very good reviews and were trashed by the media. They were also xxx rated movies. Back then, that xxx meant they were trash/porn.
The other movies you listed, I have never heard of since I dont watch porn. Did you do research or was that list of movies from your personal library?
Liberals that I have debated have similiar beliefs about individual freedoms by redefining boundaries. This to me is a simple way of justifying perverted behavior. Woody Allen and Roman Polanski immediately come to mind. Yet if anyone dare disagree with those new "boundaries" then they are immediately referred to as right wing Christian bigoted nuts.
The hypocrisy to me is astoundingly apparent but so absent to those spewing the hypocrisy.
haha
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 8:17pm.
Sorry, I didn't account for the degree to which you were out of touch Cajun. I can assure you that Superbad is not from my private stash of porn.
Sorry, don't mean to be harsh-I'm just surprised you've never heard of any of the films.
Apart from Hounddog and The Woodsman, they are all pretty big movies. Precious, The Reader, Doubt, Little Children, and American Beauty are all Academy Award nominees (American Beauty even won that year, if I remember correctly). Apart from American Beauty, they were relatively small releases, but certainly big enough to be nominated. I understand not respecting the Academy, but I'd like to at least think that we can all agree that they aren't in the business of giving awards to flat out pornos. That's a different award all together
Taxi Drive, though comically rated X at the time of release, is considered an American classic by many. It's one of the films that put Scorcese on the map.
Election, Role Models, and Superbad are all huge comedies of the past 10 years (Election might be from the late 90s actually-but its really funny). Superbad was a big deal a few years back, I'm surprised you haven't at least heard of that one. Anyhow-none of them are porn. I can promise you that.
Sure Bos*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 8:22pm.
Out of touch by choice. What is called "entertainment" today, I find shallow, superficial, and sex oriented.
There have been great movies with substance and great stories to tell.
Try this one.....1980 Heartland with Conshatta Ferrell. Compare this movie to the garbage out of Hollywood today.
Bos
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 9:05pm.
Sorry, but citing an Academy Award doesn't say much for a movie. They are based on politics. What politicians and causes are currently in favor by Hollyweird. Much of what they like isn't the uplifting type of movie of old, but the type of movie that makes the average American seem petty and small (American Beauty).
What you may consider mainstream some of us consider on the border of porn.
I just realized some even more
Submitted by TempusFugit on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:28am.
damning evidence against the movie that started this whole argument. The DVD release of Amor Estranho Amor, actually has a picture on the front cover of the adult woman undressing the boy! Yes, folks, even tho ChildPornTarus has been defending this piece of filth, and saying that since I haven't seen the movie I can't judge it, there's a piece of porn right on the cover! I would link to it but I'm afraid that even the cookie of this could fall under child porn laws. I have alerted Amazon.com about it, and hopefully it'll be gone soon
I lied
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:43pm.
I did research some more. From some Amazon.com reviews of people WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE:
"Warning: there is a lengthy incest scene at the end of the film. "
"he movie is forbiden now in every country because the star Xuxa, that does not want the people see her in naked with a boy under age ( about 12 years old in the movie)."
"Like to see a little boy get fondled by adult women? This is the movie for you.
Want to watch an adult woman take off a little boy's clothes in bed? Again this is the move for you.
Otherwise this movie is gross sexual exploitation of a young boy and a clear example of child pornography.
I would think that Amazon wouldn't want to be the distributor of such child pornography. "
thank you TF*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:49pm.
Well done!
.
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:51pm.
Thank you (bows)
Like I said before-I have not
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 1:53am.
Like I said before-I have not seen the movie. I was going off of the imdb user boards. You found the 6 amazon user reviews. You can pick and choose your pull quotes to support your argument-but the fact is these are just people's opinions.
"There is NOTHING in the film which even Borders on Child pornography."
"The movie is boring and the subject matter is considered taboo but you won't see anything it is mostly implied"
"Actually there is not that much nudity"
"I do not think that even by todays Western standards, that a normal person would be offended by it. "
"There is NO child nudity in the film what-so-ever!"
The facts are: Xuxa has distanced herself from the film. Many people have found the film controversial. The movie is not forbidden, just rare.
In all likelihood, the film could not have been made today. It is probably too controversial and offensive to get any serious backing. However, the film was never intended to be porn. Whether or not you consider it to be "pornagraphic" is up to you. I'm guessing all of you do considering the back lash.
