Libertarianism

Duke Porn Star Belle Knox Wishes the GOP Would Get More Libertarian

|

||| Kobetsai/Flickr
Kobetsai/Flickr

So a Duke University freshman recently came out as a part-time porn actress, and the combination of sex, a prestigious university and a barely legal co-ed has made the story an instant Internet hit. But as New York magazine's Kat Stoeffel points out, "what makes the Duke Freshman Porn Star unique, as far as collegiate women turned sex memes go, is that she hasn't gone away." Lauren (not her real name) didn't plan to be a poster-girl for college porn stars. But she went on the media offensive about her extracurricular activities after a friend leaked the info to his fraternity bros and rumors began to circulate on a college message board.

I'm glad she did because damn: This girl seems wise beyond her years. Every article I read about or by Lauren only makes me like her even more. In an interview with New York, Lauren clarifies her association with the campus Republican group thusly: 

"I'm a libertarian who is forced to play within party lines because, at this point, our party isn't strong enough to get anything done without the backing of the Republican Party. It's really frustrating that when I tell people I'm in College Republicans they immediately assume I'm a bigot and a homophobe. Duke Republicans is completely pro-gay rights. Calling somebody a Republican is almost an insult and, personally, I hope the party moves toward a more libertarian style wherein they give rights to gays and more respect to women, and it's not so driven by religion or by theology."

And in an essay at women's website XOJane, Lauren rails against the idea that sex workers are all victims

"A woman who transgresses the norm and takes ownership of her body—because that's exactly what porn is, no matter how rough the sex is—ostensibly poses a threat to the deeply ingrained gender norms that polarize our society… That a woman could be intelligent, educated and CHOOSE to be a sex worker is almost unfathomable."

Lauren told the Duke campus paper that she got started in porn to pay for her education—with Duke University tuition and fees adding up to about $60,000 per year, it's really a wonder more students aren't doing this—and she isn't ashamed. She also scoffs at the idea that porn demeans her:

"I worked as a waitress…in high school and not only did it interfere with my school where I was barely sleeping and wasn't doing my work, but also I was making $400 a month after taxes. I felt like I was being degraded and treated like s–t. My boss was horrible to me. For people to tell me that doing porn and having sex, which I love, is more degrading than being a waitress … that literally makes no sense. To be perfectly honest, I felt more degraded in a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job than I ever did doing porn."

For more sex worker positivity, check out Reason TV's interview with Nevada "brothel king" Dennis Hof. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

393 responses to “Duke Porn Star Belle Knox Wishes the GOP Would Get More Libertarian

  1. I felt more degraded in a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job

    Oh, the entitlement!

    1. Sorry, I need to calibrate my sarcasm detector. RU SRS?

      1. What’s inherently degrading about a low-wage, “blue collar” service job?

        1. I think she is saying that working as an actress in pornographic films is far less degrading than working as a waitress.

        2. Drop the word “inherently” and read what she actually wrote:

          “I worked as a waitress…in high school and not only did it interfere with my school where I was barely sleeping and wasn’t doing my work, but also I was making $400 a month after taxes. I felt like I was being degraded and treated like s–t. My boss was horrible to me.

          1. I dunno, porn or another job? I don’t think she turned to porn simply because her job was unpleasant and didn’t pay a lot.

            1. Nobody is claiming that she did. The claim is that she felt more degraded in a shitty service job than she did in pr0n.

              1. She can do whatever she wants and can feel about it however she wants, but I can be libertarian and still not approve. You bad, bad libertine communist person.

                1. I’m sure she mourns the loss of your approval as she rolls around naked in the piles of money she makes in her chosen profession. I know Episiarch does.

                  1. What is Episiarch doing rolling naked in her money? GET YOUR OWN MONEY EPI!

                    1. Well because obviously she’s being exploited if not outright Trafficked(tm). Epi is her pimp.

                  2. Nor should she care what I think. However, it should give her pause that she has captured the attention of commenters around here.

                    1. You mean Warty? Look dude, there is very little that any of can do to escape his attention. Warty sees all, knows all, rapes all.

              2. She obviously never did any Bukake flicks..

          2. I just read it as, she didn’t really like waiting and her tolerance for taking shit got larger when the compensation got larger. I quit grad school after having worked in the real world because the bullshit to money ratio was too far out of balance.

              1. Yeah but I go by the completely untraceable stage name of Huge Cockston. The only hint at my true identity is the monocle I wear in every scene.

                1. I should’ve put 2 and 2 together when I found out you lived in the Valley.

            1. Porn pays better per hour than waitressing. It’s also easier on the back and feet.

              All the po-mo verbage is to tell her betters to fuck off in language they understand.

              1. The Urkobold once posted something about a porn class:

                CHDV 20405. Pornography and Language. 100 Units.

                The course explores the place and role of language in pornographic films. Why does language occur in filmed pornography at all? What kind of language occurs? What role does it play? How is it gendered? How does it frame the narrative or drive it forward? How does language subvert or undermine the visual representation of sex? What does any of this tell us about gender, sexuality and erotics in non-pornographic contexts? Course readings focus on theories of pornographic representation, theories of language, gender and erotics, and methods of transcribing and analyzing dialogue. The course requires students to watch a wide range of pornography, including different varieties of straight, gay and trans porn, so anyone enrolling in the course must be interested in pornography as a social and cultural phenomenon and must also have experience watching porn and thinking about it.

                Instructor(s): D. Kulick Terms Offered: Spring
                Prerequisite(s): Upper Division Undergrad Course.

                This was a course at the University of Chicago, by the way. And if you didn’t read the above, go back and at least read the last sentence of the course description.

                1. That last sentence is a doozy.

                  1. “[M]ust be.” In other words, a prerequisite. I bet parents love that course showing up on the bill. What’s UC now, $500/hour?

                2. I misread it as the porn class. That is, the division of society in which it’s members are paid to perform recorded sex acts.

            2. I quit grad school after having worked in the real world because the bullshit to money ratio was too far out of balance.

              I quit grad school after having worked at the university because the bullshit to money ratio was too far out of balance.

              I loved my research (digitally reconstructing badly damaged medieval manuscripts), but couldn’t take the self righteousness of your average English department grad student/professor. Not only the self righteousness, but their inability to leave the bubble when one was off the clock and be a normal human being instead of insisting of analyzing every last thing in the world via literary theory. I simply couldn’t take having to discuss the feminist implications of the fucking Lexington, KY local news broadcast simply because it was on. These people are not real people. They see themselves as as what they do. Everything was somehow connected to some Grief Studies theory, and I basically said “Fuck these people.”

          3. And if that were all she wrote, your point would stand. But her last statement over-egged the pudding, in my opinion.

            1. I don’t know that she’s making some far-reaching social commentary, just that she believed she was being treated like shit. So she did something I would imagine most of us would approve of – she did something about the situation and she did it on her own. No griefing, no victimhood; just a business decision.

            2. I mean, I sympathize a little bit with what you’re saying, but I think she makes a valid point about the service industries, especially the kind of work you’re doing as a teenager-early 20-something. I did my time in retail (five years) and restaurants (five years front-of-house, three as a cook) and I’ve got to say there’s nothing quite like dealing with people working out their frustrations on you and not only being unable to respond without losing your job but seeing that the assholes in question believe that behavior they’d never exhibit to a “peer” is perfectly acceptable if the recipient has a name tag.

              I’m saying this not to make some statement about the glorious proletariat. I’m saying it merely to point out that there are more than a few people who think what this chick does is shameful but have within the past week spoken or acted in a totally reprehensible way to someone in retail, food service, a restaurant, or some other service context without a second thought, and who would’ve completely lost their shit if that person had offered a retort.

        3. Taking shit from people on a daily basis is degrading. Entitlement is thinking that you’re too good for it which is not the case for this girl

          She simply finds porn more lucrative and less degrading since she feels more in control.

          1. Entitlement is thinking you deserve something you haven’t earned.

            Thinking that you’re too good to take shit from people on a daily basis is self respect.

        4. I don’t believe she was saying there was anything wrong with such jobs, I believer she was referring to the way the managers of such jobs treated her.

          Remember, for all (or at least very nearly all) minimum wage jobs you are basically managing people whose maturity level as a group matches that of a below average 16 year old (regardless of their actual age) and so their management style matches that demographic. This results in treatment which anyone smart and talented enough to get into Duke would find degrading

        5. The combination blue collar/porn thread is making it really hard for me not to go hit on the lanky elevator repair guy in the blue jumpsuit and heavy duty work boots. Damn you HM.

          1. Just don’t make any terrible puns about him working the shaft all day.

          2. Um, why wouldn’t you? Who knows what he has on under there?

            1. Mostly because I assume all uninvited advances end with me getting punched in the nose, which is ridiculous because I’ve never been punched in the nose.

              Also I have no idea how to even broach the topic. “Hey bro, meet me in the third floor mens and we’ll see what comes up”?

              1. “we’ll see what comes up”

                Punerrific.

              2. Fire up Woofr or Shaggy. Ask him something about how the elevator works, or the repairs.

                However, even if he were interested he may not be “out” to his coworkers. As much as I like me some workingman, I realize that flirting with them when they are working is a long shot.

                1. I’d guess more Grindr than Scruff, but I didn’t see him on. I think I missed my chance yesterday when he was on the third floor working by himself and prone to being smiley and making small talk. He’s now directly assisting a surly-looking coworker.

          3. “Going down?”

            “If you like.”

    2. Look, HM, just because your coed students pretend not to know what that brass pole in your office is for, doesn’t give you the right to get all huffy about students getting frisky somewhere else.

