All this time I thought they were actors. POrnstars pretending to audition so to speak.
Cant say I am surprised with them being scum to cheat. Tupac was right. These hoes are scandalous. Hypergamy at its finest.
RIP GirlsDoPorn
- Thread starter Vulcan
- Start date
Cant say I am surprised with them being scum to cheat. Tupac was right. These hoes are scandalous. Hypergamy at its finest.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 9,841
- Reaction score
- 8,547
Some of those chicks fuck hard and do some dirty stuff for women who were tricked into it.
Still on balance that whole segment of the industry is pretty horrible and damaging and tbh it's best it gets shut down. Same goes for ECG, girls get fucked, and all the other rough/exploitive sex ones.
Still on balance that whole segment of the industry is pretty horrible and damaging and tbh it's best it gets shut down. Same goes for ECG, girls get fucked, and all the other rough/exploitive sex ones.
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2020
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 0
Dre the Mexican Mandingo would have beeches screaming for more until they passed out
What a Chad
What a Chad
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
- Messages
- 14,537
- Reaction score
- 16,142
Men can be misogynistic, cynical idiots too.
F
franklinstower
Guest
Here are a few choice excerpts from the court docs.
Defendants' assurances of privacy and security are reinforced by paid "references"- 14 women hired who are or pose as previous models and (in accordance with a script) provide new 15 recruits with false comfort that the experience is safe and enjoyable, and that the videos have never 16 appeared online or been discovered by anyone in the models' lives.
Defendants increase 28 viewership of the videos by deliberately leaking and disseminating their true identities and personal information-including by sending the videos directly to the models' friends, family members, 2 classmates, employers, and social media contacts. This is similar to a direct-marketing promotional 3 device that makes the videos "go viral" in the models' communities. When the women inevitably 4 learn what Defendants have done with their videos, many complain to Defendants, begging them to 5 remove the videos from the internet. In response, Defendants usually simply ignore any such 6 messages and block the complaining model.
Defendants rush and pressure the woman to 21 sign the documents quickly without reading them and engage in other deceptive, coercive, and 22 threatening behavior to secure their signatures as described below.
However, by the time models have arrived in San Diego and filming is about 14 to begin, they have no choice but to relent and proceed with the shoot. Defendants threaten them 15 with consequences if they do not do so.
[Defendants said the private collector signed a contract 4 that he would not redistribute DVD] Defendants said the 5 DVD was encrypted and could not be copied]; [Defendants 6 said that if the video did somehow end up online, they had ways of taking it down].)
Of the 28 models who testified at trial, Defendants offered alcohol or marijuana to 7 who 4 were underage. This includes McKay, who was 19 years old when Garcia offered her alcohol and 5 marijuana prior to the shoot. Only Jane Does 4 and 16 claim that they were so thoroughly intoxicated that they cannot 7 recall portions of the evening during which the videos were shot. Both show signs of intoxication in 8 their videos. Jane Does I, 8, 15, 17, and 18 testified that they felt moderate symptoms of 9 intoxication. For most of the Plaintiffs, the alcohol or marijuana served to diminish their defenses IO and make them less alert.
Some women testified thatGarcia, Wolfe,and/orPratt became 15 irritable and aggressive when they asked questions about the documents or requested time to read 16 them. Others testified that they were badgered to sign hastily and did not feel that they had the 17 option of asking for more time. The Court finds that Defendants used these tactics to reduce the 18 likelihood that women would read and understand what they were signing. 19 When handing the documents to a model, the Defendants briefly explain the purpose and 20 content of what she is being asked to sign. These representations are false and designed to induce 21 the women to sign without further question. In some instances, Defendants actually tell the model 22 that the documents state that the video will not be released online or in the United States and that 23 her name and privacy will be fully protected. Sometimes, Defendants represent that the documents 24 were "just to prove that [she is] 18," (08/28/19 Trial Tr. 93:9), or to show Defendants were "not 25 forcing [her] to do this," (09/10/19 Trial Tr. 136:14). In other instances, Defendants are vague, 26 saying, "This is just about the basic agreements, everything we spoke about," (09/09/19 Trial Tr. 27 51 :4 - 5), or 'Just kind of a formality." (08/22/19 Trial Tr. 37:16.)
Defendants' assurances of privacy and security are reinforced by paid "references"- 14 women hired who are or pose as previous models and (in accordance with a script) provide new 15 recruits with false comfort that the experience is safe and enjoyable, and that the videos have never 16 appeared online or been discovered by anyone in the models' lives.