I haven't seen, nor do I have any intentions of seeing it. Sounds boring and kinda stupid, in addition to being crass and inappropriate.
by the by
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 1:58am.
I love that we've all been in a heated debate about a movie none of us has seen, featuring a Brazilian popstar most of us had never heard of. I hope you can step back from your Jerry Sandusky analogies to appreciate the humor in that.
I'm gonna watch some tv and then go to bed. I'm sure I'll hear more from you by the morning. Good night all!
Um...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:54am.
We don't find any humor in it because the subject matter of pedophilia and child porn is truly disgusting to normal people. Do you laugh when you hear about little girls being sold as sex slaves? Did you heehaw when they found little Caylee Anthony's body or chuckle heartily when her mother was acquitted? Do you guffaw when you read about enforced circumcision of Muslim girls? Any form of child exploitation fills me with horror and this is NOT A LAUGHING MATTER! You're a sick, sick, sick puppy dude. Just in one night you're challenging Incestmo as the sickest puppy to soil these boards
Hypocrite
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:39am.
"You can pick and choose your pull quotes to support your argument"
But you didn't? Every review at Amazon pretty much called it child porn. One review quite emphatically called it that. Link me to the quotes in your post, because (gasp!) I can't find them
Edit: I found the quotes you said were there. But you accuse me of cherrypicking and forgot these little tidbits. Dude you really are a useless slimebag. To paraphrase a Saturday Night Live classic I'm gonna have chunks of you in my stool tomorrow after eating your sorry ass
poster mrtron81 says: "There a ton of adult female nudity. The boy is in many of the scenes with them, but he's not nude. There are scenes where he simulates having sex with them, so it might be illegal in some countries."
poster arschu says: "U can see the boy having Sex with a woman i think that crosses the border"
poster ex_tenebros writes: "If child porn were defined strictly as child nudity, then it is true that this film would pass. Unfortunately that's not the definition - at least not here in the United States. In fact a man named Stephen Knox was sentenced to five years in prison in a highly publicized case, for "child porn" that even the judge agreed had no nudity. Don't take my word for it. Do a search on the case.
The legal definition of child pornography includes any sort of real or simulated "sexual contact" - that is, contact that is intended to cause arousal to either party, or that is simulated to appear so. In this film the boy is shown making out with a woman - fondling her breasts, kissing her, and she kisses her way down his neck and across his naked chest. It would almost certainly meet the legal definition of "child pornography" in the US."
You lose ChildPornTarus. Give up while you're way, way, way, way, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY behind
Woof!
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:54pm.
And a "good morning" to you too!
Anyhow, that's not hypocritical, I was pointing out the technique you used and then showing that I could do it too. I wasn't trying to claim that only my quotes were valid... just saying that I could pick and choose as well, and disregard the ones that don't support my claim, as you did. Nothing hypocritical about it.
OK
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 3:32pm.
Let me point out the list of errors you've made so far. I've been logical and consistent in my argument from the very beginning, and will not change my stance because it is correct. You have:
1. made your first argument on the premise that she was not a porn star just because she posed in Playboy, conveniently forgetting that, or ignorant of the fact that it was a porn movie that made her so
2. when confronted with the evidence of the film you quickly stated that it could meet the legal definition of child porn, then just as quickly backtracked from that position
3. criticized my use of Yahoo Answers as a unreliable source, but then used Wikipedia, regarded by pretty much everyone as one of the most unreliable sources on the Internet
4. criticized my (alleged) cherry picking of quotes from Amazon.com (1 review out of 6 contradicts my position BTW), stated that everything that you were reading was saying that nothing in that movie was pornographic, then proceeded to cherry pick quotes from IMDB.com, ignoring the fact that several there that said it was pornographic
Now today you have yet another position to explain your mental gymnastics, faulty reasoning, logical fallacies and outright lies. Since I (allegedly) did it first, it was fine for you to do, to point out the technique I used. Are you sure you don't work for the MSM or the Obama Administration? You're using the exact same faulty logic they do to explain Fast and Furious
Edit: here's a tidbit from Amazon.com I neglected yesterday:
"The movie portraits, besides the still unknown Xuxa, also two other actors that were already very famous: Vera Fischer and Tarcísio Meira, what makes it even more bizarre; to see those much prestiged actors in a movie with pedophily, child and teenage pornography content."
