Sasha Grey visits elementary school to do story time with first graders

[Jack Davenport]

By your meter of ethical measurement, they are, Cookie Monster.

So, according to you, it's Ok for people involved in the manufacture and distribution of socially harmful or ethically contentious products, (or the practice of professional killing and death dealing) to read to kids, just as long as those dangerous or socially contentious products (or killing professions) aren't exclusively intended for adults.

Well, that makes sense.

Bobo.

If you can't make the distinction between those who make their living from pornography and alcohol from those who are employed in the defense of their country and take orders when doing their job then you are beyond hopeless. But we already knew that. Next up, law enforcement officers are professional killers as well, and should not be allowed to divulge their career to children without being chaperoned by Child Protective Services.

 

[Icewater Jones]

You fail to perceive properly. But that's OK. It can be hard to see the obvious in the face of the obvious.

My post is ironic, taking the logical progression of the previous poster's ludicrous posit to its even more ridiculous conclusion. Hence the ridiculousness of my post.

Free hugs are available in the Chill Out Room.

I like hugs. Direct me to this room of which you speak, cat.

 

[Mr_Balls]

Oh dang that is sweet.
I totally would have done it with her
just to put in some goofy dialogue.

My big question is...where can you get foreign picture books?
hmmm?

 

[TheOrangeCat]

If you can't make the distinction between those who make their living from pornography and alcohol from those who are employed in the defense of their country and take orders when doing their job then you are beyond hopeless. But we already knew that. Next up, law enforcement officers are professional killers as well, and should not be allowed to divulge their career to children without being chaperoned by Child Protective Services.

Again, nice deflection - it was you that made the comparator. I merely parodied your idiocy. You are, at this point, essentially attacking yourself. Which is loads of fun. Kind of like watching a kitten attack its reflection in a mirror.

This is typical of your posting. Make an asinine post, then defend yourself using the points made by other posters to dismantle you.

Srsly ... WTC7 .. is that you?

 

[TheOrangeCat]

I like hugs. Direct me to this room of which you speak, cat.

Your wish is my command ... :hatsoff:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Again, nice deflection - it was you that made the comparator. I merely parodied your idiocy. You are, at this point, essentially attacking yourself. Which is loads of fun. Kind of like watching a kitten attack its reflection in a mirror.

This is typical of your posting. Make an asinine post, then defend yourself using the points made by other posters to dismantle you.

Srsly ... WTC7 .. is that you?

No the deflection came when you said that fast food, store proprietors and cable television providers where somehow as harmful to children based solely on your left wing agenda. If you want to take the chance that your children will have to have certain things explained to them way before they are of the age of accountability then so be it. I'll be damned if mine would be, It's not only alcohol or pornography that children should not be exposed to or even become aware of, but a number of things. Any person that is willing to list his or her past as a porn star on their resume' if seeking a position of employment around children, should not be surprised that the call from HR will probably never come.

Your simple mindedness is on full display for everyone here to absorb. Just let a plurality of parents learn that a alcohol executive or porn star was at the school reading to their children and see if there isn't an outcry from those parents. All except for you, you probably will try and have your kid try and score a free pint or DVD for you.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

No the deflection came when you said that fast food, store proprietors and cable television providers where somehow as harmful to children based solely on your left wing agenda. If you want to take the chance that your children will have to have certain things explained to them way before they are of the age of accountability then so be it. I'll be damned if mine would be, It's not only alcohol or pornography that children should not be exposed to or even become aware of, but a number of things. Any person that is willing to list his or her past as a porn star on their resume' if seeking a position of employment around children, should not be surprised that the call from HR will probably never come.

Your simple mindedness is on full display for everyone here to absorb. Just let a plurality of parents learn that a alcohol executive or porn star was at the school reading to their children and see if there isn't an outcry from those parents. All except for you, you probably will try and have your kid try and score a free pint or DVD for you.

Oh dear God, Junior. OK, time for dissection.

No the deflection came when you said that fast food, store proprietors and cable television providers where somehow as harmful to children based solely on your left wing agenda.

That wasn't a deflection it was a 'reflection'. It's a pretty important and obvious difference. See, I simply took your moronic Grade Six logic and made it bite its own ass. You, helpfully, fell for the stink bait.
My 'left wing agenda'? Hello paranoia, meet fear. I am about as left wing as you are intelligent.

