AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!

Pornstar August Ames commits suicide after bullying for refusing to have sex w/ man who did gay porn

  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What do you think the message of those attacking her was if not that she owed her body to a man?
Pretty clear to me they were fighting homophobia. Every bit as noble a cause I suppose as fighting misogyny, or islamophobia, or any other number of thought crimes.
No one should be made to apologize for not sexing someone, and the people coming for her still didn't back down when she gave them that. If an apology wasn't enough, what would have been outside of going back and not turning the man down/not calling out her representative? I know that I can make many situations into a feminist nightmare, but this one really is completely based in misogyny. If a woman outside of sex work said "I don't sleep with bisexual or pansexual men." would she be harassed? Probably not. If a man in porn said "I don't want to work with lesbian performers because dental dam usage is not common." would he be harassed? Probably not. If she weren't a woman and a sex worker, they wouldn't have called her consent into question. They weren't accepting anything less than her compliance with a performer she felt was wrong for her. They absolutely felt she owed her body to this man.
Sure. Or they felt like she was discriminating against homosexuals.

Good sense and discernment trumps special interests any day, and I am becoming more convinced by the day the left has lost any semblance of either one.

I don't care if her twitter comments were homophobic. And I don't care if the response was misogynistic.
Where I completely agree with Justjoined is this.
Thank you (unless you are cozying up to me with the intent of making a gay pass, in which case get lost, but please don't eat cyanide or hang yourself).
 
A porn star isn't an employee though, right? She would still be an independent contractor and each scene would have its own contract. Or, if she is contracted under a company her preference sheet would be included in her contract as part of her agreeing to do the work. Unlike the baker, she doesn't have a public building with an "open" sign on it. She's never agreed to be an equal opportunity environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ExcellaExe and Gen
A porn star isn't an employee though, right? She would still be an independent contractor and each scene would have its own contract. Or, if she is contracted under a company her preference sheet would be included in her contract as part of her agreeing to do the work. Unlike the baker, she doesn't have a public building with an "open" sign on it. She's never agreed to be an equal opportunity environment.

Fine, let's make the baker a caterer with just a website, or a masseuse. Can masseuse discriminate against gays how about blacks?

If a masseuse posted that he was uncomfortable giving a massage to an openly gay customer, and he got lots of hate on tweeter. Which side would you be on?
 
  • Helpful!
Reactions: Gen and JickyJuly
Fine, let's make the baker a caterer with just a website, or a masseuse. Can masseuse discriminate against gays how about blacks?

If a masseuse posted that he was uncomfortable giving a massage to an openly gay customer, and he got lots of hate on tweeter. Which side would you be on?
If they work on contract and not as an employee, it's their right to turn down new contracts. Most massage therapists do not work under contract. Since she felt her health was on the line, I think a better comparison would be a body guard. If you're a personal body guard, under contract, you are only obligated to protect the person or people you agreed to protect. Being a personal body guard doesn't obligate you keep everyone around you safe or everyone who offers you money safe. You get to weight out risk vs reward and make the agreement. Conversely, if you're a security guard who is employed not under contract, you'd be obligated to treat everyone in the building the same regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc.

She was not obligated to perform with anyone outside of her agreement, and her agreement did not include crossover men. Legally, I'd say she was in the right. And, morally, we all have the right to say no. She said no by putting her preference sheet together. She never should have had to say no to that performer. He shouldn't have been put in her scene. Anything that went against her sheet would be a violation of her consent.

The way she stated her preference may have been within the stigma that gay men carry, but it's not fair to pretend that no one in porn has been infected with HIV in their personal lives and brought it back to infect others. No amount of testing can completely rule out HIV for someone who has multiple partners very quickly. If you've ever been exposed to HIV, you know that you go back for multiple tests. They can't rule it out completely until you wait 6 months. If, at 23, the small threat of HIV was enough for her to rule out a chunk of money for herself, her rep had no right to push it and none of us had a right to question it.
 
Double posting. Sorry. I don't sleep. I'm wondering if it even makes sense for us to compare who a performer will work with on a set with who a baker will bake for or who a body guard will agree to protect? She turned down a job because she didn't want to fulfill the requirements of the job and was upset that her rep put her up for the job. That really is different than turning down a customer in a situation where you've already done the job or the job requirements are the same as any other except that you plop different figurines on top of the cake. If she'd said she didn't want bisexual men purchasing her scenes, that would be homophobic and comparable to the cake scenario. But, it's a stretch to compare who a performer works with to who consumes her finished product.
 
We all need longer fuses on our 'triggering' and simply need more compassion, patience and empathy.. shitty deal.. she grew up a cpl miles away from me and my ex knew her. too young to go thats for sure.
 