So my score, out of 6 reviews from people who have, unlike you, seen the movie is: 4 say it's child porn, 1 says it's not and 1 is neutral
I guess I don't see any real
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:20pm.
I guess I don't see any real mistakes that I made. I was going by the imdb user boards; which left me with the impression that the film was not a porno. An impression I still hold.
I stated that there's a chance that the film could not have been made today, as modern regulations with child actors are a more stringent than they were a few decades ago. Granted, I have no clue about the legality in Brazil-I imagine it's similar, but I have no idea.
From what I've read, I still don't think that the creators of the film set out to make a "porno". I acknowledge (as I did early on in this argument) that there are scenes in the film that many consider pornographic and controversial. But again, I don't think that makes a movie a porn. Maybe you do, but I don't. Many movies have very controversial sex scenes-but that doesn't make them all pornos.
Besides, in Brazil, Xuxa is not considered a former pornstar. That's the real point I'm getting at. Posing nude once and being featured in a film with very questionable content does not make someone a porn actor. That's all, I just think calling Xuxa a pornstar is a bit of a stretch.
Oh OK
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:29pm.
More convoluted logic. So since she was in "just one porno" that makes it OK, right? I mean it's not like she made dozens of films showing her going down with 12 year old boys and letting them fondle her breasts, it was JUST ONE. So therefore it's fine! My head is starting to hurt trying to follow your reasoning. Here's logic: she starred in a movie that features child porn. That makes her a porn star, no ifs and or buts. Game, set match and checkmate.
Just admit you've been defeated by logic and slink away. You can't end up looking good after this, since you lumped yourself in with some of the scuzziest people on the face of God's green earth, but you can salvage at least a microscopic shred of dignity if you leave it now
You seem to think that I've
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:41pm.
You seem to think that I've ceded the point that the film was a "porno". I haven't. My logic isn't convoluted so much as my opinion is just different from yours. That's fine, we don't have to agree on the definitions of what makes a porno or what makes a pornstar.
I'd just assume that if the film was actually, from a legal standpoint, child porn-then Amazon wouldn't sell it. I didn't realize they were in the business of selling illegal smut. Maybe this one just slipped through the cracks, and you are in your right to complain to them.
Neither of us have seen the film, we both could be wrong.
Ya know....
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:55pm.
...some good could come of this useless argument here. I'm going to Amazon.com right now and do my best to have it removed
Good Luck! Though I'd
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 5:04pm.
Good Luck! Though I'd imagine Amazon might not take the word of someone who's never seen the film. But if they remove it, then good on you.
Doesn't change the fact that Brazil doesn't think of Xuxa as a pornstar. But I acknowledge that everyone has a different definition of what constitutes as porn and pornstars.
I used as evidence in my email to them
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 5:16pm.
the words of people who have seen the film, by linking them to their own website reviews of it and IMDBs user boards
Interesting info I just found
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 5:03pm.
"I'd just assume that if the film was actually, from a legal standpoint, child porn-then Amazon wouldn't sell it."
Yet another argument of yours is going down in flames. Amazon itself isn't selling it. It's offered on their website by a third party seller. They might be unaware that it's child porn
Yes, I saw that. I'm an avid
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 5:12pm.
Yes, I saw that. I'm an avid Amazon user-I understand all too well the "Amazon Marketplace" system. (cause neither Amazon Prime nor "super savers" shipping apply to marketplace purchases!) I would never assume that Amazon proper would have this stocked in their warehouses-as the film has been out of print for a long time.
However, they still manage their marketplace vendors-and this particular one has high ratings. If this is actual child porn, Amazon may not be aware of it. Perhaps you should contact the actual seller, Telesales. Maybe they can shed some more light on the film.
I'm not gonna go to that
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 5:18pm.
much effort for a little bitchfight on Newsbusters. If Amazon doesn't have the inclination to investigate this on the evidence I gave them, then I wash my hands of it. I've already gone way too far in this, seeing as how I have a hand injury and typing is laborious and painful, but I was enjoying the intellectual tussle too much to stop
No worries!
Submitted by BosTarus on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 8:19pm.
I understand-it's been fun. Let me know if you hear anything back from amazon-I'm curious how it turns out one way or another.
Hope your hand feels better!
Yeah
Submitted by TempusFugit on Fri, 11/18/2011 - 10:31am.