      1. And, yes, I am revolted that I had to resort to the “just because…doesn’t mean” abomination due.to having to be in a meeting in 5 minutes.

      2. Fair enough.

        But you’d think the strobe light would reinforce the message.

        1. Unless you’ve got some 80’s hair band playing in the background, they probably just think it’s for your strip aerobics.

          1. Rick Astley…. on constant loop.

            It’s kinda hot actually.

  2. I predict a high click-thru rate on this article.

  3. This is why there are no libertarian wo….

    Never mind.

  4. Heh, I first read about this story on Jezebel. Several of their readers were upset by the fact that she’s a College Republican which really tempered their appreciation for her ‘bravery’.

    I really hope she can explore libertarian campus groups like Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty without being driven off by the creeper-tarians almost ever chapter has.

    1. “Hey, I’ve seen all your movies. I only leave my room for meals and these meetings.”

  5. Numero uno, I wish Reason would be as welcoming to all libertarian-inclined persons as it is to the slutty coed. The right-wing fundies who support religious freedom, for example (and yes, many of them vigorously support freedom for non-Christian religions, too).

    And numero two-o, when education gets so expensive people are selling their bodies to pay for it, we need to say, “whoa, is there a way education could be cheaper?” If it weren’t for the artificially-inflated education costs (encouraged by the government), would she have chosen this particular job? Wouldn’t it be nice if you could take evening classes (maybe online) on a waitress’s salary?

    1. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could take evening classes (maybe online) on a waitress’s salary?

      You mean, community college?

      1. There ya go.

      2. Still too expensive to afford on anything less than a 4 star restaurant waitress’ income

        1. She might have to work two jobs for a year, save, and then go to school part time.

          No, this is not child abuse.

        2. Not with the pell grants; with those any waitress or waiter at a reasonably busy restaurant should be able to get by while studying part-time. I did.

          1. Um, I believe we were postulating a world with reduced costs because of a lack of government interference in the higher ed market

          2. 1) Would anyone pay to see you have sex?
            2) How is this any of your business?

    2. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could take evening classes (maybe online) on a waitress’s salary?

      You can, just not at Duke. For driving around town, I could drive a Kia or a Porsche Boxster. If, for whatever reasons, I chose to drive the Boxster, I have to accept that I’m paying a certain amount just for the name.

      1. You can pick up used Boxsters for less than a new Kia now.

        Just sayin.

        1. The analogy stands in the instant case.

    3. The right-wing fundies who support religious freedom, for example (and yes, many of them vigorously support freedom for non-Christian religions, too).

      “Many” of them? That’s some high praise.

      How many right-wing fundies “vigorously” support freedom for atheists? Satanists?

      1. Sure. Is anyone claiming it should be illegal to be an atheist? The only conflict between atheists and anyone else I see occurs when atheists think their freedom means the freedom to be free from other people’s religious views.

        1. Is anyone claiming it should be illegal to be an atheist?

          Not as far as I know. But that’s my precisely my point. Why is Reason supposed to be particularly “welcoming” of right-wing fundies who support religious freedom?

          “Welcome, right-wing fundies who aren’t proposing I be slaughtered for picking the wrong deity!”

          1. Why is Reason supposed to be particularly “welcoming” of right-wing fundies who support religious freedom?

            Because they shouldn’t be intolerant assholes and judge people by their commitment to freedom rather than indulging in bigotry?

            1. And I judge “supporting freedom for non-Christian religions, too (!)” as a pretty weak commitment to religious freedom, let alone freedom as a whole.

              “I think Jews should be free to practice their religion” is nice, but not especially praiseworthy in 21st century America.

              1. No, it’s people who use sacramental drugs, Sikhs with their daggers (more likely to freak out secular liberals than red-meat-eating fundies), and churches (even mainline churches) hassled by zoning boards.

                And yes, sometimes a synagogue gets zoning hassles, so I imagine it means something to support the rights of Jews.

                1. Becket Fund defends Jewish convicts in Indiana:

                  http://www.becketfund.org/indi…..d-for-you/

              2. I think “you should be able to smoke marijuana if you like” but especially praise worthy. So should reason not accept people’s support for legalizing marijuana?

                What is your point beyond you hate evangelicals Marc?

                1. Christian libertarians say things that some limbertarians don’t like to hear, thus they ridicule. Nevermind the fact that we don’t believe that our morals should be enforced on others through coercion, we’re icky christfags.

                  1. “limbertarians” in a thread about a porn actress. Nice.

                2. Just a typical hater. I find it quite easy to be a libertarian and not anti religion.

                  Atheists are generally pieces of shit at a much higher ratio than religious people.

          2. My friend wrote a novel in which, a right wing gov’t takes over America and then the world (using their flying saucers and death rays to exterminate non-whites) while, among other things, humoring the population with Christianity until they’re ready to accept the paganism that the elite practice covertly.

        2. Illegal to be an athiest? None that I know of (at least not on the Christian Front, it is a fairly common belief among Muslims)

          That said there are plenty of Christians who want Athiests to literally be treated as second class citizens by the law where they are legally barred from working for the government in any capacity, not allowed to work in any child care capacity, not allowed to work for the police, barred from getting most occupational licenses, etc.

          I know this because my entire family is made up of them (and lucky me I’m an atheist who has married 2 neopagan women) so I not only get to see their BS posted on facebook but I get to see all their friends bs on the issue posted.

      2. Well, the fundie papist Becket Fund supported a unitarian church, which is close enough to atheist for present purposes:

        http://www.becketfund.org/unit…..o-2000-01/

        1. which is close enough to atheist for present purposes

          No it isn’t. Seriously, it’s not.

          1. The Pope is close enough to a snake handler speaking in tongues for all intents and purposes, right? Oh, wait, that one’s true.

            1. To paraphrase John, would you defend a papist even though you believe the Pope is the equivalent of a snake-handler? Because many of your fundies think unitarians are pretty much atheists.

          2. Yes it is. It doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what the evangelicals think. If the evangelicals see the Unitarians as no better than atheists, and I assure you they most certainly do, then their willingness to help the Unitarians is very good evidence they would help atheists as well.

            1. If the evangelicals see the Unitarians as no better than atheists, and I assure you they most certainly do

              This is true.

              My favorite Louisville bar, Holy Grale, is in a former Unitarian Church. The joke is how there is far more religious iconography in it now than when it was a church.

              There are approximately 15 different versions of the last supper in the Mens restroom.

              1. There are approximately 15 different versions of the last supper in the Mens restroom.

                Good thing they stopped serving it there.

            2. But if atheists think Unitarians are more like evangelicals than like themselves, that doesn’t indicate at all to atheists that evangelicals would do fuck all for them.

              1. Nikki,

                We are not talking about the atheists. We are talking about the evangelicals. And if they view Unitarians as the same as atheists and they are known to help Unitarians, then it is a good bet they would help atheists.

                Do atheists view Unitarians as the same as evangelicals? I don’t know. But if they so, that just means atheists are assholes. It doesn’t mean evangelicals are not committed to freedom.

                1. Unitarians are annoying hippies without the courage to believe in anything, so they pretend to believe in everything. They’re much worse than evangelicals in that sense.

                  1. Exactly, Warty, exactly.

                    1. And for that matter, evangelicals should find them much worse than atheists.

                  2. The really sad thing about Unitarians is the logical conclusion of their faith is libertarianism yet somehow they nearly all hard core porgressive social justice warriors

                    1. That is because you can’t get in the church unless you worship government Rasillo.

            3. My understanding was that Unitarians believe in at most one god.

              (Actually, that joke lost some of its force when I learned that there are a lot of pagans in Unitarian churches who worship a pantheon of their favorite deities.)

              1. I have to wonder why any of them bother with the whole Church thing at all.

                If I’m a Unitarian, and I don’t believe that I’m going to be burned eternally for not going, why the hell am I taking time out of my Sunday to be around these people?

                1. I have to wonder why any of them bother with the whole Church thing at all.

                  The same reason people pray to magic crystal skulls.

                  You really shouldn’t expect it to make good sense.

          3. It is.

            The joke I always heard about unitarians was you could support 0 or 2+ gods, but not 1.

            And there was the Unitarian minister who was fired for believing in monotheism.

          4. I suppose it depends if it is one of the Unitarian groups that believe there is a God or not?

        2. No, it’s not nearly close enough for present purposes.

          Religious freedom is barely in question today, except among right-wing fundies. But you’re complaining that Reason should pay more attention to people from that very group because they make some kind of grudging half-concessions to religious freedom? Which we already have? Yeah, they sound like real heroes.

          How about this? Reason should pay more attention to alcohol prohibitionists, many of whom think people should be free to drink wine! What about those bastions of liberty, huh?

          1. Religious freedom is barely in question today,

            So the government forcing people to act against their religious beleifs and buy birth control is not a problem?

            And this is the best

            except among right-wing fundies.

            Well yeah, people who are the most religious tend to have the biggest problem with the government trampling religious freedom. Who could have seen that?

            My God Marc, does the subject of religion magically make you retarded?

            1. Wow, you totally misread that. And as usual, you jump to the insults.

              I’m saying that the main reason people worry about religious freedom at all is because of the existence of right-wing fundies.

              So the government forcing people to act against their religious beleifs [sic] and buy birth control is not a problem?

              Who said that? But the government forcing anybody to buy anything is not specifically a religious problem, either. Nor is anybody forcing them to use birth control.

              1. I’m saying that the main reason people worry about religious freedom at all is because of the existence of right-wing fundies.