Last edited:
But it's not fair to pretend that no one in porn has been infected with HIV in their personal lives and brought it back to infect others. No amount of testing can completely rule out HIV for someone who has multiple partners very quickly. If you've ever been exposed to HIV, you know that you go back for multiple tests
.

Totally agree.

Also, yesterday I was multitasking watching a movie, looking at the thread and falling asleep on the couch so I forgot to add other personal thoughts on the matter. According to what I've read in the newspapers this girl was a quite a succesfull actress in the industry, so I suppose she was super protected, super safe, etc but nevertheless lots of pressure has been put on her and she was bullied by people in her own industry. Question: "So what happens with performers way less famous and succesfull than her"?

Lately newspapers report many accusations of sexual harrasment/misconduct in the movie industry and people think "well, what a shame, that sucks" . And you see reaction in that industry. But when it comes to porn most of the non related industry people think, well, it's porn so being exploited, harrased comes with the territory and no one cares. Really? Maybe that's why I don't see any kind of reaction among people who work in that industry. Isn't it strange?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JickyJuly
As for sew work/discrimination issues. In some of the EU countries sex work is a legal work and sex workers may refuse to work with clients. I'm not aware of any discrimination suit that has been brought to a court by clients. Comparing a sex worker with a baker doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
If they work on contract and not as an employee, it's their right to turn down new contracts. Most massage therapists do not work under contract. Since she felt her health was on the line, I think a better comparison would be a body guard. If you're a personal body guard, under contract, you are only obligated to protect the person or people you agreed to protect. Being a personal body guard doesn't obligate you keep everyone around you safe or everyone who offers you money safe. You get to weight out risk vs reward and make the agreement. Conversely, if you're a security guard who is employed not under contract, you'd be obligated to treat everyone in the building the same regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation etc.

She was not obligated to perform with anyone outside of her agreement, and her agreement did not include crossover men. Legally, I'd say she was in the right. And, morally, we all have the right to say no. She said no by putting her preference sheet together. She never should have had to say no to that performer. He shouldn't have been put in her scene. Anything that went against her sheet would be a violation of her consent.

Now Jicky, my friend, I'm not going to let you duck my question quite that easily :mm:.

I literally don't know any massage therapists who aren't independent contractors. They either own their own studio or work out of their homes. Recently, a friend of my bought a massage parlor, and all of the masseuses he employs are truly independent contractors, set their own hours etc. Plus as he was quick to tell me, if I was interested happy ending messages were available!

Giving a massage can be pretty intimate it involves physical contact, and certainly in the case of a happy end massage contact with bodily fluids. So the service offered by happy ending massage therapist and a porn star (other than being filmed) aren't that different.

On most levels, I find it loathsome that the government can compel a businessperson to provide service to somebody they don't want to service. So I certainly think August was well within in her rights to not have sex within anyone she didn't want to. In fact, we do allow business to refuse service to anybody. BUT to prevent the evils of discrimination, we do not allow business to refuse service to certain protected classes. Even if we use your example of a bodyguard, IIRC the courts have ruled while bodyguard can refuse clients they can't refuse clients primarily because they are black.

Should we extend that same protection to gays? Are there some services, which we should allow the providers to be more discriminating than others?

I don't think August did anything wrong for many of the reason you pointed out. But I also don't think it is all unreasonable for people to question her motives. Did she refuse to have sex with the person because she was homophobic? I certainly don't know and don't care that much. But to pretend that her actions aren't a subject of legitimate discussion on a public forum like twitter, is wrong.

It tragic she killed herself, but let's not blame cyberbullying.
 
Ok, I know this is going to make me sound like an insensitive asshole, but I've been drinking. It just seems to me that if baker can be sued for not baking a cake for a gay couple's wedding, then questioning a pornstar who refuses to have sex with gay/bi-sexual pornstar is not at all unreasonable.

Before everyone says , baking a cake is hugely different from having sex, yes it is.

On the other hand, there is also a huge difference between taking somebody to court for refusing to do something, and have random people question your decisions on twitter. It is order of magnitude more traumatic to be sued than be criticized on social media.

Secondly, the baker objected to the baking a cake for the gay couple was religious grounds. The Supreme Court has the difficult decision to decide if the bakers religious freedom is more or less important than a gay couples right to be not discriminated on.