If you want to take the chance that your children will have to have certain things explained to them way before they are of the age of accountability then so be it.

Yes, because story time at my kids' school always ends with a Q & A about the personal history of the reader and, after that, a deep exploration of the context and specifics of their choices.

I'll be damned if mine would be,

assuming belief in a hierarchical deific reality, you'll probably be damned for a lot worse and. a lot sooner than you think. Ignorance and stupidity are far greater threats to young minds that casual exposure to adults whose professions they cannot possibly comprehend or be affected by.

It's not only alcohol or pornography that children should not be exposed to or even become aware of, but a number of things. Any person that is willing to list his or her past as a porn star on their resume' if seeking a position of employment around children, should not be surprised that the call from HR will probably never come.

They were not exposed to or affected by exposure to pornography. Just because a reader is a porn acress, does not mean that her reading or presence is pornographic. And, even if it was, you'd have to be able to understand what was happening, process it, and make a moral conclusion, abilities that are slightly beyond the range of the 1st grade mind. As she wasn't applying for a job at the school, not seeking employment as a child worker, the last part of your sentence here is simply redundant stupidity masquerading as thought; or, to put it in terms you might understand, someone who is not nearly as clever as they think they are.

Your simple mindedness is on full display for everyone here to absorb.

I'll ignore the grammatical and logical errors and move straight to the obvious for you: even the people who hate me here would shy away from calling me simple minded. It's kind of like calling Everest 'a sharp incline'. In short, junior, you just showed your belly. And boy is it white, flabby and soft.

Just let a plurality of parents learn that a alcohol executive or porn star was at the school reading to their children and see if there isn't an outcry from those parents.

Plurality? For a plurality to exist or to be relevant, there must be a 'candidate'. Someone must have presented themselves and their opinions/views for referendum or vote. Sasha did not, so although I have to applaud the use of Google to find a big word, its imprecise (and resulting comic) use just makes you look - well, dumb. You also utterly fail to appreciate that - even after God knows how many repetitions in previous posts - you still cannot comprehend even the blatantly stated opinion that the adults outraged by Sasha's reading are acting from a place of hypocrisy and fear, rather than genuine fear for the sanctity of childish innocence; and the reality that that innocence could be realistically affected by being transiently exposed to a person whose lifestyle they cannot possibly understand and whose life choices could in no way directly connect with them in the brief moments of her (or any 'morally ambiguous/dubious' person's) total exposure to them.

All except for you, you probably will try and have your kid try and score a free pint or DVD for you.

Free pint and DVd??? Because when allowing an adult entertainer to read stories to first graders, school always lay on alcohol and a concession stand. Talk about simple minded ... thank you Captain Obvious.

Go back to watching Dr.Phil.

How's that working for yeeeew?

 

[meesterperfect]

I bet she was awesome. I bet the kids loved her.

I bet somewhere there is a sick perveted liberal douche faculty school member who organized this drooling and whacking off his dick to the fact that he introduce a bunch of 6 year olds to a very trashy porn chick

 

[Elwood70]

I bet wherever Sasha is;she's laughing her ass off.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

I bet wherever Sasha is;she's laughing her ass off.

And what a fine, fine ass it is ..

 

[meesterperfect]

I bet wherever Sasha is;she's laughing her ass off.

Yeah because it was a publicity stunt and to her it means more $$$$$$$$.

If she really cared about the kids or had any class she may have thought,"Gee, considering the fact that I have done hundreds of sex scenes including Gangbangs, DP's, Ass to Mouth ect maybe I shouldn't go visit a classroom of 6 year olds and portray myself as some sort of role model".

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Yeah because it was a publicity stunt and to her it means more $$$$$$$$.

If she really cared about the kids or had any class she may have thought,"Gee, considering the fact that I have done hundreds of sex scenes including Gangbangs, DP's, Ass to Mouth ect maybe I shouldn't go visit a classroom of 6 year olds and portray myself as some sort of role model".

Not an unreasonable point, but I'm pretty sure that portraying herself 'as some sort of role model' was not the intention.

More like she's a normal, nice girl, who likes kids, wants kids and jumped at the chance to spend some time doing something nice, rewarding and carefree.

I volunteer as a math tutor for Grade 3-6 kids. My career has no bearing on that. Why should hers, given that they knew no more about it during her reading than mine do when I am tutoring them?