                The main reason people worry about racism is because of black people. So fucking what? Is it your position we would be better off if people would stop exercising their freedom so we didn’t have to worry about that freedom anymore?

                1. You’re arguing with the voices in your head, John.

                  The main reason people worry about racism is because of black people.

                  That’s a bad analogy, unless you’re saying that black people are particularly racist.

                  Let me say this again: it’s the right-wing fundies who are the least tolerant of others’ religions in the first place. (Is this a controversial statement? Isn’t that pretty much by definition?) So if some have managed to concede that some other religions ought to be tolerated, then they’re heading in the right direction, but they’re no heroes.

                  Is it your position we would be better off if people would stop exercising their freedom so we didn’t have to worry about that freedom anymore?

                  You’re ascribing positions to me that I neither hold nor have even implied.

                  1. it’s the right-wing fundies who are the least tolerant of others’ religions in the first place.

                    That is completely counter factual. You think that because you hate them. But you have no evidence of that beyond your own prejudices.

                    So if some have managed to concede that some other religions ought to be tolerated, then they’re heading in the right direction, but they’re no heroes.

                    We get it. You will hate them even if they don’t conform to your prejudices.

                  2. And marc, the main reason why have to worry about religious freedom is leftists who view religion as a threat to state power. It isn’t religious people who are forcing the nuns to buy birth control or arresting the Skiks for carrying knives.

                    Seriously, what planet do you live on? Progs are the grand children of Marx, you know the militantly atheist killer?

                    1. I give up. You’re projecting. You have no self-awareness.

                    2. marc,

                      right-wing fundies can often be annoying and many are intolerant of any faith other than their own. BUT, I don’t see them trying to use the govt hammer to beat everyone else into submission. That is the difference between the fundies’ intolerance and that of progs.

                    3. BUT, I don’t see them trying to use the govt hammer to beat everyone else into submission.

                      But, at best, they’re no better than everyone else in this regard. Which was kind of my original point.

                      Also, I should note and concede that some atheists are truly intolerant. Not just religious fundamentalists.

                  3. Let me say this again: it’s the right-wing fundies who are the least tolerant of others’ religions in the first place. (Is this a controversial statement? Isn’t that pretty much by definition?)

                    Uh, to answer them in order: Yes. And no.

                    (Don’t know too many actual fundies, I’m guessing.)

                    1. You guess right.

                      But I expect, and it is borne out by my experience, that the more you rely on a text to decide what is or is not true, the less tolerant you’re going to be of those who use conflicting texts. (Do fundamentalists often marry outside their religion? That’s a good test.)

                      But maybe if I knew more fundies, I’d change my mind.

                      In any case, I see that it’s not actually relevant to the point I’m trying to make, as I have elaborated below.

                    2. Is this a controversial statement?

                      Depends on your definition of tolerant. If you view tolerance as “we hold no moral position on other religions”, christian fundies are very intolerant. If you view it as “we don’t coerce you into our religion”, christian fundies are no more or less tolerant than anybody else.

                      Isn’t that pretty much by definition?

                      Part of being a practicing christian, if you truly go by the text, is christianity is the one true faith, and all others are condemning themselves. Therefore there’s a moral prerogative to try to witness to people. The folks who argue in favor of theocracy worship government as much as they do God.

                      Do fundamentalists often marry outside their religion?

                      In general, if you’re a fundie, your religion is a huge part of your life. Marrying far enough outside your denomination is hard for some, let alone marrying outside your religion. It’s just like libertarians who won’t marry statists, sometimes you believe in something enough that it’s important for your spouse to be on the same page as you.

                    3. Dude tolerance is not acceptance. People need to learn WTF tolerance actually means (kind of like rights).

                      You don’t have to marry someone to tolerate them. Whether or not they marry people of other religions is irrelevant to the question of tolerance.

                  4. Black people are particularly racist.

                  5. That’s not totally true at all. It was evangelicals who defended a Muslim girl’s right to wear her hajib in a Oklahoma school.

                    Evangelicals also live alongside others just fine America. If only this were the case in the rest of the world.

          2. “Religious freedom is barely in question today, except among right-wing fundies.”

            Do you mean there’s a lot of right-wing fundies whose freedom is under threat? Sure. Is the freedom of non-fundies safe? Then why do Muslim prisoners have to go up to the Supreme Court to defend the right to have beards, why to Sikhs have to fight in court to keep their religiously-required daggers, why do religions which use drugs sacramentally have to fight for the right to do so (often with the support of fundies)?

            1. No, that’s not what I mean. See upthread. I don’t think I can make myself any clearer.

              Then why do Muslim prisoners have to go up to the Supreme Court to defend the right to have beards

              Fair point. But I did say “barely in question”.

              why to Sikhs have to fight in court to keep their religiously-required daggers

              Sorry, I don’t count this as an issue of religious freedom. Non-Sikhs should be able to keep their daggers for whatever reasons, religious or not.

              why do religions which use drugs sacramentally have to fight for the right to do so (often with the support of fundies)?

              Nor this. One should be able to use drugs for whatever purposes, sacramental or not.

              In fact, in two out of three of your examples here, what you seem to mean by “fighting for religious freedom”–and please correct me if I have misrepresented you–is fighting for the state to sanction certain otherwise-unlawful practices as long as they are in a religious context.

              That is, fighting for laws to be applied differently depending on whether you are a member of a certain religion.

              That doesn’t sound like religious freedom.

              1. You’re going to tell Sikhs and rastas to get in the back of the line and wait until the secular types recover their right to self-defense and dope use, rather than invoke their religious freedom? This is why there aren’t any Sikh libertarians. “No fair for you to have freedom when others don’t!”

                1. No, of course not.

                  However–and now we come full circle–do you see why one cannot conclude from the simple fact that somebody “fights for religious freedom” that they are libertarian in any respect, and ought to be “welcomed” here?

                  The Muslims are fighting for religious freedom… for Muslims. The Sikhs are fighting for religious freedom… for Sikhs. The shamans, or whoever, are fighting for religious freedom… for shamans.

                  Of course I think I ought to have all kinds of freedoms. It’s whether I believe that the same is true of everyone else that makes me a libertarian. And I cannot infer any libertarian tendency one way or another when someone is fighting for special rules to be applied to them. Or even when someone (e.g. a papist) is helping to fight for special rules to be applied to someone else (e.g. a shaman). The latter case is better, to be sure, but apparently I don’t think it’s quite as praiseworthy as you do. For all I know, they just see the value in establishing a precedent for carving out special exemptions for the religious.

                  But Jews fighting to preserve firearms ownership for everyone? I could see Reason going out of their way to welcome that.

    4. selling their bodies to pay for it

      Haven’t they always done this? The stripper paying her way through college is an ancient archetype. I’m pretty sure Shamat was just working on her communications degree.

      1. A cynic might suggest that in reality, she’s using Duke to advance her porn career. Thank goodness there are no cynics here.

    5. “Wouldn’t it be nice if you could take evening classes (maybe online) on a waitress’s salary?”

      Because a waitress’s work is definitely more rewarding and far less degrading than getting naked and fucked?

      Maybe I’m just a dummy libertine but I’ve seen waitresses so worn down and miserable-looking they’d make any porn star look like Shirley Temple in a candy store.

      1. This was in the context of affording education to get a non waitress/porn job upon graduation/certification.

        If we want to compare a lifetime waitress career vs. a lifetime porn career…again, I don’t have the stats on which is better in the purely financial/job satisfaction sense.

    6. She’s only renting her body, dude.

      1. It’s really more of a time-share.

    7. right-wing fundies who support religious freedom, for example (and yes, many of them vigorously support freedom for non-Christian religions, too).

      No they don’t.

      1. It’s always funny when my mere existence disproves a claim…

      2. Actually, a lot of them do.

    8. What is wrong with selling your body to achieve your goals? How is selling your body for porn any different than selling your body to be a construction worker, truck driver, athlete, model, etc.

      You could cut the cost of a college degree at Duke to it’s 1970 level after adjusting for inflation and it would still be more expensive than nearly anyone could afford without taking out loans as it would still be around $15000 a year so which makes more sense…

      1) pay for it with loans
      2) try to work a 40 hour a week job as a waitress and still end up taking out some loans while hoping the schedule doesn’t break you
      3) sell your body for several hundred dollars an hour so you can earn enough to pay for school and live comfortably in just a few hours a week

      1. Duke is almost proverbially expensive. I’m not sure I’d recommend it to someone who is financially insecure.

        My point is: To the extent her career choice is influenced by government-encouraged education costs, this isn’t a pure libertarian situation. It’s a case of govt abuse.

    9. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could take evening classes (maybe online) on a waitress’s salary?

      Or maybe she wants the employer-impressing prestige of a Duke degree (over a CC degree) and doesn’t want to drown in debt getting it.

      1. We’ll see if it’s as impressive when her employer or her colleagues discover her porn past. Doesn’t a schoolteacher somewhere get in trouble over bikini modeling about every six months?

        This country is still stock full of prudes, or at least people pretending to be prudes.

    10. people are selling their bodies to pay for it

      We all sell our bodies in one way or another. Had this lady been gifted with other physical skills, would anybody be criticizing her for earning money by selling her talents at singing or kick-boxing or driving a racecar? Ever hear of Mike Tyson being accused of prostitution for selling his body and his talents? Why is ok that Michael Jordan got rich exploiting the tools he was endowed with but not Ron Jeremy?

      1. Unless the brain has been deemed not to be a body part while I wasn’t looking, pretty much every person in every job is renting out their body for money.

