NSFW: Miley Cyrus poses completely naked for Terry Richardson

[Harry 26,836]

Just now, StrawberryBlond said:

I agree that the gays would likely not be as averse to a male celebrity posing nude but the s-xual orientation does play a role here. The LGBT community in general love s-xual expression. And a lot of them like s-xual women too, even the gay men. Miley has a large gay fanbase for this very reason. Like Gaga once said: "They love strong, s-xual women who speak their minds." Now, on the one hand, I totally applaud that theory. But take it too far and it can be damaging. I'm against the s-x industry as a whole, which is always hard for a lot of people to understand. I'm not a prude, I'm all for s-xual freedom, but not to the point where it can be physically or psychologically damaging. And unfortunately, the LGBT community can't always see that. A lot of them take a no-holds-barred view of it and think it can be nothing but positive. They don't seem to realise all the pitfalls. I think it's sad how representing herself as a s-x object so publically has damaged Miley. She doesn't seem to know what else to do to garner headlines or convey that she's an adult. It's a shame to see someone with talent bury it under so much pretence.

Thing is, like I've explained earlier, I don't think people are as shocked as they might have been back in the Bangerz era. Miley played all her cards at once, she used too much shock value so we were all shocked out after jsut a year. That's why her comeback hasn't made all the headlines that her 2013 VMA performance did and why there's been no buzz for her in general. The public have seen her naked before so it's not shocking now. We're bored. As for the disgust thing, for me personally, it's not because of the nudity but because of the messages that the nudity sends. That it's ok for an artist to be more about image than music. That it's ok to use s-xuality to get attention and admiration instead of talent and a good personality. That it's ok for women to be objectified and seen as s-x objects for the delectation of the male gaze. I don't like to see human bodies and s-xuality exploited for financial gain and for validation. Human bodies and s-xuality are beautiful and should be experienced in safe, private, non-exploitative ways. Without these things, something so potentially beautiful can be damaging.

If you're against the s-x industry then you aren't "all for s-xual freedom".

Why can't an artist be about the image too? You're putting people into boxes again.

I know you're probably gonna cry because I'm disagreeing with you again but I don't care if you think these images are in bad taste, you just contradicted yourself. If she wants to celebrate "s-xual freedom", as you said, to the point where she's happy to showcase herself like this, who are you to judge? I think that restricting people and telling them what they can and can't do is more damaging than anything you're suggesting.

I think they are beautiful too and I also think it's beautiful that people like Miley aren't afraid of seeing or showing them.

[Felicia 124]

So insanely beautiful and hot. What a beast,

Absolutely love the grassy knoll.

[Golden Gangsta 49]

22 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

This is the typical response every time someone states that public nudity is not their bag. Most of the time, it's nothing to do with being a prude, it's about respecting ourselves. If you're naked all the time, you get seen as nothing more than a s-x object and no one respects you. Maybe that's wrong but that's just how society works and it's not going to change as long as we continue to view s-x in its most hypers-xual form, as Miley is currently doing. By choosing not to be naked and s-xualised, it's about wanting to be seen as more than a s-x object, as a human with feelings who is worth more than their body. Sex is all very well but it shouldn't define us and shouldn't be something we need to share with everyone, especially not for validation.

I fail to see how this is any justification for shaming people who take pride in their naked body. From my perspective, the whole point of Miley's shoot is to defy societal norms, and to provoke a discussion between those that enforce these in the first place. There's something fundamentally wrong with how you are declaring a naked person a mere "s-xual object". Being s-xual and being human - are they really mutually exclusive? Why should we limit the extent of our harmless expression in fear of "no one respecting" you? Miley gives **** all about your idea of "respect" depending on the number of garments you wear, and that's what is inspiring.

[StrawberryBlond 13,472]

Just now, Harry said:

If you're against the s-x industry then you aren't "all for s-xual freedom".