What was her reason for refusing to work with the actor? She said she feared for her safety, because she believes gay porn star have more STDs. Is that really true/ I don't know. Everybody gets tested I thought before a shoot so I'm dubious it makes much of a difference. The reason the cake baker case is before Supreme Court is many years ago, blacks were refused service at restaurants, hotels, and stores. The reasons white folks refused service to blacks back then sounded suspiciously similar to both the cake baker and August's reasons. We as a society decided that blacks rights were more important than the rights of people who were uncomfortable with doing business blacks (aka racists.). Should we extend the same rights to homosexuals? Or should there be a line drawn, you have to serve a gay couple a meal, rent them a room, bake them a cake, but you don't have plan their wedding, and nor force a porn star to have sex with them. BTW, do we force legal prostitute in Nevada to have sex with black men, or bi-sexuals, or fat guys?

So I just want to start with saying I am not homophobic in the slightest, both me and my partner are bi. But, I specified clearly to my partner that if he wanted to have sex with a gay male he would need to be particularly careful with protection. This is nothing to do with homophobia, it is to do with the increased chances of catching HIV through receiving unprotected anal sex. While living in London and studying fashion and working in that industry, rather stereotypically, most of my male friends were gay, and HIV was a really big problem in the gay scene at the time. There is a reason why in the UK (I don't know about other places), it is only recently that men who have had sex with other men can donate blood, and they have to have not slept with a man for a certain period of time. I remember when this conversation was coming up, I checked the statistics, there is a scary majority of gay men with HIV compared to other groups, especially scary considering how many less gay men there are than straight men, straight women and gay women.

You could point out that many female porn stars engage in unprotected anal sex and are therefore being risky themselves, which is true, but... It's most likely to be caught if someone penetrates you, so straight male porn stars are far less likely to catch aids or STI's than straight female porn stars or gay male porn stars. This means that while as a woman you are high risk of catching it if you have sex with a carrier, if you only sleep with straight males you are at a much lower risk as even if they had slept with a woman with HIV unprotected, they're not likely to have caught it. Because HIV can take a long time to be detected in a test, porn stars having regular tests is not reliable. So I can completely understand any female porn star choosing not to have sex with men who take part in gay porn scenes as an extra safety precaution. It's not homophobic, it's looking at statistics and working out what risk is worth it to you. Why would you take the extra risk to your health when you could shoot a film with someone lower risk? The statistic might not be a huge increase in chances, but honestly, HIV would be so awful to get I can see the logic.

Due to these reasoning I think it is not a great comparison to put it in the same category as a baker who would not bake a gay couple a cake. That situation the baker has no reason other than personal feelings not to bake the cake. He is at no physical risk. In the case of female porn stars not wanting to have sex with men who have filmed gay porn, they actually have a potentially life threatening increased risk. Not going to lie, even if there were only a 2% increased risk of me catching HIV by sleeping with a certain group of people, I likely would avoid it. Especially seeing as porn stars can sleep with hundreds of men without protection. So I don't think it's fair to compare it to discrimination cases where someone won't do something simply because someone is a certain sexuality or skin colour. If I traveled to a country with high HIV risk I would likely not sleep with anyone from there even if I met someone attractive, because there's an increased risk. Nothing to do with racial discrimination, just self preservation.

But, when it comes to sex, I think anyone is within their rights to not have sex with someone however petty their reasons. If you happen to find white men or black men disgusting to look at then that's your choice. Maybe your boundary is not sleeping with people over a certain age or weight, maybe you don't want to have sex with someone of the same gender as you. Just because it's sex work does not remove consent, or that your body is precious to you. This discussion runs dangerously close to those who believe it's acceptable to rape a sex worker because she's offering it up for sale anyway. Baking a cake for someone, you barely need to cross paths with that person, even waiting on a table for someone your interaction is minimal. Having sex with someone on the other hand, however often you sleep with strangers, it's still very intimate. So no, I would not force someone who were fundamentally homophobic to have sex with a black person. That would be rape. I would tell the cake maker to buck up and get on with it though. It's not a double standard. It's to do with what you're asking someone to do. Forcing someone to make a cake is not illegal, forcing someone to have sex is. It's different and cannot be compared.

Higirls we've had this discussion before where you've tried to hold sex workers to identical standards as non sexual industries, and in some situations it works. I believe you should give sex workers the same respect you give people in other industries, and I believe sex workers should give customers respect in a similar way, but that's about where it ends. There are just some things which cannot be sold in the same way you would sell an object or a non intimate service.
 
Giving a massage can be pretty intimate it involves physical contact, and certainly in the case of a happy end massage contact with bodily fluids. So the service offered by happy ending massage therapist and a porn star (other than being filmed) aren't that different.
Massage therapists and happy-ending masseuses are different. That’s like saying a real nurse and an escort in a nurse outfit are the same. Massage parlours with happy endings are brothels, essentially. So you’re talking about two types of sex work. That’s also why you don’t need any training to work at one, unlike if you’re an actual massage therapist.

