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

Sure, but if she's having sex with hundreds of them at one event, I think there should be some law against that.

Except I can't think of any way to write it that would not include restrictions for regular pregnant women, and that's unacceptable.

Maybe we need a law that just specifically says you can't hold a sex party and shag lots of randomers while pregnant!

It’s because of abortion. Women are allowed to end the life of their foetus/baby, so being legally consistent why would we say they are not allowed to endanger their life? We as a society conclude that the wishes and rights of the mother are paramount. That’s the logical consequence.

Believe me, no woman would want legislation that criminalised our actions during pregnancy, be it alcohol, sex or drugs. It makes us a progressive rather than shit country.

im also unsure about the difference between BB and a “regular person” and a “regular STD”.

There's no need to be so bloody rude. I naturally assumed there was some kind of law against deliberately and recklessly endangering your unborn child to a high risk of harm, but it appears that BB can crack on. I did Google it and then posted that I stand corrected. OK?

You wouldn’t want such legislation. Taking the abortion laws out of the equation think about things like having a little bit of soft cheese or a bit of cured salmon as suddenly that is illegal and you can be charged with endangering your child. We really don’t want state control of our bodies.

Whilst im fairly certain she does comprehensive std testing....

If we say she should be charged or have kids removed for either contracting or potentially being able to contract herpes....

Whats the line of the number of people that you can sleep with? Or is it about which sex acts you can preform?

Being able to charge people with endangering a pregnancy is an interesting boundary dilemma. Could you charge someone who drank, or who went horseriding or ate bad foods?

Well, it couldnt really be removed before birth, could it.

Well women are not actually allowed to just end the life of a fetus. Abortion is tightly controlled and subject to time limits and the approval of doctors. There is still a crime of procuring a miscarriage if you abort outside the rules.
The reason why we don’t have laws of the nature that is suggested is that it represents a huge encroachment on civil liberties of women. It leaves women open to be prosecuted or sued for any choice they make when pregnant. While alcohol and drugs might seem straightforward, what about food? What about keeping their BMI in a healthy range? What about avoiding stress or avoiding events where they could contract a virus eg Covid? The list is endless as to what the state could criminalise women for doing.

Of course not but if you lived in a misogynistic authoritarian state, you could envisage women being locked up until birth to prevent them from engaging in harmful behaviour before then to “protect” the fetus.

Yes, that's what I said. No woman would want that, including me. That's why I said:

I can't think of any way to write it (it being a law against BB doing the planned stunt) that would not include restrictions for regular pregnant women, and that's unacceptable.

Maybe we need a law that just specifically says you can't hold a sex party and shag lots of randomers while pregnant!

Yeah, I don't know why I wrote "regular STD." That should have been just "STD."

BB is planning on holding a sex party in which she will shag hundreds of men, while pregnant, which endangers her baby. I feel there should be a law against that, but see above:

I can't think of any way to write it (it being a law against BB doing the planned stunt) that would not include restrictions for regular pregnant women, and that's unacceptable.

BB is not a regular person. She's a public figure. And no regular person would do what she's planning.

Surely the men need to be held to account? Why are their faces hidden if it’s all perfectly reasonable sex?

For fucks sake. The world has gone to shit.

Numerous people were telling you that there was not. It was a bit exasperating. Apologies for the rudeness.

I’d mostly be concerned about the STI’s you can easily contract despite using condoms. She may already have them though and be planning a c-section as a result…

Baby should be removed at birth.
All the social services costs should be covered by this woman.
From fostering to nappies everything.

Exactly. That's what I mean when I say that I can't think of how to write a law that would prohibit BB from doing her planned disgusting stunt without restricting other pregnant mothers in all sorts of ways. And that would be an unacceptable result.

Maybe the difficulty of simultaneously protecting a foetus from the BB baby shower stunt while at the same time not restricting others from horse-riding etc. is why we have no foetus-protection laws. Because it strays into controlling pregnant women, and nobody wants that.

That's right, and STONE HER TOO!!!

🙄

It's OK. I simply never dreamed that there wasn't some law that would prevent BB doing this baby shower stunt while pregnant - or at least have consequences for her if the baby WAS harmed by such intentionally reckless behaviour when she should reasonably have known there was a high risk.

Well, I learnt something new today. Am open-mouthed.

She isn’t pregnant. It’s a stunt to allow her to garner more clicks and rage bait by breaking the taboo of pregnant porn stars. It allows her to attract the attention of those with fetishes for sex with pregnant women and monetise it. It will continue on to allow her to make content for breastfeeding fetishes and probably adult babies and those who like to wear nappies. She’s got no intention of becoming a mother. She’s just farming outrage. And the men who participate are the sorts who need their hard drives checking.

Well everything is context and nuance . I'm sure all situstions can be tested in court.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should be able to remove babies at birth because of a woman's sexual activity.

Where do we draw the line? Can an escort working to put food on the table to keep her child? What about a trafficked woman who is unable to prove she was trafficked?

It is a dangerous precedent to set.

As I said, I don't like what Bonnie Blue does. I believe she is a very damaged individual, and I wish the press and the men involved would stop enabling her, but no-one bar those who know her personally knows what she is like behind closed doors or whether she is capable of raising a child. Bonnie Blue is clearly a persona created for shock value to further monetize her self-harm.

They probably are but doubt there publicly allowed to say

It is definitely a dangerous precedent to set, which is perhaps why there is no law against BB doing that planned stunt - if she is pregnant.

I think it is hiding a whole multitude of mental health problems, probably low self esteem, poor body image, low confidence etc, all unseen but under the guise of promiscuous behaviour and publicity stunts.

That poor baby is doomed. I hope others step in to protect the child.

Yes, that's why I've stated numerous times that nobody wants that outcome.