Fraud at The Heart of ‘Hot Girls Wanted’

Fraud at The Heart of ‘Hot Girls Wanted’

One of the stars of the new Netflix documentary Hot Girls Wanted has a secret, and it’s what the French call ‘problématique’

It has been written that “ideology knows the answer before the question has been asked.” Never has this been more clear than in the case of the new “documentary” film Hot Girls Wanted, which was snapped up by Netflix after its premiere screening at the Sundance Film Festival in January.

girl next door

The film looks at five young women who were recruited off of Craigslist by an “agent” in Miami, Florida named Riley from Hussie Models. It was directed by Jill Bauer and Ronna Gradus, whose previous documentary Sexy Baby, looked at an alleged cultural shift in the sexual landscape that, the women claim, was caused by adult entertainment.

The filmmakers claim their movie is the “first-ever look at the realities of the professional “amateur” porn world and the steady stream of 18-to-19-year old girls entering into it.”

Writing in Vice, Susan Elizabeth Shepard notes that the team’s new film is actually an exercise in offering “unexamined statements and vague intimations about how doing porn harms women and watching it warps men.” The agenda of the filmmakers is clear, says Shepard.

As Bauer and Gradus did in their previous film, Sexy Baby,they put forth the idea that porn has so thoroughly saturated popular culture that it’s not even necessary to watch actual pornography to absorb its influence…. Rather than explore how pornography might reflect society rather than shape it, they point to porn as the cause of societal ills. Bauer, for one, thinks that this leads to sexual assault. In an interview last week, she said, “All these [frat] boys are watching this porn… and it is no mistake that their behavior is aggressive, and that there are all these rapes on college campuses, because this is where it’s starting. This is what they’re watching.”

To reduce an epidemic of sexual assault to a problem instigated by pornography is problematic, at best. So, too, is [producer Rashida] Jones’s claim that “the trauma that it does on your body to have sex for a living is a real thing.”

These arguments (assertions, really) are right out of the playbook of radical feminist lecturer and academic fraud Gail Dines.

“Academic fraud” is a strong term — how could I substantiate that? Well, having previously claimed to have a “slew” of evidence on her side, Dines later admitted that, “there is no study, argument, or theory that will persuade us [i.e. radical feminists].” As writer Sarah Ditum noted in 2012, “Confronted with her own misuse of the research, she states that the research has never influenced her beliefs anyway.”

Lapdogs

As is usually the case when it comes to material critical of pornography or sex work, mainstream media have taken the movie at face value, regurgitating the filmmakers’ line that their “film attempts to pull back the covers on the amateur porn industry and its exploitive practices” (although Variety‘s glowing review did mention that the effect ‘pornified’ culture allegedly has on teen girls was “a point the film hits perhaps a bit too hard”).

Members of the adult film community, however — and in particular female adult performers (the group who would be natural allies of the filmmakers, were they honest and accurate in their presentation) — have mostly been outraged.

Adult star, and president of the Adult Performer Advocacy Committee (APAC), Chanel Preston wrote:

Overall, the documentary went like this: Here are these girls. They are being exploited. It is really sad. Then, after multiple scenes of tears and shame, the documentary ends with a vague message, leaving the viewer with a demonized view of the adult film industry.

I understand why Rashida Jones would want to make this documentary; she saw a group of young victims, and she wanted to raise awareness around the issue of female exploitation. Unfortunately, the documentary doesn’t have a view point about this subject beyond “this is bad” except that it alludes to pornography as being the problem.

Others in the adult biz took to Twitter to address the documentary:

Casey tweet 05-31 Tibbals tweet 05-31

Cherie jacky - Vanessa

 

Evol

Tibbals tweet 2 05-31

Netflix and the filmmakers have gone on an aggressive media tour in support of the documentary. Last week, the directors and producer Rashida Jones convened a panel on AOL Build to discuss the merits of the film, and its subject matter. Panelists included, on the pro-adult side, AVN’s Mark Kernes and law professor Nadine Strossen. The remainder of the panel spoke in support of the film, and included Gail Dines, and one of the documentary’s subjects, ex-performer Ava Taylor (a.k.a. Rachel).

The deck was stacked, as they say.

 

As one sex worker told TRPWL, “putting anti-pornography ‘academic’ Gail Dines on the panel shows the motivation behind the documentary. This film is being used as an excuse for more regulation in sex work; save the poor little girls who don’t know any better! How insulting is that? There’s nothing ’empowering’ to women about that message.”

Indeed, dragging Dines out on the press tour is a clear a sign as anyone should need that the filmmakers intended their work to be a propaganda piece, not merely a documentary simply presenting a story.