    11. She’s not “selling her body”. If she did that, she wouldn’t have a body anymore.

      1. Like upthread, it’s more of a vacation rental.

    12. She’s apparently not a “libertarian-inclined person” analogous to whichever right-wing fundies you’re talking about; she claims to be a libertarian. Full stop.

      If a fundamentalist Christian says he’s a libertarian, I don’t think Reason would be unwelcoming. Are Bob Murphy or Tom Woods being denied entry?

      1. Most Christian fundies are not theocrats. I worked with many fundies as a political activist in the 80s and 90s, a twice-elected libertarian, and ran a successful local tax revolt. My biggest supporters, both time and money, were Christian fundies. They knew I was an atheist — they ALWAYS ask — but didn’t give a shit.

        As we see all over this page, a large percentage of bigots assume all fundies are the same — like “white men can’t jump” — which forces them closer to the Santorum/Bachman crowd, as the only ones defending their values.

        Nothing unites a group more than attacking it as a group, which we learned in jr high. The fundies are united by bigots. Attacking them as a group empowers Santorum. Dumb tactic.

        “Mass Movements don’t need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.” -Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

        True for bigots on both sides of the religious divide. The morally self-righteous.

  6. Lauren told the Duke campus paper that she got started in porn to pay for her education?with Duke University tuition and fees adding up to about $60,000 per year, it’s really a wonder more students aren’t doing this?and she isn’t ashamed.

    I wonder what the ivory tower women’s lib corner of the University thinks about a Freshman having occupational sex to pay for her education?

    1. They’ll probably haul her.up on some trumped up charges of violating some student code she signed in the enormous heap.of application material.

    2. On the point here’s what she said after identifying as an “enthusiastic feminist”:

      I think the thing lacking in feminism is that women are making decisions for other women,” she said. “If the patriarchy is about men making decisions for women and taking away their agency, why do some feminists want to control other women’s decisions?

      1. Well that’s not going to sit well with the matriarchy.

  7. Oh, and I’ve met plenty of nice waitresses/hosts. And yes, some of them are putting themselves through school. And the better they are at their jobs, the more dough they make.

    1. A waitress makes very little compared to a woman in porn who has found a profitable niche.

      1. I don’t actually know about the comparative financial advantage over the course of a career of having porn on your resume vs. waitress. Which is, I think, the long-term issue.

        1. On the resume thing you win hands down. On the temporary benefit of more cash available to pay for school I’ll likely win, especially if I develop her website.

  8. My experience in the restaurant business is that anyone who lasts as a manager has to be an asshole some of the time to their staff. Many of them don’t know what time that is, so they just leave the dial set to asshole.

    1. “leave the dial set to asshole”

      Although that’s not a good rock band name, it’s a good album name.

    2. You have to be an asshole. If you are not, the 1/3rd of so share of the industry that are thieves and degenerates will rob you blind.

      1. And let’s face it: she may have been a really bad waitress.

      2. Yeah, my brother is a regional manager for a statewide chain of mexican food restaurants. I agree with that. People who show up for their shifts, don’t steal, and do their job get a pass after three or four months. Everyone else is just jerking you off and needs to be treated like an asshole.

  9. Also a quick Google search told me her stage name and actual name, so her attempts at anonymity in these interviews have failed.

    Hopefully there’s some good from the exposure with regard to her career.

    1. That would depend on her career path, now, wouldn’t it?

      1. [insert lawyer joke here]

      2. Well teaching is automatically out, but she’s 18. Let’s say she gets out of the business by 21 and goes to grad school.

        By the time she’s in the job market looking for work it’s been 6-7 years since she last did porn. People forget and if she has a skill set that’s in high demand I doubt it will negatively impact her.

        1. I’m sure any number of middle-aged engineering managers would be happy to hire her.

          1. I resemble that remark.

        2. Maybe SugarFree’s Dungeon is hiring? That way she could just skip the grad school stuff.

          1. I run a very successful intern program.

        3. No offense, I call bullshit.

          Every male in her class at Duke right now will never forget her face and when she goes to apply for jobs or grad school she’s either going to have to write down “porn star” or fudge some gaps in her work history. Gaps that other women will have filled more productively.

          And, damn, sometimes the puns write themselves.

          1. Gaps that other women will have filled more productively.

            Bullshit. Making enough cash to pay for a 60k per year education bill is way more fucking productive than I ever was until I was a 20-year engineer.

            There is a latent value judgement in your statement that says that fucking for money is not productive. And since she is clearly making lots of money, this value judgement can only be driven by latent moral outrage.

            1. Ditto kinnath.

            2. Fucking for money is productive. It is just not marginally that productive. If the best thing you can provide the world is a good lay, you are not capable of doing very much.

              And casual is right, rightly or wrongly, being a porn star marks you for life. Those films will never go away and they are always going to come back and bite her when she tries to do something else.

              I can see being a porn actress if you don’t have any other options. But if you have the option to make money other ways, it is a stupid way to make money.

            3. There is a latent value judgement in your statement that says that fucking for money is not productive. And since she is clearly making lots of money, this value judgement can only be driven by latent moral outrage.

              It’s absolutely a moral judgement. I value soldiers and engineers more than porn stars. I presume a soldier or engineer to be easily transposable to the role of porn star while I’m suspect of the ability of porn stars to serve adequately in the other roles.

              You falsely presume that the 60K is some indication of her productivity rather than arbitrarily inflated demand.

              1. “I presume a soldier or engineer to be easily transposable to the role of porn star”

                The Studly Engineers of MIT! You can look, ladies, but you better not touch!

                1. GKC raises an important part. Anyone can fuck for money, not everyone will get the same rate.

                  1. Do you think she’s making 60k because of who she is and the talented work she’s doing or because she’s a “barely legal coed”?

                    Is taht strictly market forces at work?

                    1. “Is taht strictly market forces at work?”

                      Yes.

                  2. Anyone can fuck for money, not everyone will get the same rate.

                    I’m actually thinking of it the other way around. I know plenty of people who would have sex on camera and do a damn good job whether they got paid or not.

                    The same cannot generally be said for pouring concrete, maintaining telco systems, or handling spent nuclear fuel.

                2. Yeah, that’s quite a presumption.

                  1. “Is that a slide rule in your shirt pocket, or are you just glad to see me?”

              2. Well fuck your moral judgments. Porn is viewed as demeaning only because you already view it as demeaning. It leaves a “mark” on your career only because moralistic busybodies view it as demeaning.

                Economic values are an entirely different matter. A good middle-aged engineer can make 150K for designing safety critical systems that everyone depends on. A 20-something year-old dude can make 15M for throwing a rubber ball through a metal ring from 25 feet away.

                I’m an engineer, and I have no fucking problem with that whatsoever. The market values work based on what people will pay to get the product of that work. It just that simple. If a woman (or a man for that matter) can earn enough money to pay for school and not go into deby by fucking for money, then more power to them.

                1. Well fuck your moral judgments. Porn is viewed as demeaning only because you already view it as demeaning. It leaves a “mark” on your career only because moralistic busybodies view it as demeaning.

                  What’s it to you if people see it as demeaning? Some folks may see it as an indicator to poor judgment, to lack of stability, or other things. As long as they aren’t morally busybodying all the way to K Street, let them have their morals, let Lauren the Freshman have her fun in the porn industry, and let’s all just fucking tra-la-la all the way to libertopia!

                  1. and let’s all just fucking tra-la-la all the way to libertopia!

                    Your proposal is acceptable.

                    1. and let’s all just fucking tra-la-la all the way to libertopia!

                      Your proposal is acceptable.

                      Hell, I’ll even tell you that my moral grounds for thinking engineers should make as much as an NBA or porn star are based strictly in the firm belief of *an* invisible hand and not *the* invisible hand if it gets us to libertopia any faster.

          2. I think it VERY much matters what she is studying. It may harm her if she wants to go into Law of teaching or public relations or politics. If she goes into medicine it might impact her ability to get into some med schools but not her ability to get into any and once she is an MD her past won’t really matter. If she goes into any form of STEM, especially anything to do with computers it won’t hurt her in the least. If she goes into Business management it will hurt her with some companies right out of school but not all and by 10 years post graduation it won’t really matter.

            Also, you are wrong she won’t need to fill in any gaps in her employment history. She is doing this while in school, no one expects you to have job history while you are a freshman in college.

            1. “Also, you are wrong she won’t need to fill in any gaps in her employment history. She is doing this while in school, no one expects you to have job history while you are a freshman in college.”

              Yeah, that one puzzled me a bit.

            2. f she goes into any form of STEM, especially anything to do with computers it won’t hurt her in the least.

              Eh, I disagree, you aren’t going to get elected CEO of Yahoo no matter how much people may wish you had a couple porn flicks under your belt.

              She is doing this while in school, no one expects you to have job history while you are a freshman in college.

              I think this depends on her ambition/goals in her career.

              1. CEO of Yahoo, maybe not.

                CEO of a startup that goes on to be bigger than Yahoo, absolutely possible

                1. Then someone will write a book explaining how to be a successful entrepreneur, and it will include a chapter on making porn.

                2. CEO of a startup that goes on to be bigger than Yahoo, absolutely possible.

                  I think you have an embellished picture of (tech) startups.

                  Unless she parleys her porn stint into some kind of business/empire or makes STEM connections in the industry, a legit company isn’t going to run away from her, but sure won’t be pleased to discover porn in her past.

                  Bigger than Yahoo, I doubt it. As successful as icanhascheeseburger? Possibly, but I doubt they’d seek her out because of the porn or otherwise regard the porn as value-added.

