Acknowledging A Rape Hoax (James Deen)

http://glowysweetfab.tumblr.com/post/137428876655/acknowledging-a-rape-hoax

Acknowledging A Rape Hoax

This is being written as a response to a blog written by Rayne Millaray for the websitePeepshow Toys.

Ms. Rayne’s blog is entitled “The importance of consent.”

Millaray is trying to use the recent James Deen allegations to make the point.

First off Millaray writes, Deen denied the allegations on Twitter, saying that he respects women and consent. And on December 8th, The Daily Beast published an email interview in which Deen gave “his side.”

I am genuinely horrified that Millaray puts “his side” in quotation marks as if James or anyone else shouldn’t be allowed to defend his name on serious allegations.

To start Millaray seems to think that James is trying to blame the adult industry, stating that he was following directions of the directors on sets, and basically deflecting from what she believes is James violating consent. She talks about Stoya but I will discuss that last.

Millaray posts this from James’s statement.

“As far as these other claims,” Deen says, “at a certain point I feel like people have to step back and analyze this stuff in context. Most of these are descriptions of things on BDSM or rough sex sets. When I am on set I am under instruction of the company who is paying me. I could describe the events of the scene I was in the other day and it could be just as dramatic.” 

What Millaray seems to have gotten from this statement is that James would continue to do something that the female actress is objecting to because James is going to follow the directions of the director. Which is not what he saying at all.

Millaray decides to just leave this part of James’s statement out…

“If at any point I pushed boundaries past the point of comfort, I am sorry. I have always tried to respect peoples’ limits and safe words and operated within that space.If someone expressed anything to me I honored the request with the fullest care.

Millaray then talks about this next statement from James. 

“When asked about T.M.’s allegations, Deen states, “This party mentioned is an invitation-only BDSM swinger’s party in Vegas,”  as if that fact gave him the right to grab whoever he wanted and have sex with them, Mallory writes.

So Millaray fails to acknowledge James’s entire statement. He denies T.M.’s account of events and chooses not go into specifics of said event.

The next part of what I’m writing is speculation based off of the statements made by James and T.M. and shouldn’t be taken as facts.

James states the party is an “Invitation-only BDSM swinger’s party.” In T.M.’s statement she says that “I’d been drinking with my coworkers and friends, and I wandered up to a party in a suite not really knowing what it was.’’

Do people frequently wander into Invitation-only BDSM swinger’s parties? Was she invited by someone? T.M. doesn’t mention going there with any of the people she was having drinks with, so how did she get in? Why did she WANT to get in? I don’t know what she looks like or anything but it isn’t far fetched to say that she could have gotten in without said invitation but to me James stated that it was an “invitation-only” event for a reason.

Then we get to Kora Peters. I need to say that besides Farrah Abraham and Nicki Blue, Kora Peters is OBVIOUSLY lying. I guess these 3 are all obviously lying but because I used to enjoy the first scene Kora Peters ever shot with James I guess her accusation has been the most troubling for me.

So Millaray  writes, On the allegations made by Kora Peters, Deen says, “months after the scene in question was shot she performed in an anal scene with me for my company,” as if turning down a scene with someone as powerful in the industry as Deen was at the time wouldn’t end a career. 

There is so much wrong with Millaray’s statement on this, I don’t even know where to begin. I did just call 3 women who said they were sexually assaulted liars so lets start with that. How do I know Kora Peters is lying?

Because Kora Peters sucks at lying. So if we go by Kora’s original statement. Kora states that she does a scene for James’s site.

“One incident was when I did a scene with James personal site and he offered to pay me extra for anal. I told him I had never done anal  (linked is the BTS footage where she states otherwise) and was brand new to the biz he assured me it would only be one position for 2 minutes.”

Kora states THIS is the first time she has had anal sex with James Deen. Let me remind you KORA is saying this.