Defendants increase 28 viewership of the videos by deliberately leaking and disseminating their true identities and personal information-including by sending the videos directly to the models' friends, family members, 2 classmates, employers, and social media contacts. This is similar to a direct-marketing promotional 3 device that makes the videos "go viral" in the models' communities. When the women inevitably 4 learn what Defendants have done with their videos, many complain to Defendants, begging them to 5 remove the videos from the internet. In response, Defendants usually simply ignore any such 6 messages and block the complaining model.
Defendants rush and pressure the woman to 21 sign the documents quickly without reading them and engage in other deceptive, coercive, and 22 threatening behavior to secure their signatures as described below.
However, by the time models have arrived in San Diego and filming is about 14 to begin, they have no choice but to relent and proceed with the shoot. Defendants threaten them 15 with consequences if they do not do so.
[Defendants said the private collector signed a contract 4 that he would not redistribute DVD] Defendants said the 5 DVD was encrypted and could not be copied]; [Defendants 6 said that if the video did somehow end up online, they had ways of taking it down].)
Of the 28 models who testified at trial, Defendants offered alcohol or marijuana to 7 who 4 were underage. This includes McKay, who was 19 years old when Garcia offered her alcohol and 5 marijuana prior to the shoot. Only Jane Does 4 and 16 claim that they were so thoroughly intoxicated that they cannot 7 recall portions of the evening during which the videos were shot. Both show signs of intoxication in 8 their videos. Jane Does I, 8, 15, 17, and 18 testified that they felt moderate symptoms of 9 intoxication. For most of the Plaintiffs, the alcohol or marijuana served to diminish their defenses IO and make them less alert.
Some women testified thatGarcia, Wolfe,and/orPratt became 15 irritable and aggressive when they asked questions about the documents or requested time to read 16 them. Others testified that they were badgered to sign hastily and did not feel that they had the 17 option of asking for more time. The Court finds that Defendants used these tactics to reduce the 18 likelihood that women would read and understand what they were signing. 19 When handing the documents to a model, the Defendants briefly explain the purpose and 20 content of what she is being asked to sign. These representations are false and designed to induce 21 the women to sign without further question. In some instances, Defendants actually tell the model 22 that the documents state that the video will not be released online or in the United States and that 23 her name and privacy will be fully protected. Sometimes, Defendants represent that the documents 24 were "just to prove that [she is] 18," (08/28/19 Trial Tr. 93:9), or to show Defendants were "not 25 forcing [her] to do this," (09/10/19 Trial Tr. 136:14). In other instances, Defendants are vague, 26 saying, "This is just about the basic agreements, everything we spoke about," (09/09/19 Trial Tr. 27 51 :4 - 5), or 'Just kind of a formality." (08/22/19 Trial Tr. 37:16.)
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2015
- Messages
- 9,987
- Reaction score
- 1,920
Be careful out there young ladies. Oh wait... Im talking to a wall.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 35,147
- Reaction score
- 945
Imagine blaming someone else for you doing porn
What's even worse is you have soylent drinkers defending them
"But but they peer pressured me" lmfao
2020 is a scary time
What's even worse is you have soylent drinkers defending them
"But but they peer pressured me" lmfao
2020 is a scary time
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2013
- Messages
- 37,047
- Reaction score
- 49,084
no bigger misogynists than the men that believe women constantly need salvation and protection, bro.
F
franklinstower
Guest
Read my above post.
They are not blamed for the women doing porn. They are being sued for lying about who would see the port and hiring women to lie about who would see the porn, giving drugs and alcohol to minors who they then had do porn, lying about what was in contracts and becoming angry and bullying if the girls wanted to take the time to read the contracts which were only given to them to sign minutes before the shoot.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2010
- Messages
- 46,847
- Reaction score
- 29,137
The illegal exploitive methods are wrong, but people really act like they tricked these grown ass adults into banging on camera.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
- Messages
- 14,537
- Reaction score
- 16,142
Where & when did I say that they did?
The women who were victimized & then filed/won this lawsuit seem to have done a good job on their own of hurting these predatory porn producers right where they're most sensitive. In the wallet.
