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

What do you mean by precedents in law that contradict that?

Yes, she would be charged with having injured her baby, when it's born, if it's injured.

Honestly, it’s clear you have no understanding of the law in this area so I’d take it from those who know. There is no such thing.

I don't find it hard to believe at all, she's a very strange character, dead behind the eyes with no apparent concept of normal behaviour

And yes, she does talk about ensuring STD testing. She also was less worried about becoming pregnant because she'd previously had infertility issues.

www.yahoo.com/entertainment/celebrity/articles/bonnie-blue-claims-she-pregnant-193341232.html

Under what statute and what is the name of this crime?

But the child could be removed at birth

Yes, although that is not under criminal law. That's under the Children Act.

That isn't how it works at all.

Because there are a lot of people (mostly men) who pay to view it.
I think she's putting a spotlight on the type of men who either participate in these events with here or pay to view it afterwards.

It has parallels with Giselle Pellicot in that nobody knew that there were all these 'ordinary, regular good guys' locally who'd actively seek to participate in something so debased.

My judgement is solely reserved for the men who choose to perform with her.

Shes controlling the narrative for now and she's cleaning up financially.
If there were no customers for her content she'd be out of business.
Its her participants and her customers who should get the slating on this thread

Because the mother caught herpes during pregnancy? Doubtful.

Really. The crack addicts, the smokers, the drinkers, the meth users - they get no charges when their babies are born damaged. Just BB is charged - utter rubbish. Facts and feelings don’t always align and this is one of those cases.

There are excellent reasons why maternal bodily autonomy matters more than that of the foetus and equally excellent ones that place legal threshold above opinion.

There's no such thing as a charge for child abuse or child endangerment? I think you'll find that's incorrect.

You know you’re incorrect. Just Google it and stop pretending.

Not just because of that.

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.

For a living child, yes. For a fetus, no.

Well yes. Of course those things exist. But not for actions taken against a fetus by its mother. Honestly. At this point. Just stop talking. You’re making yourself look foolish.

Having sex with men with 'germy sperm' is not something that social services would consider worthy of removing a child at birth for, I am afraid. And by the time she gives birth she will already have had sex with said germy sperm men, so removal wouldn't act as a protector in any way. Removal isn't punishment for past acts, it is protecting the child against future harm.

Irrespective of the rights or wrongs the foetus has no legal rights until it is born and takes first breath. Being promiscuous is not a reason to remove a child. An inability to meet the child’s needs is necessary. We don’t have to agree with her decisions, but it’s for a qualified trained social worker to assess her parenting capacity when the child is born. And can we remove the rose tinted glasses. Growing up as a child in care isn’t going to the walk in the park some seem to think it will be.

There is no such charge.

We should stop giving her the oxygen of publicity.

There must be 1000s of porn stars, no doubt some even more disgusting than her,. so whats so special about her? Why does she get all the press?

She is awful and imagine the false impression people like her give of our culture and British women.

And as an HCP I have seen many women come through pregnant with a man that I would not touch with someone else’s vahjayjay. Many a man with what I would consider to have germy sperm are boffing pregnant women on the daily and it is not a social services issue. You can’t legislate against poor taste in pregnancy.

At most ss could carry out a pre birth assessment that looks at her capacity to parent when baby is here, and plan if they think post birth intervention is needed. As others have said, in our legal system the unborn have no rights whatsoever. Rights are only granted once a baby is born. Horrible as I think BB behaviour is, you have to ask do we feel women who engage in behaviours that put their baby at risk, should be detained or their freedoms restricted in some way? I actually do think there could be some extreme circumstances where this is warranted but it would be a scary, easily misusable piece of legislation.

Oh my God. I stand corrected.

• Common sense would dictate that it's a crime to intentionally expose your unborn child to a HIGH RISK of danger and horrific injuries (if the child is, in fact, injured.)

• Common sense would also dictate that where a mother is struggling with addiction issues, no charges would be brought, because she is unwell.

• Common sense would also dictate that regular people having sex would not bring about charges if a baby was born harmed by a regular STD.

You would THINK that planning the kind of event that BB is, if she is pregnant, would come under recklessly and intentionally endangering the life of the baby and that she would be liable if the baby is born injured or seriously ill from that "baby shower". That if you should reasonably have known that such an event could harm the baby, you would be liable.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine that doing such a thing would be perfectly OK. But it is. I Googled as suggested.

Lifestyle is one thing - nobody wants a world where pregnant mothers are restricted - but having a party such as this while pregnant? Deliberately exposing the foetus to a high risk of terrible harm? Nope, you're all correct. Not illegal.

AI says: Under UK law, it is not a criminal offense for a pregnant woman to endanger her foetus, even if the baby is born injured as a result of her actions or lifestyle.

What a shit country we are.

Well no, we’re a country that puts a woman’s rights before a fetus- thank god