 

[delta9]

I volunteer as a math tutor for Grade 3-6 kids. My career has no bearing on that. Why should hers, given that they knew no more about it during her reading than mine do when I am tutoring them?

I guess the difference is you don't volunteer as a "celebrity guest reader". In her case, I think her career plays a major part in this discussion. Since she did this as a celebrity, it is a lot more likely that the children may ask who she is and what she does.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

I guess the difference is you don't volunteer as a "celebrity guest reader". In her case, I think her career plays a major part in this discussion. Since she did this as a celebrity, it is a lot more likely that the children may ask who she is and what she does.

This is reasonable, but she didn't do it as a celebrity, even though that is the auspice under which the school (read adults) may have found her. She did it as Marina Hantzis, who also happens to be Sasha Grey. But is was Maria who read to the kids.

And First graders don't tend to ask biographical questions, unless you happen to be a large purple dinosaur or yellow bird.

 

[delta9]

Where did you read that she used her real name? My thoughts on the questions from the kids would be that if presented as a celebrity, they would then ask questions, as opposed to if someone was just introduced as a guest reader.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Where did you read that she used her real name?

‘We have several celebrities who read to our students each year. The actress you have indicated [Sasha] was not present.’{/quote]

Because they booked her as the actress, not the porn star. Let's not forget, the vast majority of the public are not intimately familiar with the arc of porn actresses lives ... and she is marketed in LA as Sasha Grey the actress despite being Sasha Grey the (ex)porn starlet

 

[delta9]

I don't look at that as evidence that she used her real name. Her publicists can spin it however they like, performance artist, but no matter what else, she is Sasha Grey, the porn star. I could then assume that she was "okayed" by the school board because she, or the organization she was representing, did not reveal what she is really known for. I would say many people are aware of who she is. She has been making news for some time now, and was on the cover of Playboy, which is hardly a fringe publication.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Oh dear God, Junior. OK, time for dissection.



That wasn't a deflection it was a 'reflection'. It's a pretty important and obvious difference. See, I simply took your moronic Grade Six logic and made it bite its own ass. You, helpfully, fell for the stink bait.
My 'left wing agenda'? Hello paranoia, meet fear. I am about as left wing as you are intelligent.



Yes, because story time at my kids' school always ends with a Q & A about the personal history of the reader and, after that, a deep exploration of the context and specifics of their choices.

assuming belief in a hierarchical deific reality, you'll probably be damned for a lot worse and. a lot sooner than you think. Ignorance and stupidity are far greater threats to young minds that casual exposure to adults whose professions they cannot possibly comprehend or be affected by.



They were not exposed to or affected by exposure to pornography. Just because a reader is a porn acress, does not mean that her reading or presence is pornographic. And, even if it was, you'd have to be able to understand what was happening, process it, and make a moral conclusion, abilities that are slightly beyond the range of the 1st grade mind. As she wasn't applying for a job at the school, not seeking employment as a child worker, the last part of your sentence here is simply redundant stupidity masquerading as thought; or, to put it in terms you might understand, someone who is not nearly as clever as they think they are.

I'll ignore the grammatical and logical errors and move straight to the obvious for you: even the people who hate me here would shy away from calling me simple minded. It's kind of like calling Everest 'a sharp incline'. In short, junior, you just showed your belly. And boy is it white, flabby and soft.



Plurality? For a plurality to exist or to be relevant, there must be a 'candidate'. Someone must have presented themselves and their opinions/views for referendum or vote. Sasha did not, so although I have to applaud the use of Google to find a big word, its imprecise (and resulting comic) use just makes you look - well, dumb. You also utterly fail to appreciate that - even after God knows how many repetitions in previous posts - you still cannot comprehend even the blatantly stated opinion that the adults outraged by Sasha's reading are acting from a place of hypocrisy and fear, rather than genuine fear for the sanctity of childish innocence; and the reality that that innocence could be realistically affected by being transiently exposed to a person whose lifestyle they cannot possibly understand and whose life choices could in no way directly connect with them in the brief moments of her (or any 'morally ambiguous/dubious' person's) total exposure to them.

Free pint and DVd??? Because when allowing an adult entertainer to read stories to first graders, school always lay on alcohol and a concession stand. Talk about simple minded ... thank you Captain Obvious.

Go back to watching Dr.Phil.

How's that working for yeeeew?

Unlike you, my lexicon doesn't rely on Google. The only 'reflection" that you see is your posts being reflecting in the pool of piss that you constantly urinate on this board. A reflection that would make Narcissus green with envy or should I say yellow?