Ava Taylor aka Rachel with Rashida Jones - Fraud at The Heart of 'Hot Girls Wanted'
Ava Taylor aka Rachel with Rashida Jones. “I’m trying to be famous, so you gotta do what you gotta do,” say Rachel in the film.

An impassive and rather lackluster adult performer, Ava/Rachel oozed a sense of entitlement in the documentary; she wanted to make money and get famous fast. On the AOL panel, the dressed down and bespectacled Ava/Rachel — who claims to be out of sex work — is angry and combative, hurling blame at producers, her agent, and even the testing system for adult performers.

On one of her Twitter accounts, she has repeated how glad she is to be out, and moving on with her life.

Rachel tweet 1

Rachel tweet 2 Rachel tweet 3

She also repeats the view that porn is exploitative of “girls” and retweets anti-porn accounts:

rachel porn exploits rachel RTs anti-porn

However, there are a couple of big problems with what Ava/Rachel is saying.

For one thing, in March of this year — two months after Hot Girls Wanted premiered, Ava was back in Los Angeles shooting brand new porn scenes. A few of them are already available online:

2015 shoot Patient Pussy - w blur 2015 shoot Front Row Seat w blur

This despite the fact that the film claims she had left adult entertainment. And guess who Rachel/Ava had book those scenes for her? Riley from Hussie Models.

Shocked yet? Wait, it gets better.

Rachel/Ava currently offers escort sercvices online.

Fraud at The Heart of 'Hot Girls Wanted' - Ava Taylor escort ad, May 29, 2015

When I tweeted the above screen cap to Rachel/Ava, she replied that she had no control over who uses her pics online, and that her pics were also up on an adult agent’s website — implying quite clearly that she was not actually available and that her pics were being used without her permission. However, I can confirm beyond any question that she has in fact been taking escort appointments for some time.

Following a Twitter blow-up with myself and others on May 30 (after which she deleted several tweets), Rachel/Ava was moved to the escort site’s UTR (Under the Radar) section, but a post on TheEroticReview that advertised her services remained until it was deleted earlier today (May 31).

TER-ad-2015-05-28

 

Notice the date. Rachel/Ava is escorting right now — at the same time she is telling the world that she has better things to do than make a living off of her body.

Did the filmmakers know that Rachel/Ava has been putting one over on the public? And do they even care as long as their agenda gets eyeballs.

Let’s take a look the people behind Hot Girls Wanted.

Above the line

Among the producers is feminist philanthropist Abigail Disney (granddaughter of Roy O. Disney, co-founder of The Walt Disney Company). Previously, Disney served as Executive Producer on Bauer and Ronnus’ Sexy Baby. More recently, Disney made the news as one of the team of feminists (including anti-porn / anti-sex work feminist icon Gloria Steinem) endorsed by dictator Kim Jong-Un to announce they would march across the DMZ and hold a “peace conference” in North Korea.

Abigail Disney
Abigail Disney

Human Rights Foundation founder Thor Halvorssen was flabbergasted, and told reporters that the marchers are playing the role of useful idiots. “How many female defectors have they spoken to? None,” says Halvorssen.

The march was organized by a woman named Christine Ahn, who, as Foreign Policy noted, has worked closely with Korea Policy Institute (KPI) “and the now-defunct Korea Solidarity Committee [which] take positions that support or refuse to criticize the Kim dictatorship. And Ahn has spent much of the last 15 years whitewashing a North Korean government that the U.N. Human Rights Commission has said is guilty of ‘appalling human rights abuses … on a scale unparalleled in the modern world’ and ‘crimes against humanity with strong resemblances to those committed by the Nazis.'”

“How can Steinem and Disney participate given the rapes, forced abortions and sex trafficking?” Halvorssen asks. “Kim Jong-Un is right now putting his pleasure group of concubines together. Do they even know that?”

Ms. Disney also had a hand in the film, The Mask You Live In. The organization behind that movie, The Representation Project, claims that their film asks:

as a society, how are we failing our boys? The film will examine how gender stereotypes are interconnected with race, class, and circumstance, and how kids are further influenced by the education system, sports culture, and mass media- video games and pornography in particular. The film also highlights the importance of placing emphasis on the social and emotional needs of boys through healthy family communication, alternative teaching strategies, conscious media consumption, positive role modeling and innovative mentorship programs. The goal of this film is to spark a national conversation around masculinity and ultimately create a more balanced, equitable society for all.