Why can't an artist be about the image too? You're putting people into boxes again.

I know you're probably gonna cry because I'm disagreeing with you again but I don't care if you think these images are in bad taste, you just contradicted yourself. If she wants to celebrate "s-xual freedom", as you said, to the point where she's happy to showcase herself like this, who are you to judge? I think that restricting people and telling them what they can and can't do is more damaging than anything you're suggesting.

I think they are beautiful too and I also think it's beautiful that people like Miley aren't afraid of seeing or showing them.

I'm against the s-x industry because there's pain and suffering and enforcement in it. People being s-x trafficked to meet the demand of s-x tourists, people being forced into prostitution and exploited by pimps and raped by clients, p**n starts catching diseases (and dying of HIV) because no protection is used, p**n stars doing physical damage to their bodies because of unnatural s-x acts, p**n stars being forced into acts they didn't agree to, the s-xualisation of childhood in the media in general. What part of this defines "freedom?" It's basically the opposite, it's s-x slavery. Sex is supposed to be something we indulge in because we want to, not because we are paid to or forced to. Getting paid for s-x takes all the fun out of it because it'll inevitably become a chore. Getting forced into s-x is a violation against human nature. Sex should never cause pain and hurt, it should only bring joy. And you won't find any of that in the s-x industry. Having s-x because you want to is s-xual freedom, having s-x without being hurt is s-xual freedom, having s-x according to you and your partner's needs is s-xual freedom. But that's not what the s-x industry wants and it's not what it does.

An artist can be about image too but the talent should always come first. If you make music, that should always be at the forefront. Miley posing nude has nothing to do with her music. If she wants to be all about displaying herself nude, well, there's other career paths for that.

I don't mind that you're disagreeing, so long as you're not making personal put-downs. Restriction sounds bad within something like s-x, but it's there for a reason. We have ages of consent so children don't get hurt. We have consent laws in general so no one gets raped. We have to get people to sign a release waiver to ensure that their s-xual images are used with consent. We discourage abusive s-xual acts that could seriously hurt someone. We encourage people to use protection so they don't get HIV and die. There are some restrictions that are simply necessary in s-x. It's not something you can just have an "anything goes" attitude to. I've listened to the stories of too many people who got damaged through this attitude to believe it's healthy.

[Felicia 124]

4 minutes ago, Golden Gangsta said:

I fail to see how this is any justification for shaming people who take pride in their naked body. From my perspective, the whole point of Miley's shoot is to defy societal norms, and to provoke a discussion between those that enforce these in the first place. There's something fundamentally wrong with how you are declaring a naked person a mere "s-xual object". Being s-xual and being human - are they really mutually exclusive? Why should we limit the extent of our harmless expression in fear of "no one respecting" you? Miley gives **** all about your idea of "respect" depending on the number of garments you wear, and that's what is inspiring.

All good points.

I'd only object to Miley being seen naked if she had an unattractive body. (In other words the kind of person that shouldn't be seen naked in public).

If you've got it flaunt it. More power to her.

[Evan Peters 10,338]

what's her sudden obsession with strap ons

[Harry 26,836]

1 minute ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm against the s-x industry because there's pain and suffering and enforcement in it. People being s-x trafficked to meet the demand of s-x tourists, people being forced into prostitution and exploited by pimps and raped by clients, p**n starts catching diseases (and dying of HIV) because no protection is used, p**n stars doing physical damage to their bodies because of unnatural s-x acts, p**n stars being forced into acts they didn't agree to, the s-xualisation of childhood in the media in general. What part of this defines "freedom?" It's basically the opposite, it's s-x slavery. Sex is supposed to be something we indulge in because we want to, not because we are paid to or forced to. Getting paid for s-x takes all the fun out of it because it'll inevitably become a chore. Getting forced into s-x is a violation against human nature. Sex should never cause pain and hurt, it should only bring joy. And you won't find any of that in the s-x industry. Having s-x because you want to is s-xual freedom, having s-x without being hurt is s-xual freedom, having s-x according to you and your partner's needs is s-xual freedom. But that's not what the s-x industry wants and it's not what it does.