In fact, we do allow business to refuse service to anybody. BUT to prevent the evils of discrimination, we do not allow business to refuse service to certain protected classes.
This is the distinction I was trying to get at in earlier posts, explained much more succinctly, so thank you.
 
Now Jicky, my friend, I'm not going to let you duck my question quite that easily :mm:.
Of course not! Hehe.
I think you and I were barking up the wrong tree trying to compare a porn performer to a baker, massage therapist or bodyguard after a rethink. Since a this performer is not her own finished product, she's not liable for any discrimination. Folks who do scenes for production companies sign a contract, do the scene and get paid. Then, their part of the job is done. If they're not involved in the sale of the final product, any transactions with the public that would be protected are not on them. Essentially, if we're trying to compare them to the baking scenario, they're not the baker or the cake. They are just an ingredient in the cake. Until she signed the contract, no one had a right to stir her in the cake with the other ingredients. She didn't consent to being in a crossover cake. The baker did make a mistake, but she was the only victim of that mistake. She didn't demand the dude not get the scene. She lost money and stepped back from something she never meant to be part of.

If we're talking about full service sex workers, things get more complicated. But, I was thinking... if marriage is a contract and a spouse can still be a rape victim, then perhaps consent trumps everything else where human bodies are concerned? I get that there are non-discrimination laws in place for a reason. I respect them, but is there a law hierarchy?
 
Bullying wasn't the main issue for her most likely. The issue is, when you have a mental illness, little things push and nudge to breaking.

I tried to kill myself awhile back, and I've gotten close several other times. I was sad. I was anxious all the time. I never saw a point in my life when I wasn't going to be anxious constantly and would just be happy, shit, sometimes I still don't, Mental illness is a bitch. Each time though there was a breaking moment that made that such a valid option to my, at the time, unhealthy mind. All of them were through text. Not in person. There was that digital barrier that allowed the person to say awful things without hesitation.

The time I tried I got a text when I was in a terrible spot. "Just kill yourself, even your parents want nothing to do with you." or something along those lines. This wasn't the thing that made me do it.. it was just the thing that set me over the edge.

I've been guilty of saying some pretty shitty things to people, especially behind the "protection" of the internet. You don't know what is going on behind the screen. Some people can be going through some serious shit.

There's no real fix for this because people love being assholes with the anonymity of the internet. If you have friends with mental illness, be there for them. Treat people on the internet like you would in real life. Disagreements and not liking people, that's pretty fucking normal. Telling someone they're better off dead, that is unacceptable.
 
Bullying wasn't the main issue for her most likely. The issue is, when you have a mental illness, little things push and nudge to breaking.
The day the news of this broke, one of the best messages out there was "You never know what someone is going through, choose your words carefully and more kindly." Clearly she already was troubled and all of the comments and constant berating were just enough to push her beyond her breaking point. It's fucking sad. And it happens so often. We are all guilty of it in some measure or form. It's hard to pull back the reigns of emotion sometimes, and we react/speak without thinking all the time. The Internet makes this all that much easier.

There was a lot of wrong in the situation. The wording of her tweets (yes I read them all the day it happened, in order) certainly came off wrong. Now, I myself often say or type things in a way that I do not actually mean them to sound. I've gotten in a lot of trouble with this in my life. And in reaction to people calling us out when we do this, we can either sound defensive and convolute the message even more (bad) or we can step back for a moment, realize the mistake, and sincerely rectify it (good). Some of her following tweets only furthered readers' confusion and rage, and it was just a bad situation made worse. (Please know, I am not victim blaming at ALL, just noticed when I was reading her actual tweets that I said to myself "oh holy cow that kinda sounds bad".)

So I can see why people questioned her about it. Called out the tweet, etc. Discussion and wanting clarification is OK. Initially being upset or offended at her tweet is OK and understandable.

What's NOT OK are the people who attacked instead of questioned. Pushed every hostile button they could. Literally told her to swallow cyanide. THIS IS THE MOST FUCKED UP THING. You can disagree or question all you like, but this hostile reaction is inhumane. And this inhumane response combined with whatever she was already going through was enough to break her. And that is fucking awful. And I do hope the people who participated in this latter response feel a little responsible. Not 100%, but partly.

I know that this has been eye opening for me personally. Sometimes I react brashly when my feelings are hurt, or when I feel disrespected. But I'm going to do my best in the future to keep my responses and wording a little different when in a situation where I'm upset.
 
