Page 14 | Bonnie blue risky sexual behaviour whilst pregnant

Jellysweets13 · 2026-06-10T16:22:54+00:00

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

NameChangeMay2026 · Yesterday 22:20

Glowingup · Yesterday 22:01

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.

Show quote history

Exactly. That's why I've repeated over and over that we don't want laws which set any precedent to control pregnant women. As I said, it seems so wrong that BB could do that baby-shower stunt, but I can't think of any way to have a law against it that doesn't restrict pregnant women in general.

JustSawJohnny · Yesterday 22:24

RoseField1 · Yesterday 19:52

Guidance on sex in pregnancy? Huh? I don't believe anyone has the right to guide anyone on how much sex, with whom and how they have sex while pregnant!
Social services will not be taking the baby away because its mother is a porn actor. I can tell you that for nothing.

Show quote history

Yes, there is advice on how to safely have sex when pregnant.

Not sure it goes as far as lining up hundreds of randoms and getting on all fours though.

IMO she is an unfit Mother and I hope the sway of public opinion does force the hand of SS.

Blueeyedmale · Yesterday 22:24

I have no words and I don't say that often she needs immediate psychological help that poor child as for the men who participate well I can't really say what I'd like see done to them.

Truly sad 🥲

SouthLondonMum22 · Yesterday 22:25

NameChangeMay2026 · Yesterday 21:50

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.

Edited

Common sense doesn't dictate that due to the lack of rights a foetus has. Especially the huge can of worms it could potentially open in regards to legally policing a woman's body just because she happens to be pregnant.

ForeverDelayedEpiphany · Yesterday 22:28

I actually feel quite depressed reading that she was making £2m a MONTH from her delightful activities 😳

It angers me to think how that money could be put to real good use, not fund the lifestyle of a grim, talentless person.

The world has absolutely gone mad.

InconvenientlyMaterial · Yesterday 22:28

TammySue · Yesterday 18:49

My major concern is that making the most recent video ‘baby shower’ themed is centering the baby. It’s rapidly moving away from her pregnant body and onto the baby.

At what point are the adults involved / consuming the content engaging in paedophilia?
I would’ve originally thought only once an actual child is involved, after all pregnant women have sex every day and it’s totally normal.

But my spidey senses are seriously screaming at how everything is being framed.

This, as well as the fact she seems to delight in boundary pushing and misogyny, are what bother me most. Especially the type of men this stance attracts. I worry that she'd view paedophilia as just another thing to upset women with.

Original poster

Jellysweets13 · Yesterday 22:32

Frequency · Yesterday 22:13

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.

I for one don’t think babies should be taken into care because of their mother’s sexual history.

However, I wonder about this woman’s capability to be a decent parent when she’s willing to subject her child to this. People can say that fetuses have no rights and that the baby is safe but she is subjecting her child to these extreme events. The child will one day know about it and it will likely cause significant emotional harm.

I also think that although she’s clever at making money and causing controversy. I think she’s very stupid when it comes to the risks to her health.

She was robbed once at one of these gang gang events. Maybe you believe it all to be fake but I have watched a lot of her interviews and her documentary and I believe that she does engage in very risky stuff.

The other woman Lily Philips who is one of her co-workers said that she didn’t realise that you could catch STDs from oral sex and from semen going in your eyes.

They say a lot of stupid stuff and it doesn’t sound as though they are fully aware of the risks .

Bonnie Blue says her parents are proud of what she does and her mum gets a nice lifestyle and free holidays out of it. It might not be illegal but is it the correct environment to bring a child into?

People on here are all saying she’s mentally unwell and dead behind the eyes.

I don’t want any laws that mean women are locked up or policed or have their children removed for having sex. But I would hope that she’s on SS radar and that someone qualified is making sure that she can provide a safe environment for a baby.

Sex during p pregnancy does not give me the ick I have children I know how babies are made, but no sane person would want minging men urinating on them during pregnancy and publicising it.

She actually says that all the men are nice people. How does she know? They could be anyone.

OP posts:

Kickinthenostalgia · Yesterday 22:33

I wouldn’t say she’s vile, she obviously needs help or some sort of intervention, to need this sort of attention, there’s something not right. The men who entertain this are vile but she’s offering it up on a plate so why wouldn’t they.