An artist can be about image too but the talent should always come first. If you make music, that should always be at the forefront. Miley posing nude has nothing to do with her music. If she wants to be all about displaying herself nude, well, there's other career paths for that.

I don't mind that you're disagreeing, so long as you're not making personal put-downs. Restriction sounds bad within something like s-x, but it's there for a reason. We have ages of consent so children don't get hurt. We have consent laws in general so no one gets raped. We have to get people to sign a release waiver to ensure that their s-xual images are used with consent. We discourage abusive s-xual acts that could seriously hurt someone. We encourage people to use protection so they don't get HIV and die. There are some restrictions that are simply necessary in s-x. It's not something you can just have an "anything goes" attitude to. I've listened to the stories of too many people who got damaged through this attitude to believe it's healthy.

You are aware that there are plenty of happy s-x workers who do it by choice and work on their own terms? Sexual trafficking and rape are NOT part of the s-x industry. There are so many more regulations now, particularly in ****, that means these things don't happen. It sounds to me like you should be more concerned about the ongoing battle for s-x workers rights rather than dictating their choices. In fact I'd be wiling to bet that most **** stars/strippers etc would be offended that you think they are all these poor delicate helpless creatures incapable of being independent and working their own career. I have an old acquaintance that is a **** star that also performs on stage and he has a very happy/comfortable life and has always been treated well. You have a very general, narrow minded and old fashioned view on an entire industry.

Who's to say the music isn't at the forefront? She is talented. I happen to think her albums are trash but there's no denying that the girl is talented. Just because you're more focused and shocked by seeing a *** on your computer screen it doesn't mean that's her main focus as well.

Did I say I have an anything goes attitude? Did I say we should be relaxed in terms of rape laws? Did I say that underage people should be engaging in these kind of activities? Did I say that we should abandon condoms? Don't you dare put words in my mouth.

[Felicia 124]

8 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm against the s-x industry because there's pain and suffering and enforcement in it. People being s-x trafficked to meet the demand of s-x tourists, people being forced into prostitution and exploited by pimps and raped by clients, p**n starts catching diseases (and dying of HIV) because no protection is used, p**n stars doing physical damage to their bodies because of unnatural s-x acts, p**n stars being forced into acts they didn't agree to, the s-xualisation of childhood in the media in general. What part of this defines "freedom?" It's basically the opposite, it's s-x slavery. Sex is supposed to be something we indulge in because we want to, not because we are paid to or forced to. Getting paid for s-x takes all the fun out of it because it'll inevitably become a chore. Getting forced into s-x is a violation against human nature. Sex should never cause pain and hurt, it should only bring joy. And you won't find any of that in the s-x industry. Having s-x because you want to is s-xual freedom, having s-x without being hurt is s-xual freedom, having s-x according to you and your partner's needs is s-xual freedom. But that's not what the s-x industry wants and it's not what it does.

An artist can be about image too but the talent should always come first. If you make music, that should always be at the forefront. Miley posing nude has nothing to do with her music. If she wants to be all about displaying herself nude, well, there's other career paths for that.

I don't mind that you're disagreeing, so long as you're not making personal put-downs. Restriction sounds bad within something like s-x, but it's there for a reason. We have ages of consent so children don't get hurt. We have consent laws in general so no one gets raped. We have to get people to sign a release waiver to ensure that their s-xual images are used with consent. We discourage abusive s-xual acts that could seriously hurt someone. We encourage people to use protection so they don't get HIV and die. There are some restrictions that are simply necessary in s-x. It's not something you can just have an "anything goes" attitude to. I've listened to the stories of too many people who got damaged through this attitude to believe it's healthy.