                  I know a lot of hipster startup types like to act like it’s not a big deal and, for a while, it’s not. But most of them have or do grow into mid-30s parents who would rather have their children do productive/creative, ‘soulful’ things rather than baseless abject porn.

          3. Gaps that other women will have filled more productively.

            Heh. I’m onto you, m.c

              1. How surjective.

        4. “People forget”

          Sadly, they don’t. This is why many of the ladies move back into the business after leaving it. Unless one is incredibly successful and has invested their wages or can turn to something entrepreneurial there are very few options for work after porn.

          Here is a decent documentary on the topic: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1291547/

          1. The videos will always be there, but I doubt she’ll remain famous like she must be on campus right now.

            I’ve seen a video of her, her whole appeal is that she has a natural, nubile body that puts her in the “barely legal” category. Her face is decidedly average.

            I can’t see porn being a long-term career option for her even if she wanted to make it that way.

            1. I have a cd someplace with a Sean Cody* video of a lacrosse player from my college doing a solo scene under the stage name Ritchie.

              He’s so far back in the archives that nobody cares except a few people who went to school with him. Even then it only comes up in passing occasionally when one of us tries to remember what his real name was.

              *Amateur porn company that was huge in the early 2000s.

              1. I’m willing to bet his job can probably be compromised with that information- depending on the nature of his employment that is. For example, I’m pretty sure you can’t be an investment adviser with a Fortune 100 company and have a past career or role in porn. Sure it can be successfully hidden but if the information ever surfaced I’ll wager you’d be fired.

                1. Eh, he’s eminently forgettable. I doubt it’ll ever be an issue for him, but I agree that it could be an issue for some people. I’ve stumbled across pictures of people I know on tumblr, so pictures have a way of staying in circulation.

            2. You forgot the NSFW link.

              1. Darnit, sorry about that.

              2. Ask and ye shall receive.

                Sean Cody – Ritchie (NSFW)

                God, this boy is cute! Great smile, hazel green eyes, and a toned surfer body.

                We had spotted Ritchie on the beach just after his nineteenth birthday, where he was surfing, tanning, and chasing girls. A college sophomore, he was taking a break for the summer to have some fun.

                A week or so later, he came down for a visit. He was nervous and stiff at first, but after we got a hot load out of his cock he seemed more comfortable with us. A trip to the park for some posing opened him up a bit. There he told us about how he likes to fuck his girlfriend (who didn’t know he was here doing this).

                Apparently, his folks have money so I wasn’t sure why he wanted to do a video. When I asked him, he said the idea of it excited him. You gotta love nineteen year olds!

                1. That request was for Serious Man. What am I going to to with a video of a dude?

                  1. That request was for Serious Man. What am I going to to with a video of a dude?

                    Ignore it? Use it as an object lesson about being more careful in the areas where threading gets flattened out?

                  2. Her stage name is the oh-so-creative ‘Belle Knox’. If you just want to see her naked pictures her porn Twitter feed obliges.

            3. “I can’t see porn being a long-term career option for her even if she wanted to make it that way.”

              You are probably correct and her choice to go into porn will probably negatively impact optimal future employment elsewhere.

            4. Her face is decidedly average.

              Well, she does go to Duke.

              *rimshot*

      3. I was going to make this point as Numero trio to your post above.

        Costs aside, unless her career is entertainment, wouldn’t it benefit everyone more to have her employed as a cashier, engineer, technician, etc. rather than a porn “star”?

        1. There is only one person involved in deciding the cost/benefit calculation for what job she chooses.

          1. First,

            There are only two people involved in deciding the cost/benefit calculation for what job she chooses, her and her employer.

            fixed. Err, wait…

            If there were no ACA and federal unemployment insurance, federally backed student loans, (along with protected classes and income equality, etc.), there would only be two people involved in deciding the cost/benefit calculation for what job she chooses, her and her employer.

            Let’s agree that while I may think her choice of porn is a bad idea, while the government is involved, I get to have an opinion in the matter. If we can get the gov’t out of the way, I have no problem with her having bad ideas about how to pay for college.

        2. It wouldn’t benefit her followers more.

  10. OT: http://www.techspot.com/news/5…..eized.html

    Police raid targets 9-year-old pirate, Winnie the Pooh laptop seized

    1. Oops, and I just now realized this is from 2012 ;(

      I just woke up, that’s my excuse.

  11. Don’t tell the Duke Lacrosse team, they might watch her movies and get charged with virtual rape.

  12. Good for her.

  13. I personally attribute that to male privilege. The median income of students at Duke is $350,000. So you have these rich, entitled males coming to Duke and what that translates to is a sense of entitlement over women’s bodies and women’s sex. Men essentially feel entitled to have sex with us because they’re used to getting everything they’ve ever wanted. You have this extremely intense school that’s really competitive academically and then you add into the mix a social scene that’s rooted in social hierarchy and wealth, and then you combine that with male privilege and chauvinism and misogyny and what you have is this really horrible rape culture.

    OK

    1. I’m not very fun to go to parties with. All my friends are getting drunk and when guys are hitting on them I’m always saying, “You better not rape her, you better not take advantage of her.”

      Uh

    2. The median income of students at Duke is $350,000? Huh? Leaving aside what is meant here by “median,” I daresay that if that were the case, Duke wouldn’t have any fucking students.

      1. She is probably referring to their families, not their personal income

        1. I dunno, the rest of what she’s saying is insane, so why not that, too?

    3. I really hope she’s just speaking Feminese to get support from the feminist groups, which may be useful to her later.

      1. See my post above about her comments on feminism.

  14. To be perfectly honest, I felt more degraded in a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job than I ever did doing porn.

    Wow she didn’t just escape from the plantation, she burned down the buildings and salted the earth.

    1. “A woman who transgresses the norm and takes ownership of her body?because that’s exactly what porn is, no matter how rough the sex … That a woman could be intelligent, educated and CHOOSE to be a sex worker is almost unfathomable.”

      And lodges a pretty solid cunt punt on the cats-ass-mouthed feminist community on her way through xojane using their own language.

  15. Where are the “Do what you love!” cheerleaders now?

  16. To be perfectly honest, I felt more degraded in a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job than I ever did doing porn.

    I don’t care that she is a porn star. But fuck her with a telephone poll. How fucking dare she say people who work for a living and do things like serve her food, clean her toilets and a million other things that make life possible are degrading themselves. I have no problem with someone laying on their back for a living. Someone who does so, however, has no standing to call any other job degrading or by implication insult the people who do such jobs.

    Yeah, honey, not everyone is as comfortable with being a whore as you are so they have to do manual labor.

      1. John, you are COMPLETELY missing her point. She used the word DEGRADING because that is what is use to describe her porn work. So, she is doing some word play to make a point.

        Think of it like this:
        Person A – “Porn is degrading.”
        Duke Porn Star – “I found my blue-collar…waitressing job to be more degrading”

        She is not insulting blue-collar work but simply using the words of her attackers to make the point that TO HER (the person who has to actually do the work) waitressing was more degrading than being filmed having sex.

        Stop trying to find imaginary reasons to paint her badly because you disagree with her life choices and views.

        1. Not true. Nikki had me convinced of this argument until HM pointed out below what she actually said. She did say ‘being a waitress was just as degrading as porn”. She made a much more broad statement that is completely inconsistent with your interpretation. Read Heroic Mulatto’s post below.

          1. HM is being a snarky pedantic. You know it. I know it. And, HM knows it. He has the writing skill to rip a kid to shred and he runs with it.

            1. Fuck. I meant ‘pedant’.

            2. I’m really not looking to piss you off, but I don’t see where I’m being snarky. *shrugs* Markedness is a thing. Grice’s Maxims are things. If you disagree with me, that’s cool. Just tell me why your explanation is more likely than mine. I’m not trying to rip anyone to shreds, but don’t you agree that it’s just as distasteful for someone to look down upon waitressing, for being a job with low status and low pay as it is for someone to look down upon sex work for similar reasons?

          2. Bullshit, JOhn. Here is the original text:

            “I felt like I was being degraded and treated like s–t. My boss was horrible to me…For people to tell me that doing porn and having sex, which I love, is more degrading than being a waitress and being somebody’s servant and picking up after somebody and being treated like a lesser, second-class citizen, that literally makes no sense. To be perfectly honest, I felt more degraded in a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job than I ever did doing porn.

            She does not say, “being a waitress is just as degrading as porn”. That is a flat out lie. You and Tony hang out much? She says, she felt like she was being degraded being paid jack shit while cleaning up after people as a waitress but did not feel degraded getting paid well to have sex. This was in direct response to the people that told her porn is more degrading than waitressing. BTW, your argument is all BS anyway, since feeling degraded is all subjective anyway. Nobody can determine what is degrading for someone else.

            What you are accusing her of is akin to us accusing you of being homophobic if you do not think that gay men and gay sex are equally as enjoyable and appropriate as straight sex.

    1. I worked a service job a grocery store for 5 years while going to school. It wasn’t fun and it certainly wasn’t uplifting to have to take shit from customers or clean the restrooms. But it was a job and I was fine with doing it.

      What she is saying is that for her porn is a better job because she gets to do something she enjoys and make more money. By comparison, waitressing was more degrading for her. She’s not denigrating low-skill, low-wage work, just saying people are wrong for assuming porn is more degrading.

      1. I worked a service job a grocery store for 5 years while going to school.

        Same here.

        Let’s just say that I’d rather be banging chicks on camera than humping product and fronting shelves for the umpteenth time that day.