ForeverDelayedEpiphany · Yesterday 22:33

I cannot read this enough times. £2m per month was being made by a woman who having sex with must be like chucking a sausage down a corridor... 😬😳 Good grief....

Bonnie blue risky sexual behaviour whilst pregnant

YellingAway · Yesterday 22:34

Dexternight · Yesterday 22:07

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

Therr are plenty of women who have had severe addiction issues who, once they become mother’s, use it to the impetus to turn their life around and focus on being a good mother.

We don’t know if BB will do so but taking a child from their mother is a last resort and can lead to lasting damage to the child.

I am sure that the professionals who are fully aware of all the facts will be watching and will do what’s best for the baby once born.

SouthLondonMum22 · Yesterday 22:34

NameChangeMay2026 · Yesterday 22:08

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.

Show quote history

That's exactly the reason why. You can't protect a foetus without giving them more rights which not only strays into controlling pregnant women from things such as your examples but it would also open the can of worms that is abortion.

JustSawJohnny · Yesterday 22:35

Roaroutthetree · Yesterday 19:41

Guidance on sex in pregnancy is clearly based on the assumption of one partner and average amounts of sex across an elongated period of time, not a hundred odd men lined up for a hours of constant banging!

what guidance is this @JustSawJohnny ?!

Sex and sexual health in pregnancy | Ready Steady Baby!

'Any sexual activity that doesn't harm you will not harm your baby'.

But sure, let's let a few hundred randoms piss all over her.

It's not like any of them could have an infection or anything.

Fuck it, why not go for the thousand again. The risks are so low, right?

It's not like she has anyone else to think about but her self 🙄

Sex and sexual health in pregnancy

How to have sex or be intimate throughout your pregnancy and protect yourself against sexually transmitted infections

https://www.nhsinform.scot/ready-steady-baby/pregnancy/relationships-and-wellbeing-in-pregnancy/sex-and-sexual-health-in-pregnancy

CottonCandyLand · Yesterday 22:36

I can’t get past 1057 men in 12 hours. That means they got 41 seconds each 🤔

ForeverDelayedEpiphany · Yesterday 22:37

YellingAway · Yesterday 22:34

Therr are plenty of women who have had severe addiction issues who, once they become mother’s, use it to the impetus to turn their life around and focus on being a good mother.

We don’t know if BB will do so but taking a child from their mother is a last resort and can lead to lasting damage to the child.

I am sure that the professionals who are fully aware of all the facts will be watching and will do what’s best for the baby once born.

Show quote history

Yes, but honestly, how can anyone say she is very responsible and will do what is in the best interests of the child?

As someone who has been adopted, obviously I am biased, but the child's needs are absolutely paramount, and clearly she doesn't have any common sense whatsoever. To leave a baby in her care would be abhorrent.

30dayss · Yesterday 22:41

NameChangeMay2026 · Yesterday 21:50

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.

Edited

But the opposite is America where the fetus controls what happens to the women. As awful as this behaviour is, the woman has to have the rights, not the fetus.

I'm nievely hoping she's just getting all the money while she can and when the baby comes along she'll disappear quietly and comfortably and raise her child well. I can hope.

Ihateboris · Yesterday 22:43

CottonCandyLand · Yesterday 22:36

I can’t get past 1057 men in 12 hours. That means they got 41 seconds each 🤔

Yeah, sorry, I just don't believe it happened

Beanosaurus · Yesterday 22:45

What's concerning me is what she's going to do next. Her 'stunts' just seem to get more depraved and extreme. I'm actually quite shocked at the blasé attitude of some posters. This behaviour is not normal and shouldn't just be put down to 'well, her body her choice' do we not have morals anymore?

Imisscoffee2021 · Yesterday 22:47

I'm all for women having body autonomy, but it's absolutely vile to not respect that she's growing a wanted life within her that's she's early decided to keep, and that baby growing in there is being treated with disgusting disrespect if she's allowing this to happen to her body with random, and fetishising it all by calling it a baby shower. That poor innocent life if this is all true.

smallglassbottle · Yesterday 22:58

She's a hideous human being and what safeguards will there be in place to ensure she doesn't pimp the poor baby out once it's born? I wouldn't trust her with a dead fly. The baby needs to be removed from her once it's born and I'm not saying that lightly. Her birth canal is probably full of strep b (as well as everything else) as well. I hope they give antibiotics to the poor kid once it emerges. What a world.