The actual timeline is Kora and James first worked together for New Sensations. How do I know this? Well the scene for New Sensations was shot in 2009 and released in 2009. The scene for James’s site was shot in 2013. New Sensations website has the date listed for the scene as being shot/released in 2009 as well the porn database siteData18 has the New Sensations scene being shot in 2009, James Deen productions’s scene is listed as being shot in 2013/released 2013. Not to mention Kora looks extremely different in both scenes.

I actually just discovered this, this isn’t even included in my first blog. So wow. It’s a little sickening to me that while I felt I did alot of research I missed the dates. This happened not months apart as James’s says but YEARS apart. I complained in my last post about being unable to find the dates, so IDK how I fucked that up.

Kora is very lucky no one found this out when people seemed to care about this story. This is TWO examples of Kora lying. One Kora lies about the timeline on purpose just so she can say she was “paired” with James…again as if to say she had no choice but to work with him.

As Millary suggests when she writes that Kora couldn’t turn down working with James because he is such a huge celebrity. Which isn’t something I believe to be true. James has frequently mentioned its the women who have the control and the men are simplyprops, not to mention I have seen women in the industry on Twitter openly discussing companies they would work with and companies they don’t want to. So people talking about the porn industry like it’s as misogynist as Hollywood isn’t all that true, all though maybe for newer actresses it could be. However there are a wide range of companies with excellent reputations and so there aren’t many valid excuses to do something in the business you don’t want to do.

TWO, Kora Peters engages in anal sex with James for both scenes so again she is lying because based off the timeline of the films Kora had anal sex with James previously when she claims it was the first time.

So I could do a whole post on Kora Peters which I may do because I think she should admit she lied. I have other examples of her lying on my 1st post on this topic and she lies in an interview with Cathy Young, So look out for Kora Peters, The Grinch who stole Hanukkah, coming soon.

Seriously its bad enough to lie to this degree on someone but to do it around the holidays. That’s just fucked up.

Now on to Millary’s next statement. Deen plainly states that his violation of Nikki Blue can’t possibly be a violation because, “There is photographic evidence that was posted on her own Tumblr page showing other employees of Kink.com performing these acts on her.” But here’s the thing: that’s not how consent works.  It doesn’t matter if you’re at a kinky party. You still have to get consent from anyone you touch. Period.

When in James’s statement does it say he touched Nicki without her consent? He says there is photographic evidence of other people doing the things she says he did to her because there is LITERALLY photos of OTHER people doing the things she stated James did.

If you read Nicki’s original statement she says that James is the one fisting her and forcing a bottle in her nether regions, then boom the pictures NICKI posted on her ownTumblr pop up, and Princess Donna is in fact the one doing all the fisting and bottle stuff.

So now Nicki says it was BOTH James and Princess Donna who violated her. Fine. So James peed in her mouth and Princess Donna did the other stuff. Nicki didn’t want them too…expect Nicki writes on the Kink.com forum that she totally gives CONSENT for James and Princess Donna to pee in her mouth and fist her.

Nicki claims that she posted allegations of abuse to the Kink.com forum and Kink deleted it and her profile. While I haven’t been able to prove that, TRPWL.comreceived information that Nicki did in fact give her consent to the acts SHE describes James and Princess Donna performing. I also helped them out by using Internet Archive to find the post in question. If the link doesn’t work the first time around just click it again. Link to my post and Link to Nicki’s.

If you need me to explain what Internet Archive does, it’s basically the reason people say once you post something on the Internet it’s there forever.

So moving on to Stoya who Millaray brought up at the beginning of her blog.

Millaray writes, And, in an attempt to avoid blaming his accusers, Deen says what isn’t true is made up by the media in almost every case…except Stoya’s. Stoya is outright lying. She’s vengeful and angry, and just not over him, says Deen. 

James never calls Stoya vengeful and angry. James never says Stoya isn’t over him.

James is confused and that’s pretty obvious. He has no idea why Stoya has said this, he just has theories. James has the right to say that what Stoya is saying is a lie. Jamescan defend himself.

MIllaray then talks about how James states that Stoya has in the past written in various articles all over the Internet talking about their communication sexually. Millaray ponders if this was before or after her allegation.

I found one from before they dated  on a Reddit AMA that Stoya did.