Any story time at your kid's school should probably begin with a Q and A as to whether their daddy has the ability to process what has just been read to them. Especially if it is beyond your obvious high water mark of Green Eggs and Ham. Context and specifics are probably not a concern to them as it seems that you are not one to be too concerned with the details of anything beyond A Rocky and Bullwinkle episode.

I imagine your ability to explain everything on the Cartoon Network to them makes you a cool parent in their eyes. Father Of The Year awards are clearly in your future.

Thanks for ignoring any grammatical errors I may have made. While you are at it, please explain to us what a "ponit" or 'acress" is. or was that a typo? One can never be too sure when it comes to you.

Ignorance and stupidity is on full display here by you on a daily basis and I commend you for embracing it wearing full regalia or as most of us refer to it, a dunce cap.

I have stated that there are some things that children should not be exposed to, agree with it or not. And the person that tells or reads a story to a child should not be someone that has to sugarcoat or outright lie to the child when the question arises "what do they do for a living?"

I fully understand your disenchantment and grudge against fast food establishments. You must not have received that promotion that you were seeking working the drive-through window.

Such is life.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Unlike you, my lexicon doesn't rely on Google. The only 'reflection" that you see is your posts being reflecting in the pool of piss that you constantly urinate on this board. A reflection that would make Narcissus green with envy or should I say yellow?

Any story time at your kid's school should probably begin with a Q and A as to whether their daddy has the ability to process what has just been read to them. Especially if it is beyond your obvious high water mark of Green Eggs and Ham. Context and specifics are probably not a concern to them as it seems that you are not one to be too concerned with the details of anything beyond A Rocky and Bullwinkle episode.

I imagine your ability to explain everything on the Cartoon Network to them makes you a cool parent in their eyes. Father Of The Year awards are clearly in your future.

Thanks for ignoring any grammatical errors I may have made. While you are at it, please explain to us what a "ponit" or 'acress" is. or was that a typo? One can never be too sure when it comes to you.

Ignorance and stupidity is on full display here by you on a daily basis and I commend you for embracing it wearing full regalia or as most of us refer to it, a dunce cap.

I have stated that there are some things that children should not be exposed to, agree with it or not. And the person that tells or reads a story to a child should not be someone that has to sugarcoat or outright lie to the child when the question arises "what do they do for a living?"

I fully understand your disenchantment and grudge against fast food establishments. You must not have received that promotion that you were seeking working the drive-through window.

Such is life.

Ah, the classic descent from the specific to the generic, and in insult form.

My apologies. I branded you a Dr. Phil kinda guy. This was an error of perception on my part. You are clearly a Montel or Jerry Springer (key) demographic.

If you'd care to highlight any section, sentence or even phrase where you actually - and factually - can at least support a valid counter argument to the very specific sections of your posts I critique, i'd be genuinely interested to read them.

Otherwise, I'm also just as easily amused watching a monkey fling its own poo. Particularly when that monkey seems to have no idea its throwing into a mirror.

Such is life. Or at least, what you believe is a life. :hatsoff:

 

[Jack Davenport]

Ah, the classic descent from the specific to the generic, and in insult form.

My apologies. I branded you a Dr. Phil kinda guy. This was an error of perception on my part. You are clearly a Montel or Jerry Springer (key) demographic.

If you'd care to highlight any section, sentence or even phrase where you actually - and factually - can at least support a valid counter argument to the very specific sections of your posts I critique, i'd be genuinely interested to read them.

Otherwise, I'm also just as easily amused watching a monkey fling its own poo. Particularly when that monkey seems to have no idea its throwing into a mirror.

Such is life. Or at least, what you believe is a life. :hatsoff:

Your unemployment check must allow you to keep up with all of the latest daytime talk shows. As for me, I prefer to work 60 hours a week and don't have the time to watch those shows. My position is not unlike others here and I have stated my position at the risk of offending some members here that work in the industry.

You however, have posted your opinions here at the risk of exposing your rather limited intellectual capacity. Unfortunately for you, the risk did not pay off.

You can sleep well at night knowing that because you defended porn stars to the death, that you may receive a 3 day pass to one of a generous porn star's website as a reward for your efforts.

I'll continue to posts my opinion no matter how unpopular they are, and you can continue to post yours no matter how unintelligible they may be.