Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/15/ex-porn-star-sasha-grey-i-wont-stop-reading-to-kids/?iref=obnetwork

Yeah this whole "scandal" is so dumb. People are stupid.

Yeah..cause 1st graders totally know who sasha grey is!

Even if they did, we bring actual convicted felons into schools for scared straight programs, but we're not ok with someone who used to work in a fully legal industry enjoyed by millions that the kids have never even heard of?

But....but.... she's a porn star! They aren't people!

They are the spawn of Satan!

Rented Tritium wrote:Even if they did, we bring actual convicted felons into schools for scared straight programs, but we're not ok with someone who used to work in a fully legal industry enjoyed by millions that the kids have never even heard of?

Violent criminals are perfectly normal..but anything to do with sex?!?!

Easy E wrote:But....but.... she's a porn star! They aren't people!

People can't do good things AND things you don't approve of in the same lifetime!

Yeah, like society has decided that not only should you not do porn, but if you DO, you are now tainted for life and can't do anything else

Easy E wrote:But....but.... she's a porn star! They aren't people!

They are the spawn of Slaanesh!

Fixed that for you!

But yeah, its just a non-sensical moral high ground. Besides, I'd rather have a porn star reading to the kids than a person with a history of violent crime, it seems safer!

Oh man, my "WTF" senses are tingly again. So she had sex on camera......and? Shes done with that and moving on, good for her. I dont see a problem with reading to kids at all, regardless of what her former career was

What KC! she's done with that!.... *sobs quietly* ...'done' with that! i'm going back to school now! ......

KingCracker wrote: Shes done with that and moving on, good for her.

Disagree. She gets to do whatever she wants, but you're implying that a legal career that she seems to be proud of was inherently worse than what she is doing now. In a subtle way, you are furthering the views that are causing this whole thing.

I doubt you mean it, but this is the subtle sexism of value judgement.

She is doing what SHE wants with her career. Good for her for THAT.

I think she got some critical acclaim for a role in a recent Hollywood movie.

However, the name escapes me. Perhaps I'm just crazy. I don;t really want to look up her IMDB here at work.

Easy E wrote:I think she got some critical acclaim for a role in a recent Hollywood movie.

The Girlfriend Experience (2009), one of Soderberg's little cheapy film experiments; the reviews are middling at best. The general consensus seems to be that are some interesting ideas but they aren't really explored, and that Sasha is not so good. The non-Critic reviews are more negative. It runs a whopping 77 minutes.

I dont get it, dont almost all adults have sex lol yet there still allowed to teach children. When on earth would a child know who she is anyway, if they do id be more worried about there parenting lol

I dont get the problem with this.

I'll bet some of the teachers have even made sex tapes on their own time.

She hasn't done anything illegal. She's reading books to children who shouldn't have any idea who she is (and if they do then their parents need a beating). There's no conceivable way she could harm these children short of... I have no idea. Are people worried that after she's done reading the Bearnstein Bears she's going to have some porn star come up and they'll act it out X rated style? I mean... wha?

Tyyr wrote:after she's done reading the Bearnstein Bears she's going to have some porn star come up and they'll act it out X rated style?

can't stop thinking about this

I think the parents are just jelious that they didnt get to be read to by Sasha grey

I can see it now:

Dad: OMG Thats a porn star reading to our kids
Mother: How would you know
Dad:

can't stop thinking about this

Well there's my good deed for the day.

"Ohhh Papa Bear!"

AtomicEngineer wrote:I dont get it, dont almost all adults have sex lol yet there still allowed to teach children.

Most don't film themselves being peed on while having anal sex and then sell the tape.

Maybe the worry is they will google her name?

They do if they're rap stars... wait, he was the one doing the peeing.

I doubt a 1st Grader is going to google the name of the lady who read him a book. As far as he knows she's just some pretty lady who bored his ass off when he'd rather be outside setting things on fire.

ah little heratics in the making,

Milk for the milk god!

And theres far more a chance they would google peoples names that they see on TV alot of them have a shady past lol

But then again corruption seems inescapable now adays, This one kid in town in the street was talking about porn to his friend, i was like wtf! because he was about 10.

And really you can google anything and hit porn.

Tyyr wrote:They do if they're rap stars... wait, he was the one doing the peeing.

I doubt a 1st Grader is going to google the name of the lady who read him a book.

We aren't really talking about the first graders, but their parents. It really isn't all that out of the realm of possibility. I know a 4 year old that knows how to spell and use a search engine to some extent. In 2 more years he would be that much better at it.

So there isn't confusion, I personally don't care if she is reading books to kids and think the parents are overreacting. I also think she did this for the attention becuase I can't imagine her being stupid enough to believe being a well known prostitute was going to be overlooked.

And R. Kelly isn't a 'rap star', being that he doesn't rap.

Ahtman wrote: I also think she did this for the attention becuase I can't imagine her being stupid enough to believe being a well known prostitute was going to be overlooked.

Lotta sexism ITT.

What if it was Sylvester Stallone?

We aren't really talking about the first graders, but their parents. It really isn't all that out of the realm of possibility. I know a 4 year old that knows how to spell and use a search engine to some extent. In 2 more years he would be that much better at it.

Sure, and my kid's not far off it either. The crux of my arguement isn't that kid's can't search for someone, in this day and age I think you're safer assuming they can. It's that they have zero motivation to do it. They have no reason to think this woman is anything but another adult who wants to read them a book unless the adults around her make a big deal about it.

On top of that I wouldn't be giving my 6 year old unrestricted and unsupervised time on the computer anyway. Finally, if you're worried about your kid finding out about porn then letting them anywhere near google is a bad idea to begin with.

So to be clear, I think the odds that any of the kids she reads to would google her is incredibly low, if they're paying any attention at all to begin with.

I also think she did this for the attention becuase I can't imagine her being stupid enough to believe being a well known prostitute was going to be overlooked.

I don't think you've got to attribute her wanting to do this to either malice or idiocy. I won't exclude either, but there does exist the possibility that she is genuinely trying to "turn over a new leaf" and do something that would be viewed as good and beneficial. Again, look at the audience she's going for, kids who are too young to have any idea who she is and young enough that the odds of them even trying to find out is about zero.

If she wanted attention there are other ways to go about it.

And R. Kelly isn't a 'rap star', being that he doesn't rap.

The amount I care couldn't be measured with an electron microscope.

Tyyr wrote:
If she wanted attention there are other ways to go about it.

Like, idk, being a porn star

What KC! she's done with that!.... *sobs quietly* ...'done' with that! i'm going back to school now! ......

Dude, you dont even have colour TV where you come from but who knows, if you redo school there might be some by the time you come out again

Anyway, this link on the topic is way more fun:
http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=i_hate_sasha

Maddox for the win!

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote: I also think she did this for the attention becuase I can't imagine her being stupid enough to believe being a well known prostitute was going to be overlooked.

Lotta sexism ITT.

What if it was Sylvester Stallone?

I don't think you know what sexism is.

If he had sex for money I would call him a gigolo.

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Ahtman wrote: I also think she did this for the attention becuase I can't imagine her being stupid enough to believe being a well known prostitute was going to be overlooked.

Lotta sexism ITT.

What if it was Sylvester Stallone?

I don't think you know what sexism is.

If he had sex for money I would call him a gigolo.

You implied that she was either stupid or seeking attention by READING TO CHILDREN, then called a legal profession enjoyed by millions "prostitution", a common sexist pejorative for women who exercise agency over their sex lives.