Bonnie blue risky sexual behaviour whilst pregnant

[Jellysweets13]

If you’re not interested in discussing this then feel free to scroll on by.

A lot of us will know who Bonnie Blue is. The porn star who slept with 1000 men and various other stunts. Loves to rage bait especially to women.

She’s now pregnant, probably around 4-6 months.

If she’s to be believed she’s still working and filming and her latest stunt was to hold a baby shower in which she invited strangers to urinate over her and then have sex with her.

Obviously this has created a lot of outrage and disgust and there are comments everywhere online saying that she is not only sexualising her baby but that social services should be involved.

I’m not completely convinced that she actually doing these things for real. She has an X page showing clips, but it could all be fake or AI.

But let’s say for a moment that she really is having sex with strangers and letting them urinate on her. Where is the line drawn between her body her choice and saying that she’s putting the baby at risk and social services should be involved?

I’m very much usually of the opinion of women having autonomy and choice, but it seems like very risky behaviour and the child is going to have to endure a lot of negative comments and attention because of the choices the mother is making. She doesn’t need to do these things whilst pregnant she is a millionaire.

Yabu - her body her choice
Yanbu - it’s a social services case

Yes but what I mean is that unless you ban all pregnant women from having sex with anyone for the duration of their pregnancy, you can't really do anything about that.

Would it make you feel better if you knew that her baby shower prompted a phone call From SS to BB? Why? It’s basically a nothing action!
Yes. That would cheer me up. Actions have consequences.

In some states in America, yes. Over here, no.

Absolutely.

And if she endangered her unborn child that way (from the thing she has planned) and they were affected, I am sure she could be charged with child injury, or whatever the term is.

But she's not pregnant.

@RoseField1 is talking sense. Social services is not "The police for women you think are freaks" - at least, it shouldn't be. Social services for child protection are "is this child in danger, do we need to intervene". The threshold for state involvement in child protection is correctly very high. Families have to consent to support most of the time.

Yes, there's can be something icky about fetishising pregnancy, and the kind of sex-work BB does is based on shock value and seeming very risky and extreme. However, she's definitely spoken before about making sure people have STI checks before she actually works with them, and unlike a less-famous porn star/sex-worker, she has a lot of power and control to say no to anything she does not consent to.

Yes, it feels very contradictory to motherhood. However, as RoseField pointed out, as long as the STI risks are being controlled, the baby is relatively safe and is not actually being involved in what BB is up to, because it's not yet born.

Yes, social services can get involved at a pre-birth stage. If someone is using drugs, or is in a domestically abusive relationship, this will affect their body and the health of their unborn baby due to the chemicals and stress hormones and risk of injury to the baby. Consensual sex, even weird sex, is not going to have the same negative impact on the baby as mother is not feeling fear and trauma or being injured, even if you feel like she (BB) is being harmed.

Yes, social services can judge someone's ability to parent based on actions that are not parenting. Taking part in legal but freaky sex work is not necessarily going to impact on BB's parenting - she's not a parent yet, she's a mother-to-be, and the baby is not yet born.

Also these mentions of social services "radar" are laughable. Social services receive referrals, and act on those referrals. There's no "radar". Individual social workers might think "that sounds a bit dodgy" but short of people actually referring BB to her local council (wherever she lives...isn't she Australian?) and them deciding "yes, this meets the risk of harm enough for us to enquire further", there is no radar at all or action that would be taken.

Social workers are not waiting in the wings to scoop up all children born to weird or icky mothers, even if you think she's morally corrupt and perverted. It would be disproportionate even if they had the resources to do this.

Finally, maybe the child will be impacted by their mother being in porn. However, those of you saying this baby should be removed at birth because their extremely wealthy and famous mother worked through pregnancy in sex work; you'd have to make the argument to a judge that the child would have such an extremely dangerous and hard life (or is already having one, but as we noted above it's not actually experiencing very much of anything currently), that being removed from their birth parent is the only rational response from the state. It's a pretty high bar. We don't know how she will actually parent, and there's a duty to preserve families unless there is very high risks of actual harms.

