….we honestly don’t know whether Bonnie Blue has experienced any ‘attacks’ before or whether she’s just built up a ‘kick in assumption’ that an attack will happen, therefore she attacks others first in her defensiveness…or whether the defensiveness comes from a place within….we can’t assume because we just don’t know…but it wasn’t a good interview at all and didn’t seem set to achieve anything other than ‘publicity’ for Bonnie and …….ooooooo, we just got an internet sensation on the show and now we’ll trend in social media…

I mean I’m gay and I even know that’s not what happens.

Just more of LTs respect for women on show for everyone I guess

True, but tbh I think it should be 18, and I also think the minimum age to appear in pornographic material should be 21 ... but not everyone is Mother Superior :joker: and it's hard to argue those points without infantalising those involved, or looking puritanical.

Any sexual things on the border of age legality are exploiting that border for a reason. It may be legal in the eyes of the law, but it satisfies the needs of sexual deviant viewers whose intentions are anything but innocent. What these viewers haven't twigged yet is that all sorts of data is being collected about them by people with absolutely no scruples, so they will be the ones that suffer in the long run

very true

I reckon it's the excuse some people use when they're failing to get it up for their partners. "Sorry dear, we can't tonight, once a month max, too much sex will have a terrible effect on you!" he professed, as she packed her bags and headed for the door.

Not LT of course. But some poor fellas out there.

"Barely Legal" not too long ago was the most-searched porn category.

It's been over-taken, grimly enough, by step-sister/step-mom porn instead. The world, ladies and gentlemen.

Would you count 18 as barely legal though?

The thing about this case is the filming it for paid-for porn videos. Porn can't be watched legally by anyone under 18 so it's certainly barely legal to watch one of them so to actually "star" in one??? I would say that makes this barely legal :/

i think that's missing the entire point. There is a literally endless supply of porn on the net catering for every possible category of sexual deviance. What that TV show did was encourage more deviants to go and sign up to a service that's entire purpose is to collect data about people and then exploit them for the rest of their lives. It's a much, much bigger picture than is being alluded to here

This is Not Her.


Annie Knight,26 in Australia




https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/11...2606715818.jpg


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...dailymailceleb

She’s also not a hooker…

She doesn’t get paid to have sex.

She’s paid for distribution of her videos

These gorgeous blue eyed girls are gods gift to boys and men around the world. Just gorg.

As under 18 is classed as child porn (regardless of age of consent) ... yes, both literally and morally. And that's without the 2nd grim fact that the goal is often for the 18 year old to be as young looking as possible.

That will be the case with this OnlyFans too - the ones she'll be making the most money from, at least, are the ones where the boys involved look young and inexperienced. She's not looking for the 18 year olds off the uni rugby team who are 6'3 and have a beard.

Hooker making £600K a month Seducing 18 year old lads
 

They are both having sex with hundreds of young guys , filming themselves and selling the videos …


They are basically prostituting themselves surely !?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

the guys they are having sex with aren't paying or they are paying in kind by allowing themselves to be videoed. That is not prostitution, by any definition

My only problem with this is if she is avoiding tax.
She isn’t doing herself any favours plastering her face all over the media.

That isn’t prostitution.

She isn’t being paid to have sex.

She’s distributing/selling the videos. Like someone would sell anything.

If she’s using OnlyFans she will be paying tax.

You can be my lawyer should I ever need one


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

She's soliciting, which is an offence in itself.

Hooker making £600K a month Seducing 18 year old lads
 

Call it what you want … sex workers , porn stars , prostitution — the lines seem to be blurry
Also when your working contract involved weekly STD and aids testing it should be ringing a few balls …. sorry bells


https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...de58cc22aa.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They’re not paying her to have sex with her though.

What about the Cambridge dictionary definition above

“ the business of having sex for money “


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They’re describing prostitution which is the business of having sex for money…

She isn’t being paid to have sex there’s a difference