As one commentator noted, masculinity is mentioned “only in the context that there is something wrong with masculinity that needs to be fixed – by feminist filmmakers and organizations dedicated to the ’empowerment’ of women and girls.” This is the Gloria Steinem – Gail Dines school of feminism.

Mary Anne Franks, an avowed feminist, is the film’s Co-Producer. She is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. She’s also a Catherine MacKinnon protégé who claims that the ruling in the Freeman case (which held that pornography is not prostitution and constitutes protected speech) “doesn’t hold up to legal analysis”.

Franks brags that she has worked with legislators to draft legislation against the non-consensual distribution of sexually explicit images. What she doesn’t mention is, as Mike Masnick notes at TechDirt, “her goal is to undermine Section 230 protections for websites (protecting them from liability of actions by third parties) to make them liable for others’ actions.” In other words, she would criminalize websites, ISPs and other third parties such as Google — punishing them with criminal penalties for material created and posted by others; material they likely never knew had been posted in the first place. The chilling effect this would have on speech cannot be overstated — and it is precisely the intention. (More on Mary Anne Franks and her pet revenge porn legislation.)

Jill Bauer, Rashida Jones, Ronna Gradus - AP
Jill Bauer, Rashida Jones, Ronna Gradus – AP

Add to this mix, the ‘face’ of the project, actress and producer Rashida Jones. The daughter of mega-rich musician and music producer Quincy Jones, and actress Peggy Lipton, Rashida grew up in a world of rare privilege. She attended the Buckley School in Sherman Oaks, California, whose other notable alumni include Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. A clip of Kardashian appears in Hot Girls Wanted, yet Jones appears oblivious to the fact that far more young women seek to emulate pseudo-celebrities such as her schoolmates than they do porn stars. Then again, those elite born into privilege — the winners of life’s lottery — never see their own corner of the world as the problem.

(As a side note, if you want to read something truly revolting, try Jones and Franks slobbering all over each other in this piece in Glamour.) 

Jones too comes from the Gail Dines school of feminism — she clutches her pearls close to her chest and frets over the Pornification of Everything. Women are “not considering the real cost, the psychological cost, the emotional cost, the physical cost,” Jones opines, while claiming that modern porn is defined by degrading and violent imagery.

Greene
Director/author Ernest Greene notes the connection between ‘Hot Girls Wanted’ and an earlier anti-porn documentary, ‘The Price of Pleasure’

Jones’ fellow producer is Debby Herbenick, an associate professor at Indiana University School of Public Health. As Mark Kernes reports at AVN:

“Human sexuality is broad, diverse, rich, nuanced and allows for so many possibilities about how a person can experience their sexuality,” Herbenick told Mic.com. “The kinds of sexualization and objectification we see in most mainstream porn tends to be pretty narrow… As my students often point out, porn sex often focuses on people’s genitals—as if that’s all that matters—and often features titles that describe women as ‘dirty whores’ or ‘sluts’.”

I don’t know what kind of porn Dines, Jones and Herbenickis are watching, but it doesn’t seem to align with the top selling and award-winning titles compiled by adult industry trade publication AVN, as Mark Kernes notes here.

Then again, as commentator and author Jordan Owen points out, Dines still tells “crowded lecture halls that Gag Me Then Fuck Me is one of the most popular porn sites on the web when the readily available empirical evidence of internet stats like those on Alexa show that it’s actually extremely unpopular.”

Christina Parreira also had a few choice words for the filmmakers:

I watched Hot Girls Wanted, and as a sex worker (and as a human being with agency) I was disgusted. This is nothing more than a propaganda piece from start to finish, infantilizing the adult women that chose to participate in pornography. Suddenly, they’re painted as helpless exploited victims with no agency, when in reality, they were adult women who signed contracts. Did they do their research into the unlicensed/unbonded agency they signed with? Perhaps not, but whose fault is that? This “documentary” takes a small slice of amateur pornography and makes it seem representative of ALL pornography. It does not reflect the realities and work lives of women who were savvy enough to do their research and to work with respected agencies and companies.

Outspoken adult star Mercedes Carrera offered this perspective on the affluent self-appointed saviors who dominate the documentary’s credits:

Mercedes

We’ll give the last word to Susan Elizabeth Shepard, who closed her Vice op/ed with the following:

While porn performer may be the only legal occupation where sexual boundaries are so blatantly up for negotiation, it’s not the only place where workers can get treated unfairly. It’s just the only place where the industry itself, rather than its practices, is subject to condemnation. Porn performers need the space to talk about bad experiences, however they describe them, without having them used as evidence against their entire business. Hot Girls Wanted reinforces tired sexual stereotypes that harm all women, while ignoring the real work concerns specific to porn performers. In its moral simplicity and willingness to exploit its subjects, it ends up resembling the genre it aims to expose.