But ,of course, the obvious flaw in your blanket indictment of the s-x industry is that certain women (some, but not all) engage in ****, stripping and prostitution voluntarily as a way to make money and support their lifestyles, families and pay bills. 

Some big girls can take care of themselves, and if the s-x industry was to disappear there would be many people (including children being supported by hard-working mothers) who might go hungry.

When one seeks to eradicate the s-x industry, they are in effect eliminating an economic option for many women. (Who, if the s-x industry didn't exist, would lose an avenue of economic empowerment and independence).

[StrawberryBlond 13,472]

Just now, Golden Gangsta said:

I fail to see how this is any justification for shaming people who take pride in their naked body. From my perspective, the whole point of Miley's shoot is to defy societal norms, and to provoke a discussion between those that enforce these in the first place. There's something fundamentally wrong with how you are declaring a naked person a mere "s-xual object". Being s-xual and being human - are they really mutually exclusive? Why should we limit the extent of our harmless expression in fear of "no one respecting" you? Miley gives **** all about your idea of "respect" depending on the number of garments you wear, and that's what is inspiring.

I'm not shaming her, I'm showing concern for her. It's a shame how showing concern is viewed as judging these days. I take pride in my naked body too (well, as much as one can) but I don't feel the need to flaunt it about. Because I'm secure enough within myself that I don't need that validation. No one else I know finds the need to do it either. But it seems to be, in your view, that if you don't want to show off your body, it means you're prudish and insecure. Usually, it's the exact opposite. Ever heard of "quiet confidence?" Miley is not pushing any boundaries here, she's conforming to societal norms, not flouting them. I'm sure a lot of straight men would love to see women posing naked and playing with s-x toys. So why is acting in a way that society wants you to act supposed to be defying society? Also, men don't appear in their underwear or naked as a means to attaining power, so why is it seen as an empowering thing for women to do? I'm not saying she's a s-xual object, I'm saying that certain people will view her as one because of this. Define yourself with s-xuality and that's how you get perceieved and end up being treated badly, in general. Why else do so many prostitutes and p**n stars suffer abuse? And of course there's a danger in no one respecting you - you won't get taken seriously (which Miley is currently going through) and you won't get treated well. Is that really a life you'd want to lead? As we've seen with the music sales of Taylor and Adele, you're far more likely to sell music and be taken seriously when you focus on your music and keep your clothes on. If Miley wants to sell and be taken seriously (and she must, why does she keep making music?), she needs to stop being such a parody of herself. This was the biggest criticism that's been made of her s-xual image - she's become consumed by it so much that its become ridiculous and paradocial.

[wiltedbliss 915]

15 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm not shaming her, I'm showing concern for her. It's a shame how showing concern is viewed as judging these days. I take pride in my naked body too (well, as much as one can) but I don't feel the need to flaunt it about. Because I'm secure enough within myself that I don't need that validation. No one else I know finds the need to do it either. But it seems to be, in your view, that if you don't want to show off your body, it means you're prudish and insecure. Usually, it's the exact opposite. Ever heard of "quiet confidence?" Miley is not pushing any boundaries here, she's conforming to societal norms, not flouting them. I'm sure a lot of straight men would love to see women posing naked and playing with s-x toys. So why is acting in a way that society wants you to act supposed to be defying society? Also, men don't appear in their underwear or naked as a means to attaining power, so why is it seen as an empowering thing for women to do? I'm not saying she's a s-xual object, I'm saying that certain people will view her as one because of this. Define yourself with s-xuality and that's how you get perceieved and end up being treated badly, in general. Why else do so many prostitutes and p**n stars suffer abuse? And of course there's a danger in no one respecting you - you won't get taken seriously (which Miley is currently going through) and you won't get treated well. Is that really a life you'd want to lead? As we've seen with the music sales of Taylor and Adele, you're far more likely to sell music and be taken seriously when you focus on your music and keep your clothes on. If Miley wants to sell and be taken seriously (and she must, why does she keep making music?), she needs to stop being such a parody of herself. This was the biggest criticism that's been made of her s-xual image - she's become consumed by it so much that its become ridiculous and paradocial.