F
franklinstower
Guest
Further, the Court does consider the testimony of several Plaintiffs that, at some point 5 during the shoot, they asked to stop, but Defendants would not permit them to leave until they had 6 the footage they wanted. This fact is important because Defendants argued repeatedly that Plaintiffs 7 "chose" to be in San Diego, "chose" to sign the documents, and "chose" to go through with the 8 shoot. 9 Defendants' argument ignores the obvious implicit power dynamic invariably present in the IO room: The women are alone in a hotel room with two men they barely know who, although friendly 11 at first, become aggressive and agitated if the women express hesitation or a desire to leave. Several 12 Plaintiffs testified that they had second thoughts prior to or during the shoot but felt they were not 13 in a position to try to leave. 14 Plaintiffs were also acutely aware of the risks of leaving the shoot. First, Defendants held 15 and controlled Plaintiffs' plane tickets home and most Plaintiffs could not afford to purchase a 16 ticket home or pay for a hotel room. Second, aware that Defendants had nude pictures and, in some 17 cases, pornographic video of them, Plaintiffs did not want to do anything to rock the boat for fear 18 that Defendants might retaliate. Furthermore, many women did not want anyone to know what they 19 were doing and therefore had not told anyone and did not want to call anyone for help. 20 In fact, ten Plaintiffs reported that they asked or tried to leave at some point before or during 21 the shoot, but Defendants insisted that they complete the shoot because the Defendants had already 22 spent the time and money to get the woman there and to get set up. When Jane Doe 16 asked not to 23 go through with the video shoot, Defendants threatened her to pay the cost of her plane ticket and 24 hotel room-a cost that she could not afford. (09/24/19 Trial Tr. 24:9 - 18.) This testimony shows 25 what happens when a woman tries to withdraw her consent. The Court's finds that, once in the hotel 26 room, Plaintiffs lacked had any feasible means of egress until Defendants declared that the shoot was 27 completed and released them.
F
franklinstower
Guest
The illegal exploitive methods are wrong, but people really act like they tricked these grown ass adults into banging on camera.
In some cases there was real intimidation employed to get the women to comply coupled with threats to be charged for the plane tickets and the hotel room that they could not afford.
If you support this you are a scumbag.
F
franklinstower
Guest
2. Defendants Intentionally "Dox" (Publicly "Out") Their Models or 23 Permit and Encourage Internet "Trolls" to Do So 24 Each Plaintiff has proven that after her video( s) were placed online, they spread throughout 25 her social circles, including friends, family, co-workers, employers, teachers, and classmates. As a 26 result, most Plaintiffs experienced merciless harassment. The Court finds that Defendants knew at 27 28 27 Pratt admitted that he believes the number of views listed on Pornhub's videos accurately reflects the actual number of times a video has been viewed. (Pratt Depa. Vol. II, 427: 13 - 429:22.) -34- [PROPOSED] STATEMENT OF DECISION 1 the time they recruited each and every Plaintiff that this result was inevitable. The Court further 2 finds that Defendants deliberately profited from the videos being leaked to Plaintiffs' personal 3 circles and communities. At best, Defendants knowingly stood by while this happened, in order to 4 increase website traffic and corresponding profits, while falsely assuring models that this nightmare 5 scenario could never occur. At worst, Defendants encouraged and facilitated this outing process and 6 even participated directly.
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,888
- Reaction score
- 1,600
You said it. Imagine November 2020.
The new United States of America Presidential Election is right around the corner. Everyone and everything is becoming so divisive nowadays. It seems like the universe/life is becoming worse and worse all of the time.
F
franklinstower
Guest
These guys intentionaly made sure that the women in the porn videos families, friends, aquntainces, employers and schools knew about and had access to the videos.
They did this to get more hits and in hopes the videos would go viral.......
Its heartbreaking to read how completely these women's lives were destroyed and the cruelty of the people who are doing it.
Many of these girls have panic attacks now and are unable to live in the city where family is because of constant harassment....
Its just terrible.
They did this to get more hits and in hopes the videos would go viral.......
Its heartbreaking to read how completely these women's lives were destroyed and the cruelty of the people who are doing it.
Many of these girls have panic attacks now and are unable to live in the city where family is because of constant harassment....
Its just terrible.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 35,147
- Reaction score
- 945
- Joined
- May 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,888
- Reaction score
- 1,600
It seems like you don't completely despise Donald Trump. In that case, what do you think is the root cause of what is happening in 2020?
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2014
- Messages
- 35,147
- Reaction score
- 945
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2011
- Messages
- 30,819
- Reaction score
- 13,366
You're giving mixed signals. How much do you care if you could still care less?I honestly could care less. I mean I am udderly spent.
