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

The bending over backwards to defend the actions is so strange.

No way is this person a social worker.

Yes. That's why I'm asking from the angle of an actual experienced professional. I am thinking it through in terms of remit and threshold. Not just going ugh icky gross take the baby 🙄

She’s revolting. The men who use her as a collection of fuck holes are revolting. Her parents are revolting.

People are not defending BB, just pointing out that in the real world, legally, nothing so far reaches the level needed for SS involvement.

Is the fact she’s already incorporating and centering her unborn child in her pornography not enough grounds to warrant a safeguarding concern? Bang while pregnant, sure why not?!. Golden showers aren’t my thing but sure, create a load of pointless laundry if you’re into that. Film it! Whatever.

The theme of ‘baby shower’ tips it into something darker and far more sinister - it’s almost like she’s forcing us to think about the baby as part of the porn scene (as per a normal baby shower centering around a future baby and their mother) which shows that there’s at least a cause for concern - and further investigation - into whether she has the capacity to keep the baby safe from harm. I think that’s why so many of us find this so unsettling, even though we truly believe ‘her body, her choice’.

Everything she says and does is so disturbing. What has happened to her to have such a lack of regard for herself. Does she have a history of abuse?

But you can’t remove a child just because their parent is a vile amoral dickhead. You have to show actual harm (or risk of harm based on concrete facts).

No I really really am. If you read my posts with any kind of critical thinking you would not accuse me of defending her. I think she's a terrible person and I think her baby shower stunt was vile, and I don't think she should have children. But she is, and people calling for the baby to be removed need to explain on what basis they are doing so. Social workers work within the law, which is actually very strict. All I've seen so far is people saying that having sex puts the baby at risk of STIs (maybe true, but not grounds for removal) that she's a paedophile (no evidence at all of that) that bad men might attack the baby as a sick fantasy (WTF) and general it's so gross it MUST be child abuse (does not follow).

I would bet my last £ she was sexually abused as a child, but I don't believe she's ever talked about abuse publicly.

I suspect she is a sociopath with absolutely no empathy whatsoever.

@Jellysweets13

Massive amounts of it is staged. The randomer of the street thing is a porn troupe that often sees those people appear in multiple videos because they aren't actually random.

When it is non professionals they would be signing all sorts of things,

https://thetab.com/2026/02/13/the-rules-and-logistics-behind-the-scenes-of-bonnie-blues-400-man-no-protection-challenge

One of the men that spoke about being in this had been in other adult programmes on TV about his penis.

Shes incredibly shrewd and has management companies etc. She will have covered her bases legally if any of the men were to sue etc.

True but obviously once the baby is born it will be at risk of exposure to God knows what.

Possibly it might lead to a conversation with a social worker. But it's not actually evidence that she's sexualising the baby. Sexualising pregnancy in porn is actually weirdly common. There is a whole fetish niche for it. It's grim, but not child abuse.

I watched a doc with her on and she was really ill after one of her ‘stunts’, can imagine there were millions of germs flying around

I was reading through this thread and as I was reading your posts my initial thought was is this someone with paedophilic tendencies?! Then I see your claim that you're a social worker. I have to say that saddens me as much, if not more, than my guess did. You see nothing wrong in BB's behaviour. And you are the person vulnerable and abused children have on 'their side'. Gosh, that is depressing but knowing what I do know about social services it is not in any way surprising.

I think she is absolutely vile.

Her behaviour aside, describing a woman as "a collection of fuck holes" is also a revolting thing to say.

Will it?
Maybe, but also maybe not. People have sex for money and also look after children. As long as the children are not exposed to the sex, this is not inherently abusive.

I think you’re just recognising how high the bar is for SS involvement.

It definitely happened

I didn’t say it was evidence - I said it would at least be a cause for concern and trigger the process for involvement. What happens then is up to BB - she has the choice to keep her kid safe!

Oh please. Grow up. I have not for one second said I see nothing wrong with her behaviour. I am examining the situation from a professional social work lens. I am looking at evidence and thresholds. What a childish response.

Why the hell would you think the pp was a pedophile? There is nothing about making porn featuring a pregnant woman that has anything to do with pedophilia.

How do you know for sure though? AI can create anything?

But involvement will be by consent. It's not compulsory.