I'm sure it's been fun to defend child porn and all the other filth you defend on these boards. There's evidence it truly is child porn. The cover! Like I said before, tho I doubt it'll ever get through your thick troll skull: game, set, match. You lose
Why would you hold that impression?
Submitted by TempusFugit on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:36pm.
"I was going by the imdb user boards; which left me with the impression that the film was not a porno. An impression I still hold."
You flunked reading comprehension and counting if you do. There's a thread at imdb called "How Much Nudity" which has 6 total post, 2 of which say it's not child porn and 3 that say it is. I read the same thing you did and came away with a vastly different impression. And if you add that to what's at Amazon.com you get a score of 7 that say it's child porn and 3 that say it's not
Oh you Pharisees! How dare
Submitted by Henry Clay on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:03pm.
Oh you Pharisees! How dare any of you pass judgment on this young woman. You cannot even compare her to a pedophile- she was the one exploited! She was the victim! Did any of you read that she is an ex-porn star? She is no longer in that exploitative business. It sounds to me that she turned her life around and still some are passing judgment on her youthful mistakes.
She can be an inspiration to any young girl who finds herself in the same situation that Ms. Gray once found herself in. She can lead that child to make a better choice, away from the drugs, away from the diseases, and the debasement of one’s body for money.
Why do I feel...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:18pm.
...that I just stepped in a big steaming pile of pompousness?
you did
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:23pm.
you might want to check your shoes.
whatever Henry
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:22pm.
Parents are concerned first about the safety of their children.
You're concerned about PC appearances and feelings of a full grown adult.
Obviously, your priorities are skewed.
Don't feed him
Submitted by ahusser on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:28pm.
He'll hijack the thread. Like he did yesterday.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Here is a quote from TROLL Henry Clay, On a ditched thread.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:35pm.
HELLO Clay...Are you sure, about the following.....
Those who have faith do not need to rely on man made weapons for safety.
Soo why are you using a computer, a known weapon?
You Didn't Build That.
Sorry
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:54pm.
double post
And you know that she was exploited...how...??
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:56pm.
According to available information on multiple public websites, she was 18 when she went into porno. That makes her legally an adult. If she had been forced or somehow exploited, it certainly is not referenced in any contemporary information about her based on a simple Google search. It appears her choice to do filth was exactly that--HER choice.
I suggest you step down from
Submitted by Henry Clay on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:51pm.
I suggest you step down from your soapbox. You never did something stupid at 18? Should we brand you for life?
Here you go, Henry
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:01pm.
Five years in the porn industry does not qualify as "something stupid". It's a string of stupidity, not a childish "mistake".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'll stay on my soapbox as long as I wish, Muddy Hank.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:58pm.
I learned from my mistakes very quickly, and I did not make that many of them growing up because I had good role models and parenting that made all the difference in the world. Funny how faith, values, morals and a good work ethic will do that.
This woman worked in the porno industry for over five years. That is not a teenager's mistake, that is a life choice. Like most liberals, the concept of consequences seems to be elusive to you. She will have to explain to any children or relatives she has why she worked in an industry that YOU termed exploitative.
So please tell us again how you determined this woman was exploited. Like most of the monologue-prone liberal trolls that show up here sooner or later, you immediately duck and dodge the question at hand. How did you determine she was exploited?
Exploitation
Submitted by Henry Clay on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:22pm.
We must first define exploitation. My 1918 version of Webster’s defines exploitation as a deed or act that one uses with selfish or unfair motives to profit illegitimately from. Ms. Grey was but a young lass when she first jaunted over to the adult film industry. You say, 18 years old but I say 18 years young, regardless, we can agree that she was still a child; but you say stop Henry! Does she look like a child to you? Look at her-she hardly looks like a child. Yes, but as we all know physically we mature faster then we do mentally. In other word, she was mentally unprepared to weigh the consequences of her self-destructive actions.
Let us now look to the producers of these films. These schemers and peddlers of lies are like parasites to young women. These knaves take simpleminded young ladies and promise them a world of fast cars, designer clothing, and fame. What these exploiters do next is unconscionable. They take an act of love, and turn it into a degrading masochistic sideshow caught on camera for the entire world to see. They then release these videos or websites to other troubled individuals, thus not only exploiting the girls but also the people who watch the videos. If this is not confusing enough for you the voyeurs watching are also exploiting the girl. In essence, the actress is being exploited first for profit from the producer and then for her humiliation by the voyeur. I hope that explains it sufficiently.
sounds like you swallowed said publication
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:32pm.