He never said if you don't show your body, you aren't secure though? 

I don't think Miley is conforming to Societal norms. If anything, she's completely defying them and you're the one conforming to them. Society tells women to just cover up. 

Men haven't been repressed for decades. People make it seem like men already have the power, so posing in boxers or naked doesn't get much attention really. However, women are looked down upon if they do the same. It's frustrating.

I'm pretty sure in the end, Miley is doing this because she likes doing it. She's already proven she's not doing it to sell. People are so caught up on saying this is to promote. Promote what? Promote a free album? 

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

AKLSNDLKJDLAJ OKAY I DID NOT EXPECT A FULL FRONTAL NUDE BUT WORK MILEY

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

ALSO SLAY 

 

SHE'S TRULY BREAKING BARRIERS AND BOUNDARIES FOR WOMEN AND THEIR SEXUALITY

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

25 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm not shaming her, I'm showing concern for her. It's a shame how showing concern is viewed as judging these days. I take pride in my naked body too (well, as much as one can) but I don't feel the need to flaunt it about. Because I'm secure enough within myself that I don't need that validation. No one else I know finds the need to do it either. But it seems to be, in your view, that if you don't want to show off your body, it means you're prudish and insecure. Usually, it's the exact opposite. Ever heard of "quiet confidence?" Miley is not pushing any boundaries here, she's conforming to societal norms, not flouting them. I'm sure a lot of straight men would love to see women posing naked and playing with s-x toys. So why is acting in a way that society wants you to act supposed to be defying society? Also, men don't appear in their underwear or naked as a means to attaining power, so why is it seen as an empowering thing for women to do? I'm not saying she's a s-xual object, I'm saying that certain people will view her as one because of this. Define yourself with s-xuality and that's how you get perceieved and end up being treated badly, in general. Why else do so many prostitutes and p**n stars suffer abuse? And of course there's a danger in no one respecting you - you won't get taken seriously (which Miley is currently going through) and you won't get treated well. Is that really a life you'd want to lead? As we've seen with the music sales of Taylor and Adele, you're far more likely to sell music and be taken seriously when you focus on your music and keep your clothes on. If Miley wants to sell and be taken seriously (and she must, why does she keep making music?), she needs to stop being such a parody of herself. This was the biggest criticism that's been made of her s-xual image - she's become consumed by it so much that its become ridiculous and paradocial.

Wow the amount of victim blaming is astounding. Foul.

I suggest you stop spouting so much hatefulness 

[StrawberryBlond 13,472]

Just now, Felicia said:

All good points.

I'd only object to Miley being seen naked if she had an unattractive body. (In other words the kind of person that shouldn't be seen naked in public).

If you've got it flaunt it. More power to her.

Wait a minute, that's a very anti-s-xual view to take. It's a concept that s-xual freedom is fighting against for years. So, only young, slim, attractive people should be naked or be s-xual, in your view? So much for having the liberal view of s-x like you claim.

Just now, Harry said:

You are aware that there are plenty of happy s-x workers who do it by choice and work on their own terms? Sexual trafficking and rape are NOT part of the s-x industry. There are so many more regulations now, particularly in ****, that means these things don't happen. It sounds to me like you should be more concerned about the ongoing battle for s-x workers rights rather than dictating their choices. In fact I'd be wiling to bet that most **** stars/strippers etc would be offended that you think they are all these poor delicate helpless creatures incapable of being independent and working their own career. I have an old acquaintance that is a **** star that also performs on stage and he has a very happy/comfortable life and has always been treated well. You have a very general, narrow minded and old fashioned view on an entire industry.