I know that this has been eye opening for me personally. Sometimes I react brashly when my feelings are hurt, or when I feel disrespected. But I'm going to do my best in the future to keep my responses and wording a little different when in a situation where I'm upset.

Agreed. I should know better, but I still let loose in full force at times. It isn't ok. This situation has actually made me think about the people I support and agree with on a public platform because of how they go WAY past just disagreeing into bullying. It's so easy to go to a me vs them I must be right and they must be wrong mentality.
 
Higirls we've had this discussion before where you've tried to hold sex workers to identical standards as non sexual industries, and in some situations it works. I believe you should give sex workers the same respect you give people in other industries, and I believe sex workers should give customers respect in a similar way, but that's about where it ends. There are just some things which cannot be sold in the same way you would sell an object or a non intimate service.

I'm not arguing that we should treat what sex workers do the same as bakers. I'm trying to make a couple of different points.
First, we have to recognize that these discrimination cases are far from simple black and white issues that they often are portrayed.
These cases are on a continuum. Asking someone who's religious belief is that homosexuality is a mortal sin to sell a gay person a candy bar is one end of the continuum. All society is asking the religious person to do is give the gay person change and a receipt. Asking a porn star to have a sex with a gay person, is on the other end of the spectrum. Asking a baker to make a custom wedding case is somewhere in the middle. I think you are being awfully dismissive of the baker's religious beliefs. (He is risking his immortal soul in supporting a homosexual lifestyle, and while a couple of non-believers like you and I may scoff at the silliness, in his mind it is a real risk).

Where should society the draw line in this continuum, is an important question and one worthy of discussion. I don't envy the Supreme Court in trying to decide this.

The second point is by posting about her choice August, opened herself up to criticism. I guess in this respect I will hold sex workers to the same standard as everybody else. If you do something controversial either don't post it about or be prepared to deal with the backlash. It's tragic that it may have been the final nudge that pushed her over the edge.

There's no real fix for this because people love being assholes with the anonymity of the internet. If you have friends with mental illness, be there for them. Treat people on the internet like you would in real life. Disagreements and not liking people, that's pretty fucking normal. Telling someone they're better off dead, that is unacceptable.

I'm fine with people giving crap, to asshole who post shit like "better off dead". Although I personally believe that hating, the haters only drag us down to even more uncivil discussions.
 
Agreed. I should know better, but I still let loose in full force at times. It isn't ok. This situation has actually made me think about the people I support and agree with on a public platform because of how they go WAY past just disagreeing into bullying. It's so easy to go to a me vs them I must be right and they must be wrong mentality.

I think this is really important. It is so damned easy to start cheering the person on your side who is making funny insults, and making the other person on the other side look stupid. It takes a while to realize that they are also part of the problem.

I post a lot of unpopular opinions, and I work pretty hard at doing so respectfully. I certainly fail in a lot case, I like being snarking but I think I do better than most folks at avoiding personal attacks.

What's worked for me over the years is the NPR/PBS test. After you finished your post, tweet, youtube comment or whatever, imagine your favorite host on NPR/PBS or BBC show or podcast, or if you don't listen to them some calm narrator on a nature show. Then try reading your post in their voice, if it sounds like something they'd say you are ok, if not rewrite it until it does.
 
To be fair, the Bible (assuming the baker is Christian) doesn't say anything about involvement in homosexual marriage ceremonies and mortal souls. So many things in religious text are interpreted based on a persons' own desires and fears. Do fears concocted in the minds of individuals need to be respected the way fact based fears (like STD exposure) are? And how serious do we have to take someone who thinks baking a cake endangers his soul while he pays taxes that rain bombs down on children. Religious freedom has its limits, and it must always have its limits. It seems like religious freedom stops where bodily autonomy begins. We don't allow honor killings in our country. We don't allow Christian child molesters to cite Isaac and Rebecca. If we really think about it, would we even need protections for minority groups if not for people who've perverted religious texts in order to hurt others? Why should the rest of us have to follow laws for inclusion and let the religious folks slide when their history is the source of the problem? A baker would have to have a lot of balls to cite the bodily autonomy of a sex worker as proof that he shouldn't do his job. And we're all crazy if, as a society, we accept that argument just to seem respectful. It opens the door for a lot of abuse. To take away full bodily autonomy from anyone in order to placate religious folks or the minority groups they've hurt is a dangerous idea.
 
I haven't read the entire thread but re: comparing bakers to porn stars... Porn involves sexual, social, physical, and emotional risk.

Is this a serious comparison? In what world do bakers share themselves sexually? Sexwork has so much physical risk, mental, and emotional collateral for even the most "professional" among us. I really worry for those who can't empathize with others enough to see beyond their own callous, sexually entitled narrative.
 