Before.

I found this one on Twitter from Stoya’s blog. Its posted on Nov 2014. I am pretty sure they had split up by then because according to her Twitter around Aug 2014 she was moving back to NY.

After.

Either way Millaray holds the sentiment that a rape victim will often defend their rapist, so it doesn’t matter when Stoya wrote these positive things.

I don’t want to speculate on why Stoya said what she said. I don’t have any evidence to the contrary. I do think Stoya’s statements are flimsy but again nothing concrete to disprove her.

I will say that I can relate to a broken heart…and what I have observed points to that, in my honest opinion.

One thing that was frustrating was the fact that people kept bringing up the fact that Stoya is a sex worker. That Stoya’s and the other women’s job is the reason they couldn’t report their alleged sexual assault. No one pointed that fact out more then other sex workers and feminists.

I fail miserably at understanding the difference between a woman who has sex, with multiple partners for a living VS a woman who has sex with multiple partners because she CAN. Women ARE entitled to justice no matter what. I feel the general consensus among those who “believe the victims” is women can’t report sexual assaults at all, because they won’t be believed or its a humiliating experience. I don’t agree with not reporting crimes and will never support that.

Also no one really ever bothered mentioning that James is also a sex worker. What I saw is a male sex worker is immediately capable of being a rapist simply because he does sex work.

Included in James’s statement he posts a link to a clip that shows him and Stoya doing a scene and its a rough sex scene, she asks him to stop…so James stops.

He holds up the fact that a film produced by and starring him was featured on Stoya’s website as proof that he did nothing untoward. And he even went so far as to give the media previously unreleased footage of him and Stoya that shows him respecting her boundaries—which, honestly, just came across as an attempt to victimize Stoya further.  

Millaray thinks it’s bad for some reason that James has proof he knows what consent is and respects boundaries. Somehow it victimizes Stoya to prove that he knows what consent is, especially when it comes to Stoya.

 

I….I, like what?

 

What Millaray is absolutely right about is that he doesn’t want to accuse his accusers.

This is certainly not the first time James has been fine dealing with any sort of negative attention on his character and not wanting to say anything negative about the person being negative toward him.

One example is during the entire “sex tape” story involving reality TV personality Farrah Abraham in 2013, Farrah stated false things to the press (I.e she desperately wanted to this to be some Kim Kardashian type situation but James was never her boyfriend, James has denied that from day one, refused to go along with such a marketing strategy like she wanted and this “sex tape” was actually a professionally shot film produced by Vivid, a porn company) and made insulting comments about James.

Abraham had just stated that James’s penis was too small. Fans on his blog, as I was witness too, had very unkind things to say about Abraham because of this. The next day he wrote a blog stating that

“if a specific woman states she likes big dicks or refers to i don’t know… my dick as “tiny” doesn’t mean people should call her a whore or accuse her of having a large vagina.  everyone likes different things.  my opinion on equality is that everyone EQUALLY deserves respect.  respect opinions, respect desires, respect boundaries and personal space.  i could be wrong but at this time in my life i will operate under this principal until proven otherwise.”

James recently blogged a little on his feelings about how people precieve him.

“ i have realized a while ago that most the world doesn’t actually view me as a real person.  i am essentially an objectified vessel for them to project whatever desires/fantasies or opinions they want into. i’m ok with it.  it’s the life i chose and also i have never been one to really give any fucks.  i also find it amusing to see what people decide to make me in order to serve their own agenda.”

Consent is an important issue and always will be. While James may be comfortable with people like Millaray insisting he doesn’t know what it is. Me and lots of other people aren’t. James is one of the reasons many people, mainly women, embraced their desires and learned the difference between rough sex and abuse. While James isn’t perfect, I am not trying to make him into role model…I would hate to think that all of the good work he has done is being overshadowed by some obvious lies, little to no evidence of anything, and this scary thing where people not only believe things with no evidence but treat them as fact. This has real consequences on people’s lives.