.
Fallacious logic, Mud.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:32pm.
18 is the legal age of majority in the United States for everything but consumption of alcohol and qualification for various public offices depending on the local, state or federal constitutions. She walked into the porno business, and certainly she could have quit on the first day. It's not like they asked her to read the Gettysburg address and suddenly she ended up performing sex acts for money.
Exploitation requires a victim and an offender at the minimum according to forensic standards used in medicine and law. Unless you can absolutely say that she was forced to perform acts which would define exploitation in the criminal sense and in the medical standard underlying that definition, it was her choice to continue doing it.
Short of doing a structured clinical interview as defined in the diagnostic process for psychiatry, there is no way of knowing whether or not she would meet the definition of being incapable of making her own informed decisions. That's the standard that is applied here, not some philosophical definition. Five years of working in the industry and she becomes reliant on that line of work financially is hardly exploitation either. If she did exit that business, that was also her choice. She alone has to face the consequences personally of her choices, she doesn't get to hit "rewind" on her life. She was being paid to do what she did, and unless you could make a convincing case to a court of appropriate jurisdiction, there is no exploitation involved except in the minds of those who view this externally.
I don't say stop, Hank. I say check your sources and reply in context to the point that you made. No amount of flowery poesy from your latest foray into creative non-answers will help you escape that.
Kindness
Submitted by Henry Clay on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:53pm.
Friend, one can be a little too clinical when dealing with the human spirit. You must first step back a drink the milk of human kindness. Yes, in our post-modern world we tend to look as cynics to the silent sufferings of our fellow traveler. Who knows, if I was born an attractive woman with low self-esteem and grew up in a broken home; I too could have taken Ms. Grey’s path. No one knows, but what I do know is eighteen is not an adult. Yes, the government says, at eighteen you can carry a gun and kill people from strange cultures for oil; but still were you the same person at eighteen as you are today. I know I was not the same person at twenty-five as I am today. That is the beauty of growing old, you grow wiser not angrier. Step back and not for debate purposes, put yourself in her shoes. What gives you the right to place a scarlet letter on her? Who are you to judge? Give the benefit of the doubt to a sinner. For God knows you were given the same benefit.
Come down off the cross...someone needs the wood....
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:58pm.
Whatever sedative you are on, it's really quite effective. I am guessing a cocktail of high-dose lithium titrated to a 1.5 along with 0.5 mg Xanax four times a day with a mid-range Seroquel XR chaser.
As for the age bit, I am over half a century old myself so that will not wash in this forum.
I did not place a scarlet letter on her nor have I judged her. All I asked up front was how you determined that she was exploited. You went down the primrose path into the netherworld, Hank. Glad to see my initial impressions of you were at least 75% correct relative to how you present.
Henry Clay...really?!
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:24pm.
Whether you like it or not, your past, present and future actions will be looked at and judge as good or bad.
Yes, we have all done stupid things in our life. We have all sinned. Thank goodness there are Moral voices out there who have been able to guide me and tell me what is Wrong and what is Right. I have never understood the Left’s and some on the Right’s anger when anyone tells them, “Your actions are immoral”.
The action of being involved in pornography is Wrong (making it and watching it) and you are a poor role model for anyone. You must not only renounce, but publicly renounce your previous life and go and sin no more if you are going to make yourself a role model, just like Christ asked the prostitute.
18 might be a child here in the USA and other Western nations, but go to poverty stricken nations. Go to Latin American, Africa, some Asian nations, 18? you have lived many more life times than all of NB members combined.
You put forth one of the greatest problems with America today. How little we expect from our youth and young adults. 18? Today we say, "Heck, it is the time to screw up! Don't worry, party. You have a life time to live!" We put such low expectations on our citizens today. Then, we are not told that we have to live with the countless of mistakes and sins that we committed while 18.
Let’s start raising the standard. Let’s start putting very high expecations on our youth, on our young adults, on our adults!!!
Yes, only God knows why Ms. Grey went into pornography. You are 100% correct. She must not be branded with the scarlet letter, but this does not mean that no one has the Right to point out that her action of doing pornography was immoral. And that reading to children while still embracing the industry is at minimum very poor judgment on her part.