Last edited:
I really worry for those who can't empathize with others enough to see beyond their own callous, sexually entitled narrative.

This is a perfect example of how easy it's become to go beyond just disagreement. It's fine to disagree of not understand the path of logic or challenge the logic of the argument but why add the backhanded comment? Does it help at all to imply he has NO empathy and he's entitled? This moment teaches nothing if comments like these aren't caught and checked.

I don't honestly think August was homophobic but I don't think she understand how her path of reason could sound to others like a bash on gay model culture or gay culture in general. She might still be alive if more people kept to questioning her comment rather than extend immediately to character assassination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HiGirlsRHot
This is a perfect example of how easy it's become to go beyond just disagreement. It's fine to disagree of not understand the path of logic or challenge the logic of the argument but why add the backhanded comment? Does it help at all to imply he has NO empathy and he's entitled? This moment teaches nothing if comments like these aren't caught and checked.

I don't honestly think August was homophobic but I don't think she understand how her path of reason could sound to others like a bash on gay model culture or gay culture in general. She might still be alive if more people kept to questioning her comment rather than extend immediately to character assassination.

I am not assassinating his character. I am saying this stance demonstrates an attitude of either ignorance or entitlement. You can change a stance. I never attacked anyone specifically, only a viewpoint. That's the difference between an ad hominem attack and a legitimate statement. You are taking offense to a statement that was never personal. (I am resisting the urge to use #triggered.)

I have done my time in IRL sexwork and have been on both ends of the lynch mob. I have zero desire to justify what I said but I do acknowledge they may have come across dryer than certain sensibilities would prefer. It's past 3 AM here.

I caught heat defending August on Twitter. Proving myself a non-SJW isn't a hill I have much interest in dying on.
 
Last edited:
It is very sad to see that people choose to run from problems this way.
I know depression is a heavy thing but didn’t she have anyone to live for?
Her life couldn’t be that bad.
I saw on her twitter many people were rude to her saying things like “u r fat now, u look ugly with ur fake lips “ and so on.
But who are those people who tell her those things? She probably doesn’t even know them, so why would she care?
Maybe there is some other reason why she chose to go? But we just don’t know that reason yet? And the bullying thing just spiced up her desicion?
 
I'm not arguing that we should treat what sex workers do the same as bakers. I'm trying to make a couple of different points.
First, we have to recognize that these discrimination cases are far from simple black and white issues that they often are portrayed.
These cases are on a continuum. Asking someone who's religious belief is that homosexuality is a mortal sin to sell a gay person a candy bar is one end of the continuum. All society is asking the religious person to do is give the gay person change and a receipt. Asking a porn star to have a sex with a gay person, is on the other end of the spectrum. Asking a baker to make a custom wedding case is somewhere in the middle. I think you are being awfully dismissive of the baker's religious beliefs. (He is risking his immortal soul in supporting a homosexual lifestyle, and while a couple of non-believers like you and I may scoff at the silliness, in his mind it is a real risk).

Where should society the draw line in this continuum, is an important question and one worthy of discussion. I don't envy the Supreme Court in trying to decide this.

The second point is by posting about her choice August, opened herself up to criticism. I guess in this respect I will hold sex workers to the same standard as everybody else. If you do something controversial either don't post it about or be prepared to deal with the backlash. It's tragic that it may have been the final nudge that pushed her over the edge.

It kind of sounds like you are arguing that sex workers should be treated the same as bakers. You're saying you aren't, and then you are making that argument.

As has been pointed out, there isn't anything specific in the bible what is or isn't allowed. And if you're going to say that people should be able to live by their religious beliefs, well you could also support certain acts of terrorism, and various other horrific acts which people have done in the name of their religious beliefs over the years. If a sex worker also works in a shop or another business (as many do) then they have to adhere to the same rules as everyone else. When it comes to deciding who enters his or her body, they absolutely have a choice and can turn down who they choose for whatever petty reason. But if you start saying people can be awful to others for whatever "belief" they hold, who is to say what religious beliefs people hold? You are also condoning something which deliberately excludes people in a nasty way and allowing it in the name of religion. As much as it's all well and good to have religious beliefs, I don't believe they should be pegged in with homophobia or racism. I know plenty of religious people who are neither homophobic or racist. Those aspects of religion are cultural, not part of the religion. Culture is something that laws and regulations have some control over.

At the end of the day, a physical risk which could literally endanger your life is very different to something which is in someone's head. Unless that baker has a mental health issue which is causing him to fear certain types of people in a way that could affect his health then it's not really a legitimate excuse. If it's just a case of something he'll grumble about for a bit and then get used to (most likely scenario) then he/she needs to buck up and deal with an accepting society. Eventually they will get used to it and will enjoy the profits the gay community brings in and won't even think of it as being an issue, because their social values and norms have been altered.