        1. As a male you’d probably make about the same while work only slightly less in porn.

          1. I still see that as win-win.

            1. Me too, unless I’m worried about future employment in a puritan-based society.

      2. GMSM nails it. This is about preference and subjectivity and she simply states that other people are wrong to be able to decide what is degrading and what is acceptable. She uses an example that clarifies this by pointing out that TO HER waitressing made her feel degraded and porn acting did not.

    2. Red Tony is playing moral cop again.

      1. I never said she was immoral, only that she shouldn’t call other jobs degrading.

        You are so fucking retarded, how do you feed yourself? How do you manage to find the box you live in? You don’t even have animal level intelligence. You just have these bizarre and unpredictable reactions.

        1. You don’t know the meaning of “degrading” then.

          You’re an idiot, John. I can’t wait for some more of your predictions.

          1. And the completely bizarre and unpredictable reactions continue. You don’t even seem to have any instincts.

    3. “How fucking dare she say people who work for a living and do things like serve her food, clean her toilets and a million other things that make life possible are degrading themselves.”

      Meh, you twisted her approach for reasons only known to you. Working for other people can be a crap shoot of professionalism or outright degradation. You act as if working for other people comes with no pitfalls or bullshit.

      “not everyone is as comfortable with being a whore as you are so they have to do manual labor.”

      The problem is likely less the ‘comfortable-with-being-a-whore’ part and more about being too fucking ugly to be a successful whore.

      1. I know plenty of women who are good looking enough to be whores and choose not to. I don’t think many people who want to be whores choose not to be.

        1. Everybody at some time is a whore, John. Most escape the stigma because they insert a hamburger and a movie or 6 shots of vodka rather than cash between the before and after.

          1. Rightly or wrongly, society draws a pretty bright line between metaphorical whore and actual whore.

    4. She didn’t say all of those jobs are degrading, she said that she found her job degrading, which seems very much like the sort of personal judgement anyone is entitled to make. Where do you get off telling her other wise?

      1. Why did she find them “degrading” if not because they were degrading jobs? The implication is only people who want to be exploited do those jobs when they could fuck for a living.

        1. I’m with paranoid android. You’re reading way to far into what she said.

          1. Maybe so. Without actually hearing it, it is hard to tell. Beyond that, I find the whole idea that someone would find working for a living to be “degrading” offensive. What is degrading about it?

            Even if she means what you guys say, I still find her statement to be pretty wrong headed.

        2. She said her boss treated her like shit. Good enough for me.

          1. So what? That doesn’t make the job degrading, it makes your boss an asshole.

            I don’t know maybe she is this wonderful understanding person who thinks everyone who works a minimum wage job is doing just great it is just that it isn’t for her. I don’t know. I haven’t met her.

            But isn’t it also possible that she is a snotty bitch who views those sorts of jobs as beneath her and anyone who does t hem as suckers? I think that is the more likely conclusion you can draw from her calling those jobs degrading.

            1. The thing about the quote that makes me 100% okay with it is that she’s talking about herself, and explicitly contrasting how she felt about the level of degradation involved in two specific jobs she actually had. It’s specific and it’s a specific response to people saying porn is degrading.

              1. The context of her responding to people saying “porn is degrading” is a good point Nikki. That makes me change my opinion of it. I didn’t think about that it was in response to the accusation what she did was degrading. When you think of it that way, she was defending herself, not just attacking others.

                So point taken.

              2. What Nikki said.

            2. I have to agree with John. One of the things I was trained to so when looking at language is to notice markedness. If her meaning was as the majority here claim then she would have more likely phrased her statement as I felt more degraded as a waitress than I ever did doing porn.”

              But she chose to employ a chain of four adjectives in her noun phrase “minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job”. You don’t do that unless there is specific pragmatic reason. To do so would violate Grice’s maxim of quantity.

              1. Thank you HM,

                You made my argument better than I could.

                Nikki,

                I have changed my mind. Even in context, she is not saying what you guys say she is. HM nailed it.

              2. She has nowhere near your skill in writing so it makes zero sense to nitpick the fairly obvious.

                1. She has nowhere near your skill in writing so it makes zero sense to nitpick the fairly obvious.

                  It’s not about writing skill, it’s about observations many linguists have made when investigating how people talk and how they express what they mean. Again, this quote is her speaking to her interviewer, the immediacy of face-to-face speech make it much more likely that her words were closer to her pre-filtered, internal thoughts on the matter.

                  1. HM,

                    I’m not saying that what you’re saying is necessarily false (obviously, given that I am not this young woman nor do I know her). That said, I think it’s reasonable to think that she used that many descriptors to, as Nikki said, emphasize the sort of “normal,” respectable job that most people think a woman in her position should have.

                    1. That said, I think it’s reasonable to think that she used that many descriptors to, as Nikki said, emphasize the sort of “normal,” respectable job that most people think a woman in her position should have.

                      That’s a good point. I still wonder what’s “degrading” about it. It would have been better to state “porn is just as degrading as waitressing” Meaning, it’s not degrading at all.

                    2. It would have been better to state “porn is just as degrading as waitressing”

                      But it wouldn’t make any sense for her to say that. She could say, “waitressing is just as degrading as porn,” but not the other way around, because it’s her interlocutor who would be presupposing porn was degrading (and waitressing wasn’t).

              3. But she chose to employ a chain of four adjectives in her noun phrase “minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job”. You don’t do that unless there is specific pragmatic reason. To do so would violate Grice’s maxim of quantity.

                I still think it’s a stretch. At worst, she’s implicitly saying, “yeah, so I think the kind of job you think I should probably have instead is worse, based on the experience I have with one such job.” Is it bitchy? Sure, maybe a little, but I don’t have a problem with her being bitchy in response to bitches.

                1. At worst, she’s implicitly saying, “yeah, so I think the kind of job you think I should probably have instead is worse, based on the experience I have with one such job.”

                  Perhaps, but that doesn’t explain the lexical shift from “For people to tell me that doing porn and having sex, which I love, is more degrading than being a waitress” to “I felt more degraded in a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job than I ever did doing porn.”

                  Again, everything I have ever read about this phenomenon suggests that she is specifying why she thinks waitress is more degrading to her than being a porn actress. That is waitressing is a low status job where you have to cater to your costumers needs while making minimum wage; whereas, porn isn’t a job like that.

                  If you could offer a rival hypothesis that is more plausible to explain her lexical shift, then I’d be happy to concede your point.

                  1. Again, everything I have ever read about this phenomenon suggests that she is specifying why she thinks waitress is more degrading to her than being a porn actress. That is waitressing is a low status job where you have to cater to your costumers needs while making minimum wage; whereas, porn isn’t a job like that.

                    I don’t disagree with this point. I disagree that this is “entitled.” She’s supposed to be explaining why she thinks waitressing is worse than porn. That’s the point of the quote. Why does expressing that preference and the reasoning behind it equal entitlement? (John keeps saying she is shitting on “working for a living,” but…she is working for a living.)

                    1. Why does expressing that preference and the reasoning behind it equal entitlement?

                      After thinking about your question for a while, I guess that it’s entitlement because of the classism in her statement. She seems to be saying that she is “entitled” to a job that is not “blue collar” or “low-paying”, otherwise why would she feel degraded working in such a career? Yes, she mentions her working conditions, but contrast those to the reality of working on a porn set. It’s not all orgasms and rainbows; many who have written about the experience mention the 18 hour days under hot stage lights while twisted into uncomfortable positions just so the camera can get the right angle for the shot. Not to mention that porn directors can be just as demeaning and brusque as any restaurant managers. Fuck, just about everyone who worked with Max Hardcore described him as a sadistic psychopath.

                      So comparing the realities of the two jobs, it seems to me that what she found degrading about waitressing was the low salary and that she was “worth” more than what the restaurant was willing to pay her.

                      *shrugs* I dunno. As this thread has proven YMMV.

                    2. She gave some reasons for why she found it degrading beyond the fact that it’s blue-collar.

                      And what exactly is porn considered? White collar?

                      (I hope someone gets that)

                  2. Doesn’t going to college to get a higher education by default mean you think jobs that don’t require such learning/education as beneath you?

              4. Those linguistic wikipedia pages fail so badly at any succinct definition of the topic.

                1. Those linguistic wikipedia pages fail so badly at any succinct definition of the topic.

                  IRONY

                2. Those linguistic wikipedia pages fail so badly at any succinct definition of the topic.

                  My apologies. Perhaps SIL International’s Glossary of Linguistic Terms would be a better source?

                  1. HM, that is a marked improvement.

                    1. HM, that is a marked improvement.

                      *applause* (That is one of the times I can truly write “LOL” and have it reflect reality!)

            3. possible that she is a snotty bitch who views those sorts of jobs as beneath her and anyone who does t hem as suckers

              It’s also possible that she finds the job beneath her, but knows that it is a perfectly acceptable and decent job for some other people. Surely you think that a job as a fry cook at McDonalds is beneath you, John. If you don’t, you’re a dope. Lots of people find low wage service jobs beneath them. That’s why they learn to do other things and get better jobs. It doesn’t mean that they all think that people who do work those jobs are bad people or something. Just that they can do better.

            4. I assumed the degrading part of the job is the same as what so many people find degrading about jobs – you not only have to put up with a lot of shit because you need the money but then you have to live with the fact that you now know you are the sort of person who will eat a lot of shit for money.

              But the thing is, jobs aren’t shitty jobs in and of themselves – plenty of waitresses or maids or sewer workers are happy with their jobs. But if you aren’t happy with your job, it’s a shitty job regardless of how many other people think you should have nothing to complain about. Ask Obama if he doesn’t have a shitty job. It’s degrading to the human spirit to feel trapped in a job you don’t like.