I agree with you Henry. Porn exploits everybody. Former Pornstar
Submitted by VanPastorMan on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:51pm.
Shelley Lubben talks about her past and the bad family she grew up in. This didn't cause her to get into prostitution/stripping/porn movies, but it made her choices a lot easier. Lubben talks about how 90% of porn actors do drugs to deaden the pain they receive from what they do. In other words these are not happy people. They are acting like they are having a fun time, but are dying inside. My hope is that a spirit of fatherhood will sweep across our country. Men who view porn have to remember that these women are somebody's daughter/granddaughter etc. Let's have a heart, a heart like a father.
Confession
Submitted by IrateNate on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:29pm.
Yes, I admit it. It was many years ago, I was fresh out of college, with a head full of progressive nonsense.
It's true....I once voted for a Democrat...please forgive me.
Well, ok
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:38pm.
You are forgiven
Yes, I have the power
In kindergarten? She should
Submitted by gobnait06 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:57pm.
In kindergarten? She should be volunteering her time in shelters for children in crisis. There are consequences for the choices you make and parents most certainly DO have the right to protect their children from someone whose choices are so questionable.
That's a laugh riot!
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:10pm.
I love this website!
Great stuff!
You got it right though- she's not a pedophile like Sandusky.
I disagree on the "leading by example" aspect. She has not renounced her past as being harmful to herself. She "retired" from the porn business. She has not said anything about the "harm" it caused to her. She's an actress not doing porn that's it.
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
TempusFugit Has It Right
Submitted by rammingspeed on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:11pm.
I agree with Tempusfugit: Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman, HORRORS! say the libs. Sasha Grey, ok. I don't care about Sasha Grey, but the insane hypocricy the left would have over Palin and Bachman is mind bending beyond words. THAT'S what's crazy about this.
BTW
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:15pm.
I forgot to add that THE HORRORS!!!! should be said in the voice of the narrator of the original Batman TV series, at the end of the show, with the cliffhanger situation being described. Batman and Robin hanging over a tank infested by man eating piranhas? THE HORRORS!!!!!
TempFug
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:37pm.
Whenever I read "THE HORRORS"....I think of Apocalypse Now.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Believe it or not Blonde...
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:04pm.
...never seen the movie. Just wanted to thank you for your Obama gaffe list. I made use of it in an argument on Yahoo the other day
Fan-Tastic!
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:11pm.
I'm so happy....I started the list as a lark, but now it's become kind of important to me...I've yet to see another one on the intertubes (well, some guy who c/p'd it w/o attribution, but when I mentioned it he gave the devil (me) her due!).
If you ever do see Apocalypse Now, be sure to rent the director's cut. It's a long slog, but there are some scenes that are worth it (Playboy bunnies in choppers, for one).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No way
Submitted by Henry Clay on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:20pm.
I know liberals are such big bad evil boogie men, but I do believe Mrs. Palin and Mrs. Bachmann have read to classes before. I certainly did not see any reaction from the left. I think any liberal would be happy just to see these two women reading in general.
Katie Couric: What are some of your favorite books? (softball question)
Sarah Palin: Um You betcha…um like George Washington….Drill now drill here baby….You’re trying to trick me!
Over ah 100 bucks today, Troll
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:52pm.
Oil Soars Past $100, Seaway Reversal to Ease Glut
ANSWER THE QUESTION TROLL.
As in why are you still here, weapon user.
You Didn't Build That.
Troll on
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:57pm.
you crazy lib. That's a Pink Floyd reference if you didn't get it
,
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:01pm.
"...but I do believe Mrs. Palin and Mrs. Bachmann have read to classes before."
When and where? Show me the link and tell me the liberal reaction to it. If they did, it was probably before they became national figures
The intellectually bankrupt Left
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:07pm.
I think any liberal would be happy just to see these two women reading in general This is because any Leftist/Socialist is thoroughly intellectually bankrupt and instead of confronting Palin or Bachmann on IDEAS, they HAVE to resort to childish insults.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Interaction with kids.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:30pm.
I'd rather a former porn star reading to my kids than some born-again former alcoholic who is "clean and sober".
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
you have children?
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:34pm.
.
Sometimes...
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:58pm.
Sometimes they turn into monsters! LOLOLOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
I'll take that as a no, then.
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:06pm.
.
Well...
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:32pm.