I applaud Adi Shankarm, a Hollywood film director, for recently stating, “I won’t feed our growing pitchfork culture. I’m going to wait for all the facts to arrive and if in fact these allegations are true, I will immediately take action which includes removing his scenes from the project.” after one of his actors was accused of a sex crime as well.

Really wish more people had been like him.

We forget that’s it innocent until proven guilty…

I do wanna also state that I know our justice system is broken for sexual assault victims but it’s broken on both sides. Innocent people are being locked away and scumbags are being set free. There has to be real changes made to the justice system, that’s what we need to fight for.

Truth Wins, Feminists Lose

http://theothermccain.com/2016/01/25/truth-wins-feminists-lose/

 

In 2012, Canadian feminist Stephanie Guthrie (@amirightfolks on Twitter) decided to ruin Greg Elliott’s life, because (a) she didn’t like him and (b) he disagreed with her. Friday, after subjecting Mr. Elliott to a three-year ordeal, Ms. Guthrie’s destructive vendetta reached its final conclusion of failure in a Toronto courtroom:

 

Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of two charges of criminal harassment that stemmed from his Twitter interactions with two Toronto women’s rights activists. Judge Brent Knazan’s lengthy decision dwelled on both the nature of Twitter and freedom of expression in a ruling that is among the first in Canada.
Elliott was cleared, in part, because — though the judge noted his words were sometimes “insulting and homophobic” — his tweets were not considered overtly sexually or physically threatening.
Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Elliott of harassment partly based on his use of hashtags — a word, acronym or phrase after a number symbol used to create trackable conversations — they used. It was an assertion the judge found contrary to the open nature of Twitter. He said the pair may have felt harassed, but he couldn’t prove Elliott knew they felt that way, nor did the content of his tweets include explicitly threatening language.
Knazan also discussed the link between Twitter and freedom of expression. People must “tolerate the annoyance” of oppositional views as part of that Charter right,
“Freedom of expression represents society’s commitment to tolerate the annoyance of being confronted by unacceptable views…One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric,” he said, quoting from Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach’s book the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The judge also noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence.

 

This is an important ruling because there is no First Amendment in Canada. Americans are prone to take free speech and freedom of the press for granted, and thus have been slow to recognize the menace to liberty posed by feminism (a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It). Feminists are notoriously intolerant of criticism, and have effectively prohibited opposition in academia, where Lawrence Summers was purged from the presidency of Harvard University in 2006 after he dared to suggest there are “innate differences” between men and women.

Having obtained hegemonic authority in academia, feminists are endeavoring to silence opposition to their radical agenda in every other venue. The persecution of Greg Elliott as a scapegoat was clearly intended to make an example of him, a form of terroristic intimidation using the power of government to crush him, so as to send a message: “Disagree with a feminist, and this will happen to you, too.”

Greg Elliott’s victory in Canada is important. Toronto Post columnist Christine Blatchford remarks of the ruling:

He was acquitted, not, the judge was at pains to point out, because he didn’t find Guthrie and Reilly credible when they testified they felt harassed and were genuinely fearful, but because that fear was unreasonable.

To fully explain how the case developed would require more space than I want to devote to it, but basically it’s this: In 2012, Guthrie was looking for someone to design a logo for her Toronto feminist group. Elliott, a graphic artist, sought the contract and met for dinner with Guthrie to discuss the project. Evidence indicates that, after meeting with Guthrie, Elliott developed a romantic interest in her, but she had a boyfriend. Elliot did not get the contract, but Guthrie continued friendly communications with him. However, to quote the judge’s ruling:

In the meantime . . . Ms. Guthrie had researched some of Mr. Elliott’s tweets. She concluded that opinions he had expressed showed that his philosophy was not compatible with her organization and that they could not use his skills. . . .
Ms. Guthrie testified that she was not being entirely honest in her courteous emails and tweets to Mr. Elliott. She testified that she feared him from the time she had dinner with him — as being “creeped out” is a kind of fear — but that she was wrestling with her feelings given that women are criticized when they express them.