    5. Really, John? Fuck her because she didn’t like low wage service jobs? What you just said about her is far more offensive than anything she said about low wage jobs.

    6. How is what she’s saying so controversial? Most people don’t want to be janitors or construction workers or coal miners or flip burgers. That’s why they go to school in the first place.

      Hell, most of the posters here did those shitty blue-collar, minimum wage, service jobs and worked their way out cause they wanted something “better”.

      (Obviously better is a relative term)

    7. She felt degraded. She didn’t say everyone who does it must be degrading themselves. Porn is for her, not for everyone else. Blue collar work is for some others, not for her.

      And you kinda lose any ground by telling her to fuck off and calling her a whore. What’s up your ass today, anyway?

  17. Is she an Economics major?

  18. “I worked as a waitress…in high school and not only did it interfere with my school where I was barely sleeping and wasn’t doing my work, but also I was making $400 a month after taxes.

    This is why we need a $15 minimum wage and more funemployment. Because our young girls will be bullied into porn trafficking.

  19. $400 a month as a waitress? I used to make that off three shifts when I was a waiter.

    1. Yeah. Either she was getting ripped off by her employer or she was one snotty bitch as a waitress who never got any tips.

    2. She didn’t say she was a good waitress.

    3. Depends on where she was working since tip is a percentage of the tab.

      It is also possible that she’s repeating the earnings she reported to the IRS as opposed to her actual earnings. I suspect that few people here would condemn her for that.

      1. It is also possible that she’s repeating the earnings she reported to the IRS as opposed to her actual earnings.

        She didn’t say she was a good waitress.

  20. Obviously, it should be illegal to have sex before the age of 21.

  21. Well, this thread turned into a retarded shitshow awful fast.

    1. Seconded

    2. What are you talking about? Not one mention of abortion.

      1. Or Captain Janeway getting Chakotay circumcised with a New York style pizza

    3. I thought we hit peak retard in the transgender bathroom thread, but here we are.

    4. And Epi’s not even here.

    5. Too bad that a thread about a coed porn star had to deteriorate like this.

      1. Yeah, you derailed it quite nicely. You really are one of the more successful griefers. Especially when you can get John on your side in loud drunk uncle mode.

        1. I think it’s relevant that Reason’s idea of a libertarian coalition includes coed porn stars but not icky right-wing fundies.

          1. but not icky right-wing fundies

            They let you prattle on about your bullshit all the time.

            You are not a libertarian, you don’t believe in self-ownership, and you advocate state force based on religious beliefs constantly.

            Do not presume to lecture anyone here on libertarianism.

            1. I’ve been here for seven years and I still don’t fully understand what it means to be a libertarian.

              1. I’ve been here for seven years and I still don’t fully understand what it means to be a libertarian.

                That’s light-years better than not being one and trying to pervert the meaning for your own ends.

              2. Libertarianism means. . .never having to say you’re sorry.

                1. “Hey fuck you man, it’s a free country”

                  -libertarian

                  1. So you do get it!

      2. …says the person who messed it up because nobody thought about the poor neglected soconz. LOL, Eddie, LOL.

  22. I’m going to wait until I review her work before judging the merits of her argument. It will be highly subjective.

  23. I finally found some samples of her work. She’s as cute as a button.

    1. Are there porn critics, who review porn and rate it based on its onanistic efficacy? Using, instead of increasing numbers of stars to the top, fractional clocks at the top and ten clocks at the bottom?

      1. Didn’t Penthouse use a stylized penis symbol, instead of the 1-5 star rating?

        I only read it for the articles…

    2. I am sure she is. She is 18 years old. How could she not be?

      But I bet she won’t be so cute after three or four years of doing porn. That line of work tends to age people.

      1. It’s not the dicks that age them, it’s the coke and partying. Hopefully she’s smart enough to avoid too much of that. On the other hand, she didn’t know any better to avoid doing a scene for the Facial Abuse dirtbags, so…poor girl.

        1. Yeah, didn’t anyone tell her only the old, ugly chicks have to do those scenes? The cute teenagers have a choice.

        2. Or Rocco Sifredi.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oyv97jZaOWs at 7:35

          Still, Samson turned out gorgeous tho.

        3. That’s an unfortunate decision.

    3. Links please.

  24. Well, this thread turned into a retarded shitshow awful fast.

    That poor, delicate little flower has no business pretending she owns herself. And SEX… my lord, I feel wooooozy.

    1. “You have the vapors, don’t you? Here, why don’t you come lie down on the couch, and I’ll have Dr. jesse….administer to you….”

      *Dr. jesse walks in, clearly with nothing on under his lab coat*

      *pr0n sax and guitar music starts – Bow Chicka BOW OW*

  25. Co-ed porn and you guys have only managed 176 posts? I am disappointed in you.

    1. We’ll do better next time?

      1. You’re excused. I can only imagine the rest are in their bunk.

  26. This was pretty cool when I first heard about it on RedEye, like, a week ago or something.

    Sherrod Small (I think) had the best take – “Hey – this is a case where she actually IS DOING PORN TO PAY FOR COLLEGE!” lulz ensued

    1. This gives me hope that there really are hookers with golden hearts and strippers who really are going to college.

      1. I’m only 10 credits away from my Criminal Justice degree.

        1. The irony – it burns

          1. “Credits” is what Warty calls “bodies.”

        2. Can’t you get your parole officer to call your interaction with him an “internship”?

        1. The thing is, if I had ever met one that I wanted to marry, I would have married a former stripper or hooker. Wouldn’t want her to be one after we were married. But what do I care what she did before?

          But I still don’t view either as any kind of a good way to make a living or something anyone with other options should choose. As open minded as I am, I am not sure I would want to marry someone who was a hooker because they just didn’t like doing work they thought was beneath them.

          1. Having a boss over me at one time drove me to believe that it was beneath me so I became a businessman for 25 years.

            1. Unless your business involved screwing, good for you.

              1. Well, no. I worked an Honest John-type of job. Most entrepreneurs want to be their own boss for a reason and it isn’t JUST about the money.

                1. It is never about the money. Working for yourself rarely gets you rich. But it does make you happier.

          2. A dominatrix’s work is beneath her, too.

  27. It’s specific and it’s a specific response to people saying porn is degrading.

    Thank you. I had no idea that was not completely obvious.

    1. That is because it is not. HM completely demolished that fantasy. Here is his post in case you missed it.

      Heroic Mulatto|2.25.14 @ 1:21PM|#

      I have to agree with John. One of the things I was trained to so when looking at language is to notice markedness. If her meaning was as the majority here claim then she would have more likely phrased her statement as I felt more degraded as a waitress than I ever did doing porn.”

      But she chose to employ a chain of four adjectives in her noun phrase “minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job”. You don’t do that unless there is specific pragmatic reason. To do so would violate Grice’s maxim of quantity.

      There is nothing obvious about it all. It only seems that way because you like her and want to pretend she didn’t say what she clearly said.

      1. ….and you want to pretend she “clearly said” what others don’t think was clear at all, which I why you’re RED MNG at times like this, John.

        I’m recommending you….put down the keyboard and take….three….steps….back….John.

        You’re among friends. But not for long…

        1. Take it up with Mulatto. It is not even my argument, though I wish it was. You tell me why what he said was wrong? I don’t see it. I conceded the argument to Nikki, until I read his post.

  28. Missing alt-text: I had a chance to put up a really awesome picture; here is a picture of a university.

    1. +1 caption contest

  29. Oh noes. She held in lesser esteem, Joe and Jane Six Pack. For whatever reason.

    How ever will we go on?

  30. But she chose to employ a chain of four adjectives in her noun phrase “minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job”. You don’t do that unless there is specific pragmatic reason. To do so would violate Grice’s maxim of quantity.

    “Circle the wagons! Break out the MUMBO-JUMBO!”

    So, she really is explicitly saying honest blue collar work is degrading and humiliating, AND THAT’S WHY SHE IS SPENDING 60k PER YEAR ON TUITION AT DUKE. No sacrifice is too great, in order to escape the drudgery and degradation of a life as a self-supporting blue collar worker. Let the wedding bells peal!

    Oh, the entitlement!

    1. I’m on board that it’s marked. I just think it’s marked as bitchy in a completely acceptable and not “entitled” way.

    2. Let me put it in simple terms Brooks. If she had meant what you say she meant, she would have said “well I found working as a waitress just as degrading as doing porn”. Instead she said ” I felt more degraded in a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job”.

      Why didn’t she say “waitress”? Why all of the string of adjectives? Because she was making a larger point about those jobs in general and not just her job.

      You can pretend she did that because she likes adjectives. But that really doesn’t make any sense.

      1. What blue collar job feels as good as sex?

        1. Quality Assurance at the sex-bot factory?

        2. A lot of them, depending on who the sex is with.

          And as I say below, degrading means something much more profound than just saying it is not fun.

        3. What blue collar job feels as good as sex?

          I have a feeling this guy could tell us.

      2. If she had meant what you say she meant, she would have said

        Ah John, ever the mindreader. I’m so glad you know she couldn’t possibly have meant anything else unless she used the wording YOU would have used.

        Because she was making a larger point about those jobs in general and not just her job.

        And how DARE she not like those jobs more than the one that pays her more for doing something she enjoys without making her feel like crap! The NERVE of some people, deciding for themselves what jobs treat them better than others! I’m glad you’re the Ultimate Arbiter of Degradation, or else there might have been a problem with deciding things on her behalf.