I'll let you imagine and believe what you want to believe.
I have 8 kids...5 different women...some might be mine. Living on a commune we all share things.
Being communist, you know, gives you the opportunity to mix it up here and there.
LOLOLOL
Joking of course!
LMAO
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Well if you'd answered honestly
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:41pm.
then we'd not be having this conversation. All I can go by is the caricature you've drawn. You like James Bond and you misquote Hemmingway.
is that LOLOLOL some kind of nervous tic?
Did the troll herd....
Submitted by TempusFugit on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:59pm.
...run through here? Who sounded the troll call? Reminds me of the old Bloom County "liberal call"
That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say
Submitted by VanPastorMan on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:59pm.
You can't really believe that can you? The man is clean and sober and just because he is a Christian you would rather have a former porn star? My question would be this, "Does this Gray woman have any repentence in her heart? Did she get out of porn because it was hurting her or did she want to move on to something that makes more money? I'd like to know what her heart is in the situation.
Luckily, Dr. Nanthy Thnyderman was not her gyno.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:35pm.
This Ho was not a semi-pro - she was in over TWO HUNDRED pornos and there was NOTHING too bizarre for her.
Perhaps NB's in-house Pornologist will be along to provide additional perspective.
I haven't seen him around, maybe he's changing the stylus
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:53pm.
on his Pornograph.
You Didn't Build That.
Nancy Snyderman is an ENT surgeon.
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 6:59pm.
Anytime I hear her comment on psychiatric or neurologic problems, I want to ask when she received her board certification in either. I have both.
I don't know why people are
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:02pm.
I don't know why people are missing this...
Why is inviting an outsider to read in a classroom, instead of having their teacher reading to them, in any way "helping the children"?
The only reason I can think for doing this is if the outsider is someone who is well known to the kids or is the author of a book they're reading. That's a treat for the kids.
Do the first graders in this class watch Entourage? Or am I missing something?
It sounds like something she's doing for PR purposes, not for the kids, but for herself
it's an NEA based program called
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:09pm.
"Read Across America"
That explains part of it. But
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:29pm.
That explains part of it. But I'm still not sure why having Sasha Grey read a book motivates kids to read.
given that
Submitted by kata on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:42pm.
she's had 168 news agencies take up her story in the last 24 hrs I'd say you have your answer.
I hear ya.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:36pm.
My daughter's teacher allows an outsider into the classroom to "help" with the kids. It's gotten out of hand, the audacity to allow this teacher's mother- a former teacher- to read to the children!!!
LOLOLOL
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
Lol. thats not the point. I'm
Submitted by redfish on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:01pm.
Lol. thats not the point. I'm just questioning the logic of "how dare you challenge someone who is volunteering time to help kids."
I agree its not a problem for her to read, I just don't like some of the sanctimony in defending her.
gotta agree here with Blowfeld...
Submitted by Tidy Bowl Man on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:29pm.
She's not reading Penthouse forum or anything. There is a difference between a child predator and a porn star.
Thank you.
Submitted by E.S.Blofeld on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:33pm.
That was my point all along...
Ernst
"Isn't it pretty to think that way?"-EH
A look at dirty pictures
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 7:31pm.
Would the reaction have been the same had it been a former male adult star?
Just wondering.
I wondered the same thing..
Submitted by greggy on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:33pm.
somehow I think it might have been a different response, if John Holmes had shown up.
I think some of you are missing it...
Submitted by Mr. Mike on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:13pm.
Had this been Ann Coulter involved with the same program reading to a class in NYC and parents were outraged over her political stances and past comments about Obama the media would have questioned the school's decision in allowing such a vitriolic person to be allowed in the room with such impressionable young minds.
However, since Ms. Grey has a sex entertainment background, which liberals just love cause they're so open minded and all, then everything's fine. You know it's not like she's one of those hatefilled Republicans that spit upon the poor and needy. An open mind and spread legs are the same thing to a liberal.
You folks are missing the most important part
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:27pm.
Did the story have a happy ending?
Happy Ending?
Submitted by IrateNate on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:19pm.
Come on, now...this is a porn star we're talking about, not a masseuse.
We're talking about children here
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 8:45pm.
I can see no reason why we shouldn't be extremely careful who we let come in contact with our children. Why should this woman be allowed to read to students? It's not a civil right. She has no connection to children. Even her role now is on a television geared toward adults on a cable channel. She has nothing to offer to children, and now is most certainly a detriment.