How when a foetus isn't yet born and doesn't have the same rights as a born child in this country?

What about nuance and context. If everything isxss black and white then why do lawyers interpret the law.

I hope that social services are monitoring her & her child after the birth. I think that something has gone seriously wrong with her - maybe she was sexually abused at an earlier age as other posters are saying. Its sad & hard to see someone enabling their own abuse and convincing themselves that because they asked for the abuse, they are somehow in control. I would be deeply worried about the situations the child could be put in, particularly the latest stunt which I imagine attracted a lot of paedofiles.

She is fucking disgusting

If BB went ahead with her plan, and contracted a recent herpes infection which affected the child, she could absolutely be charged. You can tell when a herpes infection is new, because it's new ones that affect the baby badly, not ones that were contracted a while ago.

The difference between BB and the scenario you state is that in what you're talking about, it's almost certainly an accident and you couldn't prove it wasn't. (In the unlikely event that it wasn't.)

But if BB runs her event, she is recklessly and intentionally endangering her baby by exposing it to the potentially germy sperm of so many men. Intent matters, and so does whether you should reasonably have known that harm could result.

But she isn't doing any of that, because she is not pregnant. It's a hoax for MONEY.

She does it well. Look at us all discussing her.

No. But your inability to see the safeguarding and ethical concerns raised re BB's 'stunts' is disturbing.

Charged with what exactly?!

She's not pregnant and I can't believe so many people are falling for this.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if her employees are here on this thread, pushing the outrage and the falsity that she's pregnant and is going to do this.

She really is.

Charged with what? There is no crime of engaging in risky behaviour during pregnancy. Women take crack when pregnant and while hopefully their children are removed from them after birth, they haven't committed a crime by doing so. The idea that anyone else who contracts herpes does so by accident is also naive. Some women will deliberately get pregnant by their HIV positive partner. Some will have lots of casual unprotected sex during pregnancy.

If she caught herpes from her event and her child was born with devastating injuries, she would be charged with whatever the correct charge is. Abuse, endangerment, whatever.

To repeat the points you didn't address:

But if BB runs her event, she is recklessly and intentionally endangering her baby by exposing it to the potentially germy sperm of so many men. Intent matters, and so does whether you should reasonably have known that harm could result.

No because there is no charge. do you think that mums who drink and smoke in pregnancy are charged with offences when their kids are born with FAS? Because they really aren't.

Looking at recent photos of her in swimwear I'd say it's pretty obvious now that she is pregnant.

I gather from this thread that she's said she was when she wasn't before but I'm pretty sure she's telling the truth this time

Not in the UK although not sure about NI. So for the rest of us, the fetus has no legal rights until born.

Think about it, the fetus has significant abnormalities that are life threatening to the mother. There is no grey area here, the drs are legally required to save the mother’s life. There are countries in Europe where this is not the case.

So by advocating for the rights of a fetus can lead to a very slippery slope.

There are no laws to charge a woman with endangering a foetus or abusing a foetus. A foetus doesn't have those rights until birth.

Also I have read a little more of the thread and I want to note that yes, the way that the pregnancy is framed in the porn is likely to be upsetting if the child saw the footage in future, but it depends on how the child is raised. Ideally children wouldn't be seeing porn, especially of their own mother! And yes there might be bullying, but again, that depends on how they are raised and support around them.

I think pregnancy sex is just a massive ick for a lot of people in this thread but it doesn't mean the actual child is being harmed or will be harmed as a lot of that potential harm remains to be seen.

Well the consequence in that case is answering the phone and having a quick chat. Hardly an inconvenience or consequence. But if it makes you feel better crack on, I suspect it very likely has happened

I find it very difficult to believe that she is pregnant and will do this stunt.

I suppose she could be pregnant and have no intention of doing the stunt, and is just saying she will for publicity.

Intent for what? There is no crime in the first place, so the question of intent is irrelevant. And surely Jane, who is pregnant but sleeps with several men during her pregnancy without using protection is also intentionally reckless and potentially exposing her baby to STDs?