Who's to say the music isn't at the forefront? She is talented. I happen to think her albums are trash but there's no denying that the girl is talented. Just because you're more focused and shocked by seeing a *** on your computer screen it doesn't mean that's her main focus as well.

Did I say I have an anything goes attitude? Did I say we should be relaxed in terms of rape laws? Did I say that underage people should be engaging in these kind of activities? Did I say that we should abandon condoms? Don't you dare put words in my mouth.

Well, yes, there are certainly ones that seem happy. Whether they actually are happy is another matter. So many p**n stars claim to love what they do, then they quit a few months later and confess all about the mistreatment they suffered. P**n stars are taught to lie in this business, they all admit it. So, it means that I don't know who to believe anymore. I struggle to understand how someone who endures physically painful group s-x acts several times a week where orgasms are being faked could possibly be happy. The dark side of the industry is stil a part of it, whether you like it or not. New regulations in p**n don't stop the same old habits occuring. I don't supported legalised prostitution because I think the act of it is such a cold, non-s-xual exchange that isn't psychologically healthy and it breaks hearts and tears families apart. Not to mention, legalised prostitution means brothels (how else can you control, tax and regulate it?) and I think the idea of women living in a house where they have to drop whatever they're doing to have s-x whether they want to or not, having curfews placed on them, being displayed in windows like animals in cages and being used as nothing but unfeeling objects is inhumane. Yeah, I know you're going to come out with the "s-x workers would be offended if you considered them vulnerable" argument but I don't mean it in a patronising or degrading way, it's all coming from a place of human compassion. The common defence is always "there are happy ones" but the vast majority aren't. This defence downplays the cases we don't talk about, those who are suffering in silence.

Her music's not at the forefront if she's choosing to promote herself through s-x more than music. The fact she is talented is what makes this so sad. And like I said, I'm not shocked by it, just bored.

No, let me make it clear, I am NOT suggesting those things. I feared that's the way you'd take it. I just said it to highlight the need for some restrictions. You didn't say how unrestricted you wanted s-x to be, so I had to say it. For the benefit of anyone else reading it too.

Just now, Felicia said:

But ,of course, the obvious flaw in your blanket indictment of the s-x industry is that certain women (some, but not all) engage in ****, stripping and prostitution voluntarily as a way to make money and support their lifestyles, families and pay bills. 

Some big girls can take care of themselves, and if the s-x industry was to disappear there would be many people (including children being supported by hard-working mothers) who might go hungry.

When one seeks to eradicate the s-x industry, they are in effect eliminating an economic option for many women. (Who, if the s-x industry didn't exist, would lose an avenue of economic empowerment and independence).

But that's not a positive thing. Mothers who engage in prostitution especially are putting their children at risk. You can't necessarily make big money in the s-x industry either, it's a bit of a myth. Many strippers go home with only a few quid at the end of the night, prostitutes can have very limited clients because advertising yourself can led to being found out, even the most extreme s-x acts don't command much money in p**n now because there's so much of it being made for hundreds of online outlets these days. Statistics show that the vast majority of women who get into these professions stay poor.

There's always other ways to make money. It's an insult to hard-working mothers who work 3 jobs to look after their kids to suggest that selling their bodies is the only option. You think some kids would go hungry without the p**n industry providing a job for penniless mothers? I actually heard that a p**n star at a convention was all smiles for the cameras and saying how much she loved her job confide in private that all these guys were screwing her over and she was so broke that she couldn't even afford a fridge to store her toddler's milk in.

Who cares about economics if all the pain and hurt in the industry was done away with? Sometimes feelings matter more than economics. The s-x industry doesn't empower - it aims to subjucate and feed consumer demand, no matter how warped that demand is. Empowerment is when you're in control and happy.

Just now, Gaga is Mine said:

He never said if you don't show your body, you aren't secure though? 

I don't think Miley is conforming to Societal norms. If anything, she's completely defying them and you're the one conforming to them. Society tells women to just cover up. 