Anyway, the comparison is ridiculous and it's as though it's one being made for the point of arguments sake. Trying to compare a person not wanting to take work which would be a legitimate health risk, with people who don't want to do work for someone because they don't like said group, is insane. You're taking two completely different scenarios and treating them like they have something in common.

A more similar scenario might be if a reporter didn't want to go to certain high risk countries such as war zones, or areas of high risk of rape, disease or terrorist attacks, the reporter does a risky job anyway, but they have chosen not to take that extra risk. Then their employer tries to trick them into going to a place of high risk despite it being written in their contract that she will not go to such areas, and so they share that on social media to warn others who might work with that company.
In this case, would people start attacking said reporter, calling them racist/nationalist? Would the reporter be racist or nationalist for not wanting to take an additional risk for work? Regardless of there being no other evidence of being racist or nationalist except for not wanting to go to higher risk places. I bet they wouldn't, most people would accept that certain countries are higher risk and it would be left at that. People would be shocked that a company tried to trick someone into doing something outside of their contract which could have caused higher risk to them.

Comparing this with the baker scenario, it would be a reporter who refused to work with black or gay people for no reason other than their own fears/beliefs. This scenario is not remotely comparable to a reporter not wanting to work in high risk areas due to genuine safety concerns.

But, like a porn star, reporters have much more flexibility in their job than a baker would. Part of being a reporter may be going with subjects which interest you, you might choose not to work with certain people if you felt it didn't go with your career path. Or you might feel that you would not be able to do a good job with certain cases if you had extreme beliefs, or had life experiences which led to certain feelings. I might dislike the reporter if they were racist/homophobic/sexist, but they have chosen a job where this flexibility is more important in terms of them being able to do their job well.

Going back to August, I am really sorry that another person is now dead due to online bullying. While yes there were probably other factors involved, it would be naive to think that this did not have a strong influence on her decision, and was likely what tipped her over the edge. This isn't the first time online bullying has caused someone to commit suicide. I think people underestimate just how awful it is. It's so easy to say "if you post something controversial then you deserve it", but that's only fair in cases of people rationally saying they disagree. Online bullying goes much further than that. I know that I have felt distressed when I have found myself in a disagreement with several people on this site on several occasions. I don't have anxiety, but I have felt anxious and stressed and it has impacted my life outside of the internet. This is talking about minor disagreements. The same has happened if I have posted something on facebook and people have commented in a ruder, more dismissive way. It's so easy to pretend this doesn't have an influence on us, but our sense of self is so determined by people around us. Imagine being a bisexual (August claimed to be attracted to women) and have the entire internet throwing horrific comments at you and calling you homophobic because you made a decision many adult stars choose due to legitimate safety concerns.
These comments are often not just what happens on twitter either, the amount of cases where something will go viral and the person will get death threats in the mail, it's crazy. Years ago something happened in my city with a woman with the same name as my mother uses as her working name basically acting like a complete asshat, and the video went viral. My mother had to do an article in the paper to explain that it wasn't her to stop her getting some horrific threats, just because she shared a name with that woman.
If someone were already in a difficult place in their life, it would be so easy to send that person over the edge. Many of my friends have issues with depression and anxiety and could potentially be suicidal, including myself, but yet we're all still alive and moving forwards. I would not be surprised though if this happened to some of my friends, maybe even myself, if it became too much and one of us took our own life. It's morbid to think about, but it's true. Sometimes there's only so much crap a person can take before they lose it. I cannot begin to imagine dealing with that level of backlash. Poor woman.
It's all well and good to have a debate on the internet, but I feel like internet trolls who are as nasty as possible, bringing personal stuff into it, have no idea of the very real impact they can have on another persons health and wellbeing. It's so easy to just throw your negativity and anger into the little box that is your computer without ever thinking that there's a real person on the other side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vera and AudriTwo
Very tragic situation. Almost commonplace nowadays to read about suicides due to cyber bullying. I didn't understand it at first. Even chuckled at a popular meme from Chance The Rapper. Over time I realized how much things have changed and how younger generations don't have the luxury of viewing the internet the same way I do. My view of the internet and interactions on it being anonymous and insignificant and harmless doesn't really fly today. Internet life is real life for them. I'm glad that social media wasn't around when I was growing up because it is becoming apparent that it can be detrimental to the human psyche. Gone are the days when forgiveness and understanding were lauded. Even rational conversation is slowly going the way of the buffalo. People would rather reach for a pitchfork instead of offering that hand in unity. The dopamine from helping others or simply being a decent person pales in comparison to the false sense of self righteousness and likes and retweets.

