Penthouse, Cherry, Lily Cade, Ela Darling, Missy Martinez What did ya miss?

NL- What have you missed? Click on the title to read the story…


The Other Girls of Penthouse 
By Lainie Speiser

 

 

Ela Darling Speaks Out- Cal/OSHA, AIM, Employment Status more…
by Jon

 

MISSY MARTINEZ INTERVIEW by Jon

 

 

Porn Stars are not a Hazmat Team
by Lily Cade

 

 

Cherry Reviewed- This one is a BUY

Reviewer- Pornoissuer

 

14 thoughts on “Penthouse, Cherry, Lily Cade, Ela Darling, Missy Martinez What did ya miss?

  1. Ela Darling and Lily Cade seem like 2 of the smarter girls making porn. If they actually answered the questions put to them (and it was not a ghost writer) then I am impressed with their knowledge and communication skills.

    Its like 2 Jeremy Steels with tits (and without the consiracy stuff).

  2. Michael Whiteacre says:

    I can personally attest to Ela and Lily’s intelligence, wit and dedication. They are inspirations to me.

  3. jeremysteele11 says:

    Regarding Ela Darling’s hypothetical about an “HIV+” performer/”employee” being able to sue for discrimination if another performer doesn’t want to work with them… Is this really possible? I’m not doubting that such idiocy could extend from OSHA’s logic, but first of all, what employer in the straight industry would hire a “HIV+” person to work with an “HIV-” person? I know OSHA’s intention is to apply the gay industry’s standard of no testing and mandatory condoms, but is HIV status really still irrelevant because of condom use?

    Based on the belief that HIV is deadly and the conclusion that a person has it, the idea that a condom = “protection” is ludicrous, considering that HIV sized particles are smaller than the void holes in condoms and that condoms fail at a monstrously higher rate than the rate of HIV tranmissions during bareback sex.

    Also, as I will write about in the future, “STDs” should be from this point labeled “STIs” (infections), unless a person is actually ravaged by an actual disease that doesn’t go away as a result of whatever infection….

    But my point in regards to Ela’s point is that the word “discrimination” is actually a positive word when applied correctly, and practiced on a regular basis. A girl may choose not to work with a guy because he has bad hygeine, a bad attitude, can’t perform well, maybe doesn’t look too good aescetically, and choosing not to work with someone for these reasons are examples of “discrimination” and their freedom of choice.

    As OSHA chose to make LANGUAGE the focus of our last meeting, so should we all relentlessly focus on language and the erroneous interpretations and applications that have thuggishly hustled and manipulated us.

    Eventually, as we gradually experience the corruption and ineptitude of government and other so-called “authorities”, we will liberate our minds and ourselves from their shackles of ignorance.

  4. Michael Whiteacre says:

    @Jeremy – You ask, “what employer in the straight industry would hire a “HIV+” person to work with an “HIV-” person?” In a mandatory condom world, and absent a testing regime, they might not even know. And if they do know, there are additional problems.

    The AIM system was 100% voluntary, but universally observed. It was voluntary because the mandating of pre employment HIV testing is already ILLEGAL.  In California, it is illegal for an employer to use HIV status as a condition of employment. In the Brave New World that Weinstein et al propose, all adult producers are “employers”, all performers “employees”, performers can not be tested as a condition of employment, and an HIV-positive performer can not be fired.

    That is why, you;ll recall, Eli Cross was absolutely incredulous at the June 7th meeting: “I understand that what Cal-OSHA is saying is that our old system of internal mandatory testing, which caught HIV and stopped it, was not good enough. Instead, what you are mandating is that anyone who comes to work, to work only with a condom, has to be allowed to work whether they have HIV or not, and then, if they infect someone, after the fact, or after the fact if there is an exposure event, then we have to test them—and this is your common sense approach to our industry which has policed itself effectively for years; is that what I really understand you saying? You show up with a condom, and HIV or not, and we have to employ you? This is your solution? Honestly?

    And yes, as you pointed out at that same meeting, the notion that a condom represents an impermeable barrier, or that condom use categorically “prevents” the transmission of potentially infections materials and STIs is patently false.

  5. jeremysteele11 says:

    Ela’s hypothetical was one that she knew another person was “HIV+” but was supposedly required to work with the person, anyway, based on “anti-discrimination” laws.

    Someone needs to draft a “common sense” amendment.. We’re talking about extremely ignorant, lazy and sloppy interpretations of language. If a condom manufacturer said their rubbers “prevent” pregnancy and STDS, they’d be sued out of existence. But OSHA’s uses this very language! We need to deal with them the way we would deal with clueless and unruly children.

  6. Michael Whiteacre says:

    @Jeremy – Under that scenario, Ela would be fired and replaced, and the HIV+ performer retained for the scene (so as to not unfairly discriminate against a member of protected class).

  7. If a female talent has done 200-300 (or more) scenes and none of them have ever been with a black talent is she discriminating?

    Most likely she is. She can hide it by saying “I don’t find black men attractive” or “my fans don’t want to see that” or “my parents would be mad” or whatever excuse they use. Its still probably discrimination.

    Now apply this to the new HIV ruling fiasco in the works. If a HIV+ talent goes to work and puts on a condom can’t the female refuse to work with him by just saying “he smells bad” or “his cocks too small (or big)” or some other excuse to avoid being labeled as discriminating?

  8. jeremysteele11 says:

    “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason” needs to apply, as it has. But it’s all moot anyway. We performers are all independent contractors, and if any porn company differs in this opinion then they can deal with those idiots at OSHA and those whores at the AHF working on behalf of the drug industry.

  9. What’s with Eli Cross and his passionate involvement anyway? I have’nt seen that dude’s name on a boxcover since “Icon” in 2008. I figured he got out while the gettin’ was good.

  10. A vote in the righr direction for Freedom of Speach…

    Court: Calif. can’t ban violent video game sales By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press 1 hr 8 mins ago WASHINGTON –The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to “restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed” despite complaints about graphic violence. On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors’ rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed. “No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. “But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction. More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010. Unlike depictions of “sexual conduct,” Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children’s fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White. Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said. “Certainly the books we give children to read —or read to them when they are younger —contain no shortage of gore,” Scalia added. But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn’t there. “The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that “the freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians,” Thomas wrote.

  11. Michael Whiteacre says:

    Are you listening, California?

  12. I have no problem with minors having “M” video games regulated so they need a parent or guardian present when they buy or rent the game. Violence should be well thought out and be something a person has to really think about morally before they engage in such a thing.

    Video game violence desensitizes our kids into thinking punching someone in the throat, stabbing them and letting the wind out of them, or shooting them with a double tap to the back of the head execution style is no big deal.

  13. @Karmafan

    First of all, the point isn’t about video games, its about the court up-holding freedom of speech…

    2nd of all, bullshit. There has been no credible studies linking video games to violence on the flip side there has been at least one Harvard peer reviewed study that states the contrary…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

TrafficHolder.com - Buy & Sell Adult Traffic