New Provider in Porn - Lavie

[Mojojo]

Originally Posted by GracePreston

I think you're missing my point--- the point is.. just because it is out there, doesn't automatically make it fair game.

No i perfectly understood your point, however with respect to the board guidelines one is a violation of it and the other is not...
Sounds like a good topic for a new thread.

[gptxman]

DELETE

[Guest031919]

I imagine that if she wanted it posted, she would have posted it. Though no actual board rules were broken.. One has to hold themselves up to their own moral compass and not have anyone else tell them if something is right or wrong... But decide for yourself.

She's one of the nicest and most open, honest and genuine providers on this board that I've had the pleasure of exchanging references with. It pains me to see this. I hope she stays open.

[8701]

Sounds like someone has a motive to harm her!

[dominos]

Man let's just leave this sweet, perfect bodied, freak nasty angel alone :-)

[pathfinder420]

At the core of it, I think there's a problem. Yes it is "public", however, her name is not attached to the video that I can find, she did not reference it in her ad or her website, and she doesn't even use the photos (which she could have easily cropped out the watermark). Other providers who have done video work have brought that information to this website on their own. It was not found by another member then shared on this website.

So I think it is very obvious that she did not want this brought up here. For whatever reason, she kept that part of her life separate from her provider. Being a professional pornstar and being a provider are two different things. GDP has a 18 USC Section 2257 Compliance Notice, which means they have her real name and information on record like any other normal day job. We do our very best to keep this life away from anything that connects us to our normal, day-to-day life. And whatever you may think of porn and pornstars, it is a taxable income that is tied in with real names and government paperwork.

[andymarksman]

Can anyone explain why bensonscott and fallblau11 got banned? I believe they expressed their candid opinions without being derogatory toward the OP in any way, shape, or form. I am not stating the OP did anything wrong under the forum guidelines, but I do feel what he has done here is extremely inappropriate and in another sense, quite petty. Did the OP really have to dig up all of the "dirty laundries" of a girl who barely turned 19 in order to demonstrate how "perceptive" or "analytical" he is while scourging all over the continents of porno? Putting aside the issue of privacy, this kind of tactic is so tastless even the Chinese paparazzis won't employ it. Just my 2 cents.

[pyramider]

They might have gotten popped for another situation.

[TexTushHog]

I can understand those who suggest that the provider should control connecting her porn work to her escort work. But I'm not sure how realistic that really is. Once one does porn for public consumption, one makes the implicit bargain -- or at least accepts the risk -- that any aspect of his or her life may well become liked to that performance. That is true whether one works in a Dairy Queen, a law firm, or as an escort. I seems to me that the notoriety just goes with the territory.

[oldbutstillgoing]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Can anyone explain why bensonscott and fallblau11 got banned? .

Read Mojojo's comments earlier. Duplicates handles. Same guy. Not very smart

[oldbutstillgoing]

If she has any financial interest in ownership of the photo, she should ask they be taken down. As the op indicated one needs to be a member to view them, then they are not public domain and should not be posted without permission.

That aside, I think it was bad judgment to post this at all. If she wanted others to know she is in porn, she should be the one to post it. Guys are not allowed to post the location where some of the providers on here dance without the ladies permission. I see this as the same thing. Especially as porn is legal and being a provider is not.

She may not care but that should be her choice, not his

[andymarksman]

Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

Read Mojojo's comments earlier. Duplicates handles. Same guy. Not very smart

Thanks! If that's the case, then I get it. But my impression is that they are not one and the same if you read their posts carefully.

[JuanBear4U]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Thanks! If that's the case, then I get it. But my impression is that they are not one and the same if you read their posts carefully.

They have ways of knowing man.

And dam hope the OP doesn't run her off with his post. Definitely want to check her out.

[jjwjcw]

If any of this was a concern to the woman she would not have gotten into any of the variations of the business. All I see is her getting fucked by one of maybe hundreds that ultimately will too.

[nosweat]

What wrong with her being in porn.. I kinda like watching her get fucked.. And would be happy to have a go myself..