Men haven't been repressed for decades. People make it seem like men already have the power, so posing in boxers or naked doesn't get much attention really. However, women are looked upon if they do the same. It's frustrating.

I'm pretty sure in the end, Miley is doing this because she likes doing it. She's already proven she's not doing it to sell. People are so caught up on saying this is to promote. Promote what? Promote a free album? 

He said sarcastically that "we should all cover up our bodies like the prudes we are." I'm saying that there can be a middle ground. You can support s-x without supporting the trashiest examples of it, you can be proud of your body but not feel the need to flaunt it, you can think s-x is natural but don't feel the need to comodify it.

Actually, society wants both things. Ever heard of the "virgin/*****" dicotomy? It means that society defines girls two ways - virgins and w---es, with no middle ground. You have to either be a prude or be a slut. You have to either be having no s-x or be having s-x all the time. I have been bombarded with this concept for years and it's BS. As I said above, there is a middle ground. Society also gives women mixed messages. They tell them to cover up sometimes, flaunt it at others. Be s-xy but not too s-xy. We've frequently seen female singers be called boring for making ballads, so they create a s-xy image and are then called skanky. Women just don't know what society wants from them anymore. But being s-xual will always get some positive response from somewhere. "Sex sells" and all that. So, Miley being s-xual is exactly what society wants. Record labels have been forcing their female artists to be s-xual to sell for years, after all.

It's not about getting attention, it's about power. Men don't feel empowered by being in their boxers, so why do women think that stripping off empowers them? I find most people don't know how to answer this because no one's ever questioned our set theory.

Of course it's to promote a free album. We can't track how many people are streaming it but we can certainly track how many people have watched the lead single's video (less than 16 million views in 3 months - TIHTY has more views and its been out for less time had no promo whereas Miley performed it at the VMAs). Where were all those hundreds of millions who watched and liked her record breaking Bangerz videos? And we can also track how many people are talking about her. Fact is, outside of pop forums, no one cares. She didn't generate the headlines she did 2 years ago, nowhere close. So, of course she's doing this to get attention and promote.

[Harry 26,836]

5 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Well, yes, there are certainly ones that seem happy. Whether they actually are happy is another matter. So many p**n stars claim to love what they do, then they quit a few months later and confess all about the mistreatment they suffered. P**n stars are taught to lie in this business, they all admit it. So, it means that I don't know who to believe anymore. I struggle to understand how someone who endures physically painful group s-x acts several times a week where orgasms are being faked could possibly be happy. The dark side of the industry is stil a part of it, whether you like it or not. New regulations in p**n don't stop the same old habits occuring. I don't supported legalised prostitution because I think the act of it is such a cold, non-s-xual exchange that isn't psychologically healthy and it breaks hearts and tears families apart. Not to mention, legalised prostitution means brothels (how else can you control, tax and regulate it?) and I think the idea of women living in a house where they have to drop whatever they're doing to have s-x whether they want to or not, having curfews placed on them, being displayed in windows like animals in cages and being used as nothing but unfeeling objects is inhumane. Yeah, I know you're going to come out with the "s-x workers would be offended if you considered them vulnerable" argument but I don't mean it in a patronising or degrading way, it's all coming from a place of human compassion. The common defence is always "there are happy ones" but the vast majority aren't. This defence downplays the cases we don't talk about, those who are suffering in silence.

Her music's not at the forefront if she's choosing to promote herself through s-x more than music. The fact she is talented is what makes this so sad. And like I said, I'm not shocked by it, just bored.

No, let me make it clear, I am NOT suggesting those things. I feared that's the way you'd take it. I just said it to highlight the need for some restrictions. You didn't say how unrestricted you wanted s-x to be, so I had to say it. For the benefit of anyone else reading it too.

right well you obviously know better than anyone and can predict everything that i'm going to say cos my arguments are so terrible and predictable so what's the point, hey?