Don't think she's going to pose as a deterrent. Any child knowing who she is will not see the degradation of pornography.
I'm confused here
Submitted by LinTaylor on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:20pm.
Yes, she's a former porn star, but it's not like she's going to do anything even vaguely related to the adult entertainment industry. She's there to read to the kids and encourage them to read themselves, which frankly more kids need to do anyway. So why does this woman deserve to be pilloried? If that's the case, shouldn't we go after EVERYONE who's ever made questionable choices in their past careers, like Maya Angelou and Jackie Chan?
Are you suggesting
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 9:54pm.
That if she was encouraged to read, she wouldnt be a porn star?
Story time
Once upon a time there was a gay pedophile coach, who created a foundation to recruit kids to abuse, (stop me if you heard this) He was revered for being a great coach, and the accusations were ignored because of his talents.
BTW, do you find the record number of school teachers having sex with their students surprising?
So, maybe I was wrong about porn stars mixing with kids, eh?
Nap
What?
Submitted by LinTaylor on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:13pm.
I never said anything remotely to that effect, Boudin. I said that encouraging kids to read more is a good thing, and if Miss Grey volunteered to do so, then good for her. Her past career has nothing to do with her altruistic intentions; it isn't like she's going to "perform" for the kids, or talk about the industry, or anything like that.
And I fail to see what teachers engaging in pedophilia with their students has to do with porn stars.
I don't have pay cable and I've never seen Entourage. What does
Submitted by VanPastorMan on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:53pm.
this woman do on that show? Does she get nude and have simulated sex on this program? If she does then I would not want her anywhere near my kids. That goes for anyone who gets naked or acts perverted in public.
Good god...
Submitted by Kaleidoscopic God on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:15pm.
These trolls are SWARMING the place.
Prudish
Submitted by IrateNate on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:24pm.
I see nothing wrong with a "former" porn star reading to first-graders. I've witnessed her with the children, and she is bright, articulate, and enunciates well.
However, some might be put off by her particular style. As I recall, it took me a while to get used to the whole ankles-behind-the-ears thing...
Being accused of craziness..
Submitted by greggy on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:30pm.
by Nancy Sniderman, is often a pretty good sign that you're probably on the right side of an issue.
What did she read? Horton
Submitted by ant on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:18am.
What did she read? Horton Hears A 'Ho?
Well I have to say something here
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:37am.
Just that I can't let a porn thread go by without commenting :-)
I smell fried troll. Does anyone else smell fried troll?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:44am.
I smell fried troll. I see fried troll smoke. But no troll. Hmmmm
It is like there was a troll here, thought he could get smart with a fairly serious subject, and then got zotted. Hmmmm. Wonder who it was that thought he could play it up smart when there was clearly a zot stick in the room. Hmmmmmm.
Free Choices?
Submitted by Netclimber1 on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 2:09am.
Regardless of the speaker's past, were the parents of the children informed of the speaker and her past by the teacher, school, and/or district? If they were, I do not understand this argument at all. IF they were not, the parents in this situation have a legitimate complaint. A parent has the responsibilty (and instinct) to nurture and protect their children. If a child is REQUIRED by authority to be in a classroom, the parent MUST be given ALL information regarding their child's learning environment. IF a parent is not given all information regarding their child's lessons, that parent's free choices for their child's protection are subverted by those in authority. Does anyone want, or even entertain the idea of the (required) loss of their free choice? It seems to have happened here. And once this seed starts to grow unprotested, it will be a long and painful road back to anything resembling what we as parents call freedom, if that is even possible.This is not a pretty picture.
Are we still making a big
Submitted by wiwf on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:42pm.
Are we still making a big deal out of someone reading to children?
Ok just my two cents but how
Submitted by ThePickle on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 4:44pm.
Ok just my two cents but how exactly does one differentiate between a prostitute and a "porn star"?
The only noticeable difference that I can see is, that while they both get paid to have sex, one does it in a dingy hotel room and the other does it on a well lit set in front of a camera.
Sorry folks but a prostitute is a prostitute no matter how you want to pretty it up.
And yes that includes the dudes that "star" in these films as well.
As to having this person read to kids I would think that if the school have given enough advanced notice to parents, it a possibility that this woman of dubious virtue would have been reading to a bunch of empty chairs.