SherbetDipDap · Yesterday 23:02

Plump82 · Yesterday 18:03

Have a look at MaddyLucyDann on Instagram. She did an excellent post about this.

Yeah, Maddy actually changed my mind a little bit.

I was very much in the ‘her body, her choice’ camp (whilst harshly judging the men involved and obviously being concerned for the child being upset about this in the future). I’m not hugely convinced about the STI argument as we don’t know exactly what kind of screening process is going on behind the scenes and I think the ‘what if she gets a disease!’ rhetoric is just a cover for generally finding the whole thing a bit icky.

However, Maddy raised the really valid point that this could be a way for some men to have sex in close proximity to a baby (not saying this is the case for ALL pregnancy sex, obviously!). It’s definitely raising some red flags about the kind of people who may have access to her child.

feckingmassivecakeandvesttop · Yesterday 23:03

How old is she really ? She doesn't look young. Maybe 40 ?

SouthLondonMum22 · Yesterday 23:06

SherbetDipDap · Yesterday 23:02

Yeah, Maddy actually changed my mind a little bit.

I was very much in the ‘her body, her choice’ camp (whilst harshly judging the men involved and obviously being concerned for the child being upset about this in the future). I’m not hugely convinced about the STI argument as we don’t know exactly what kind of screening process is going on behind the scenes and I think the ‘what if she gets a disease!’ rhetoric is just a cover for generally finding the whole thing a bit icky.

However, Maddy raised the really valid point that this could be a way for some men to have sex in close proximity to a baby (not saying this is the case for ALL pregnancy sex, obviously!). It’s definitely raising some red flags about the kind of people who may have access to her child.

Show quote history

That point is only valid though if her baby is in the same area as where she has sex with these men. If the baby is always with a nanny in a different location? She will obviously be able to afford excellent childcare.

SherbetDipDap · Yesterday 23:07

30dayss · Yesterday 22:41

But the opposite is America where the fetus controls what happens to the women. As awful as this behaviour is, the woman has to have the rights, not the fetus.

I'm nievely hoping she's just getting all the money while she can and when the baby comes along she'll disappear quietly and comfortably and raise her child well. I can hope.

Show quote history

Yes I agree.

BB is an outlier in terms of her behaviour. But the law is what is is to prevent a Handmaid’s Tale-esque prioritisation of the rights of the unborn over the rights of living women. We cannot assume common sense would be applied to a law with too much nuance.

SherbetDipDap · Yesterday 23:08

SouthLondonMum22 · Yesterday 23:06

That point is only valid though if her baby is in the same area as where she has sex with these men. If the baby is always with a nanny in a different location? She will obviously be able to afford excellent childcare.

Show quote history

Well yes, I do bloody hope so.

1dayatatime · Yesterday 23:10

Clearly BB is in the business of "click bait rage" and OP I think you are right that she targets women in this respect "I'm having sex with your husbands etc etc".

She is clearly using the whole (normally) natural act of having a baby used a means to generate further click bait rage. Starting with having unprotected sex with multiple men to get pregnant .

She then tries to up the shock factor of having multiple men pee on her baby belly.

Lastly she then has sex with multiple men whilst pregnant.

Committed as I am to women's bodily rights on topics such as abortion etc, I ultimately have to say her body her choice.

If another random woman that happened to be into golden showers chose to continue this kink into her pregnancy then although many would find it grim, ultimately it is her choice.
I think what is different here is that BB is seeking to monetise that shock factor.

Equally if a random pregnant woman chose to have multiple sexual partners whilst pregnant then again it is her choice.

As a side note, once read that in Georgian times before contraception, promiscuity amongst pregnant women, particularly amongst upper classes was quite a thing, on the basis that she had completed her duty of producing an heir, couldn't get pregnant twice from her lovers and wanted her "fun" before the responsibilities of motherhood.