Don't take this scatterbrained post as holier than thou preaching, just ranting.
 
But who are those people who tell her those things? She probably doesn’t even know them, so why would she care?
Maybe there is some other reason why she chose to go? But we just don’t know that reason yet? And the bullying thing just spiced up her desicion?
We might never know more about her situation; we have no reason to know, really. I think it’s easy for some people to shrug off the occasional rude comment, but if I had a bunch of people calling me ugly or saying I was a terrible person, it would probably make me feel really shitty, even if I know logically those people are losers. I also think it can be depressing to see people come together over a common goal of being a douchebag to someone just because you think they’re shitty. Idk. I think it’s easier said than done to shrug off a barrage of insults.

Very tragic situation. Almost commonplace nowadays to read about suicides due to cyber bullying. I didn't understand it at first. Even chuckled at a popular meme from Chance The Rapper. Over time I realized how much things have changed and how younger generations don't have the luxury of viewing the internet the same way I do. My view of the internet and interactions on it being anonymous and insignificant and harmless doesn't really fly today. Internet life is real life for them. I'm glad that social media wasn't around when I was growing up because it is becoming apparent that it can be detrimental to the human psyche. Gone are the days when forgiveness and understanding were lauded. Even rational conversation is slowly going the way of the buffalo. People would rather reach for a pitchfork instead of offering that hand in unity. The dopamine from helping others or simply being a decent person pales in comparison to the false sense of self righteousness and likes and retweets.

Don't take this scatterbrained post as holier than thou preaching, just ranting.
I really appreciate this. I feel like nothing shows how out-of-touch someone is like “it’s just the internet”, lol. A lot of adults, especially older ones, have a distinct difference between their online and irl social lives. Kids/youth don’t so much these days. It is really detrimental in a lot of ways, and I feel like people who say “well it’s silly to let the internet affect you” or “just log off” are almost being willfully ignorant to how young people use social media. Not that logging off is bad advice (they pretty much all should log off), but it’s just so much less practical than it seems.

Anyway I think it’s nice when adults can acknowledge things are different for youth than it was for us. Shit’s wild out there now.
 
This is so sad. :( that's all I have to say
 
her body her choice. i don't care if her choice may of come from ignorance and fear. no one should feel forced to have sex with someone they feel uncomfortable with. and no one should be shamed because of it.


if a poc didn't want to shoot with a white man because it makes her feel uncomfortable and unsafe, understandable. that is her preference and boundaries. even if it may come from ignorance or fear.



people are trash.
 
It is very sad to see that people choose to run from problems this way.
I know depression is a heavy thing but didn’t she have anyone to live for?
Her life couldn’t be that bad.
I saw on her twitter many people were rude to her saying things like “u r fat now, u look ugly with ur fake lips “ and so on.
But who are those people who tell her those things? She probably doesn’t even know them, so why would she care?
Maybe there is some other reason why she chose to go? But we just don’t know that reason yet? And the bullying thing just spiced up her desicion?

"Her life couldn't be that bad"

Depression doesn't work that way. Depression doesn't care if you are rich and surrounded by loved ones. Depression doesn't care what your life is like.

Does depression also stem from a shitty life? Sure.
But it also comes from many other things. Vitamin deficiencies, genetics, being raised poorly (as is often the case for the mental illness BPD. Not saying she had that because I have no clue I'm just pointing out situations where that can be the case), trauma, drug/alcohol abuse (Although this tends to stem on it's own from mental illness that already exists it can come without prior depression for sure)

The fact is the bullying was terrible and awful and those people that were telling her to kill herself should be fucking ashamed. That's NOT how you educate people. But she probably had some form of mental illness to begin with and that combined with this was the last straw.

Having people or things to live for don't matter if depression is bad enough. I've been very depressed in my life (It started in childhood for me because of abuse and OCD and lasted until I was about 26-27) and I was always able to hang on because I would think about how traumatized my loved ones would be by it. But I believe if I hadn't managed to get better when I did and learn how to manage it when it comes back that maybe that would have stopped being something that helped me hold on. People that commit suicide are extremely mentally ill and absolutely see no hope of ever getting better.

So yeah, this woman was probably already very ill and the bullying plus the thought that she may be losing her career was just the thing that sent her over the edge. Long term bullying can certainly cause depression but depression is generally a thing that manifests over time not happens suddenly with this much force to make a person choose to end their life.

I don't think she was running from a problem so much as she was just desperately trying to stop the pain she was probably feeling for a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.