      3. Because people are telling her that she should work a job that matches those four adjectives, instead of the job she currently has.

        If she meant what YOU say, she would have said more than she had. You’re attributing some larger argument to her, which she may well believe. But what a mindreader you are to suss it out from a simple rhetorical flourish.

  31. There’s whores, and then there’s soccer moms.

    1. Pina colada’s buy a lot of soccer mom, buddy.

  32. Ooo, a college girl porn thread! This should be good. Let me scroll up and read what I am sure are fun comments…

    1. Fist! No! Come back!

      [opens internet closet to find him]

      1. College girl porn has been ruined forever.

  33. Mika Krzyzewski would’ve been a great stage name.

  34. I just think it’s marked as bitchy in a completely acceptable and not “entitled” way.

    That was a reference to H Mulatto’s comment at the very beginning of the thread.

    I find it fascinating that people who would see nothing untoward in an explicit admission on her part of enrolling at Duke to escape the drudgery of a life as a waitress or charwoman are so overwrought by her decision to fund that program by fucking for money, on camera.

    1. I couldn’t care less that she is a porn actress. I am offend by her claim working for a living is degrading. She could be on full scholarship and dress like a nun every day and I would find that sentence offensive.

      Good for her that she wants something better. But you can want something better without thinking manual labor is degrading.

      1. Should you aspire to a minimum wage, blue-collar, low paying, service job? Hell, we have to get the Mexicans to pick tomatoes because most Americans won’t and I understand why.

        1. I think you aspire to whatever you want. Is there something wrong with people who aspire to do such jobs? I don’t think so. And if the Mexicans do those jobs because Americans think such work is beneath them, good for the Mexicans and shame on the Americans.

          There is nothing degrading about making an honest living. Is it fun? Is it what you would want to do forever? Probably not. But saying something is hard or unpleasant is not the same as saying it is degrading. Degrading implies that doing it “degrades you” as in makes you a lesser person. And that is nothing but leftist horse shit. And shame on anyone on this board for buying it.

          1. I asked you directly. Do YOU, Moral John, aspire to a minimum wage, blue-collar, low-paying, service job?

            1. No. But so what? I don’t aspire to be a Broadway singer either. But that doesn’t make being one degrading or the people who do it lesser for wanting be such.

              To make my point again, since you apparently missed it, not wanting to do something or even aspire to do such, does not make that thing degrading. Degrading is a different word with much deep connotations.

              1. That type of work lends itself to a repetitive and unrewarding grind that can lead people to feel undignified and limited. Not always but this is a common complaint which has lead many into entrepreneurship.

                Now, should people who feel undignified be insulted and maligned? Of course not. But there is no reason why certain jobs cannot be described with less than optimistic verbiage and as a stepping stone to better things. You’ve done the same with sex work.

                If you are a blue collar worker- my atheist nature sez god bless ya- I don’t look down on, you, the person at all and if you are unhappy with your blue collar job I’l be darn understanding. Lots of reason why folks have to do jobs they dislike or despise.

                Ultimately, this young lady was afforded more control over her life and finances through the porn than a menial waitress job which I find completely fathomable.

          2. I agree. I was also offended by that statement. I worked in food service for years and it’s hard and unpleasant, but IMO only a very arrogant person would call it degrading.

            1. Indeed, both my step-father and my wife worked just about every job in the food business. It’s hard work, but to call it, or any other contractual labor, degradation just stinks of Marxist “wage slavery” arguments.

            2. Indeed, both my step-father and my wife worked just about every job in the food business. It’s hard work, but to call it, or any other contractual labor, degradation just stinks of Marxist “wage slavery” arguments.

    2. I find it fascinating that people who would see nothing untoward in an explicit admission on her part of enrolling at Duke to escape the drudgery of a life as a waitress or charwoman are so overwrought by her decision to fund that program by fucking for money, on camera.

      I don’t give a fuck what she does for money. Likewise, I think you missed my thoughts about spending 60,000 bucks for Duke upthread when I made the comparison between Kias and Boxters.

  35. I used to be a gravedigger, but couldn’t handle feeling like my work was always beneath me!

    Thanks, I’ll be here all week…

  36. Let me put it in simple terms Brooks.

    A man’s got to know his limitations.

    1. And that of his audience.

  37. After the CollegiateACB post, Lauren reached out to Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta. Moneta affirmed that the University’s policy was to be supportive of all student identities. Although he worked with Lauren to ensure her safety and security on campus, he noted to me that such incidents tend to arise on online forums.

    “I still think of the Internet as the wild west,” Moneta said. “It seems like complete anarchy. Even when there are established institutions or systems on the Internet, like Twitter or Facebook, the vile comments still bubble up to the top. I like to believe that these comments represent the 5 percent and not the 95 percent. I hope they do.”

    The interwebs are too free for the freedom-loving vice-president of student affairs. Twitter and Facebook are “institutions”? Sure they are, just like Myspace and Geocities. The interwebs herds tend to migrate.

  38. Porn Star Wishes the GOP Would Get More Libertarian

    Future Articles:

    “Fred Phelps Wants GOP to more Christian and anti-gay”

    “Maoist wants Democrats to be more Communist”

    1. Fred Phelps is a Democrat, always has been. He wants the Democrats to be more Christian and anti-gay.

      1. Damn I knew I shouldn’t have used Phelps in that hypothetical example.

  39. There is a measure of irony in the fact that a porn star goes to Duke when you reflect on just how much Duke sucks.

    1. There’s a measure of expected behavior for her wishing the GOP would be more libertarian, considering the Ron Paul and Rand Paul went to Duke.

      1. Yeah, right, considering they’re both extreme social conservatives. It’s LIBERTARIANS who need to be more libertarian

  40. Lordy, what is going on in here?

    *backs away*

    1. RUN! GET TO THE CHOPPAH!

    2. Calling PBR Streetgang, Calling PBR Streetgang, this is Almighty, over…

      1. Copy that Citizen Nothing. Exterminate the brutes.

  41. I’m not sure what the point of the “waitressing is degrading” quote was. If it’s to say that waitressing is degrading, but we don’t ban that, then why does Reason try to harp on the “porn isn’t degrading” idea so much since it isn’t relevant to them whether it should be legal?

    1. * relevant to whether

  42. I don’t think she’ll have trouble finding a job in the future. There’s so much porn out there, and so many people doing it, that it boils down to this – if I can’t find you doing porn on the internet, that just means you are into such bizarre fetishes, that I don’t even know the search terms.

    If I can’t find a legit porn of you, I ain’t trusting you with my children!

  43. 343 comments! Bwahaha!

    I got news for you: the bitch ain’t gonna scroll through and pick the best comment and fuck his brains out.

    Bwahahaw!

      1. Thanx HeMu — Gotta check it out after work!

  44. Wow that is really sad dude. Seriously.
    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

    1. Thanx RJM – I’ll check it out after work.

  45. It’s really frustrating that when I tell people I’m in College Republicans they immediately assume I’m a bigot and a homophobe.

    Well, there’s a reason for that.

    1. People making these assumptions are bigoted?

      1. no, but statistically, that reaction is fairly predictable to be accurate.

        “Stereotypes don’t come from nowhere… ” My 13th Law…

  46. So a young girl at a haughty institution did porn and became the butt of jokes. This is the definition of a “dog bites man” story. I believe this is her play to stay at Duke, a private university, which may be able to expel her for conduct unbecoming of their institution(as if the entitled rich kids weren’t unbecoming). Playing up a misogynistic culture, tearing down the GOP, while partnering with the LBGT groups, I’m pretty sure she stole the Democrat playbook.

  47. Well this must be one of the reasons there are no libertarian women. One expresses her libertarian beliefs and her preference for a higher-paying job over a lower-paying job, and is met with insults.

    Tomorrow, an Hispanic man will express his delight in becoming an entrepreneur and finding ways to lower costs, and will be scolded appropriately.

  48. So…AAALLLLL this comes down to a matter of, “Ehh, I hope she digs in for libertarian candidates and principles. Otherwise, she irritated me with things she said, so I’m not keen on associating with her.”?

    I mean, that’s what it seems like, and it kinda encapsulates my opinion so far.

  49. Go for it, Lauren. It’s your body. It’s your choice.
    Why waste it on a drunken Duke Frat boy.

    1970 Duke Alumnus.

    1. Um, she’s probably fucked a classmate. She says she loves sex after all.

      1. I fucked a classmate in college and I love sex. Fuck off, sock puppet.

  50. She shows immense courage … while calling out all the social conservatives masquerading as libertarians. Stand and be counted.

    1. Oh no, bad social conservatives who want to have loving, monogamous relationships. That’s not liberty, fucking for money and on camera is!

  51. Bravo for Lauren.

  52. “I’m a libertarian who is forced to play within party lines because, at this point, our party isn’t strong enough to get anything done without the backing of the Republican Party. It’s really frustrating that when I tell people I’m in College Republicans they immediately assume I’m a bigot and a homophobe. Duke Republicans is completely pro-gay rights. Calling somebody a Republican is almost an insult and, personally, I hope the party moves toward a more libertarian style wherein they give rights to gays and more respect to women, and it’s not so driven by religion or by theology.”

    Spot On, and my feelings, EXACTLY!
    If the Republicans and conservative libertarians would only cut the religious and homophobic crap out of their agenda, popularity would soar!

    … in my never-so-humble opinion (imnsho)

  53. “But she went on the media offensive about her extracurricular activities after a friend leaked the info to his fraternity bros and rumors began to circulate on a college message board.”
    http://cdn.memegenerator.net/i…..097687.jpg

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.