 

There is no evidence that Guthrie ever explained her attitude to Elliott. Any man experienced in dealing with women in business can probably relate to Elliott’s predicament. Sometimes, a woman will exhibit unexplained hostility and any attempt to resolve the mystery — “Hey, why didn’t you answer my email?” — is futile, because this is just the way some women are. They do not differentiate between their personal feelings (e.g., Guthrie feeling “creeped out” by Elliott) and practical considerations of business life (e.g., the value of Elliott’s skill as an artist). And if a woman like that decides she hates you, she never bothers to explain why she hates you.

Elliott did not cope well with Guthrie’s mysterious behavior. Feminists use the phrase “male entitlement” to describe the attitude of a man who, failing to read a woman’s mind, continues to talk to her after she decides she hates him. The guy who fails to take a hint — however subtle the hint may be — is apt to be labeled a “stalker” or “harasser” if he continues talking to a woman who hates him. In his mind, he is doing nothing wrong, but he fails to realize that her hatred of him means everything he does is wrong. His mere existence offends her.

Once Stephanie Guthrie decided she hated Greg Elliott, the only “right” thing he could do was avoid her. Because she continued to be overtly courteous in her emails, however, Elliott did not realize the intensity of Guthrie’s hatred toward him. In July 2012, matters took a turn described in Judge Knazan’s ruling:

 

[Bendilin] Spurr, a young man from Sault St. Marie, Ont., put a video game on the internet that permitted players to punch a prominent American feminist [Anita Sarkeesian] in the face. It was graphic in its violence. Ms. Guthrie tweeted about it on July 6 as follows: “So, I found the Twitter account of that fuck listed as creator of the ‘punch a woman in the face’ game. Should I sic the internet on him?” . . .
Ms. Guthrie sent a tweet linking his local newspaper to a story about his work, and tweeted: “Sault Saint Marie employers, if you get a resume from @BendilinSpurr, he made a woman facepunching game…” She attached an article from the Huffington Post online site about the “sick” online game that invited users to beat up a virtual Anita Sarkeesian.
Everything happened rapidly at the moment that Ms. Guthrie says was the turning point. Mr. Elliott tweeted directly to Ms. Guthrie: “@amirightfolks He’s got 11 followers. Why bring attention to the guy? Media attention will only add to more ‘virtual face punching.’”
Mr. Elliott tweeted that it was revenge.
Ms. Guthrie replied, putting a period before Mr. Elliott’s handle: “.@greg_a_Elliott Because I think the Sault Ste Marie community should be aware there is a monster in their midst.”
The exchange was becoming heated, but was a logical and fair debate.
Ms. Guthrie had enough of Mr. Elliott, the discussion and his views. She tweeted to him: “@greg_a_elliott If you think it’s revenge, you’re not paying attention. I’ve had it with you [. . .]” She then blocked him from sending tweets to her.

 

Stephanie Guthrie decided to destroy Ben Spurr, Gregory Elliott objected to her attempt to “sic the Internet” on Spurr, and from that point onward, the conflict descended into online war. Guthrie and her comrade Heather Reilly filed harassment charges against Elliott, the prosecutor took the case seriously and thus began a three-year nightmare ordeal for Elliott.Lauren Southern concludes of the ruling:

 

 

Anyone following this case knows that Greg is only guilty of the crime of wrongthink. He was arrested for critically engaging with people who disagreed with him. It wasn’t any different from what people do on social media platforms every day. . . .
He never threatened anyone, and he never gave anyone reason to fear for their safety.
All he did was argue with people that hated him so much they demanded he be shut down.
I don’t believe Stephanie Guthrie or her cronies felt victimized for a second. We’re talking about people who have posted images of themselves drinking from mugs with “male tears” written on them, after all.
They wanted Elliott to pay for having challenged them, nothing more.

 

Exactly. The problem is that feminist monsters like Stephanie Guthrie have convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of “the crime of wrongthink,” and that such a thought criminal has no rights at all. The beastly cruelty that Stephanie Guthrie displayed in her crusade to destroy Greg Elliott shows how feminism has become an ideology of hate that attracts paranoid fanatics who view their critics with a dehumanizing contempt.