 

48 Responses to "Fraud at The Heart of ‘Hot Girls Wanted’"

  1. Ira Levine   May 31, 2015 5:17 pm at 5:17 PM

    For as long as there’s a buck to be turned off moral panic over porn, these charlatans will be out there telling lies and exploiting sex workers in order to get their grubby, sweaty paws on them. My real anger is at Chris Hayes, who I usually regard with some respect as a journalist, lobbing soft-ball questions at the producer of this latest hunk of tripe on his MSNBC show. Normally a tough interviewer, he did not challenge a single cooked statistic or ginned up pseudo-fact this graduate of The Josef Goebbels School of Journalism puked up.

    Hayes also failed to present a single speaker in opposition to what was clearly a pandering promo for a sensationalized commercial product built on lies – the sort of thing he’s customarily inclined to rebut.

    I hope this piece of trash dies at the box office like so many of its vile predecessors and I expect that hope to be fulfilled because most moviegoers simply aren’t as stupid as the creators of this craptastic extravaganza assume.

     
    Reply
  2. Quorrl   May 31, 2015 5:41 pm at 5:41 PM

    Can that escort site really be trusted? Do you know the people behind them personally, so that you can be sure you trust them as witnesses?

    And just because this forum post on TheEroticReview.com was changed, does that really prove anything?

     
    Reply
    • Deep Throat   May 31, 2015 6:26 pm at 6:26 PM

      As I wrote in the article, the validity of the escort ads has been established without question.

       
      Reply
  3. Norma Jean Almodovar   May 31, 2015 5:55 pm at 5:55 PM

    It never ceases to amaze me that the gall these abolitionists have in trying to overturn our Constitutional rights by making absurd claims about porn and prostitution. I’ve been fighting these despicable fraudulent ‘feminists’ for 33 years now and instead of making progress, we are going backwards. What happened to “my body, my choice”? Or are we only allowed to make choices of which THEY approve?

    Given the talent in the sex worker community to write articulate and well documented articles, it is heartbreaking to see the liars and frauds winning the day with their propaganda pieces. An excellent article, Deep Throat.

     
    Reply
    • Deep Throat   May 31, 2015 7:56 pm at 7:56 PM

      Thank you, Norma, I’m honored that you read it.

       
      Reply
  4. crunkleschwitz   May 31, 2015 10:32 pm at 10:32 PM

    So by associating w/ all them man h8n feminist loons, we should be able to safely say that Rashida is probably more into eating pie than strudel, huh?

     
    Reply
    • Ira Levine   June 1, 2015 2:13 am at 2:13 AM

      Her sexual orientation isn’t relevant to the issue anyway, but for what it’s worth, she comes across as very much het. She’s also conventionally attractive and presents as femme. I doubt that’s any less calculated than anything else about this whole disingenuous project. Dines is a veritable radfem poster girl who instantly triggers every suspicion you might hold about her motives. Rashida is far less threatening to the ordinary viewer, which helps disguise the fact that they’re clones under the skin.

       
      Reply
  5. Anthony Kennerson   June 1, 2015 4:21 am at 4:21 AM

    What strikes me most about this scam of a “documentary” is the funding by the Disney and (indirectly) the Hunt foundations. For someone who claims to be a “critic” of capitalism, Dines sure depends on multimillionaires for her screeds, doesn’t she?

    Also….the “documentary” also goes to the usual libel of how all porn girls have to go through “hate sex” sites like FacialAbuse.com in order to get paid. That’s funny, since all the performers I know and follow have been able to reject offers to shoot for that site for whatever reasons, and they managed to survive. If anything, FA was more trying to ride Belle Knox’s coattails to revive their third-rate site, because she originally shot under another pseudonym which they used, before changing it when they found out who she was. I really don’t think that Brazzers or Bang Bros. or Reality Kings need Craiglist ads to search for talent.

    Also…everything Ira/Ernest, Michael, Merc, Christina, and everyone else here said.

     
    Reply
    • crunkleschwitz   June 1, 2015 8:56 pm at 8:56 PM

      How dare you! 3rd rate? Not the boys of the Jersey Wrecking Crew.

       
      Reply
  6. AL_360   June 1, 2015 7:43 am at 7:43 AM

    Great article

    I was amused when Jill Bauer & Ronna Gradus claimed that they’re neither “pro-porn or anti-porn” as I watched panel on AOL.

     
    Reply
  7. johnny   June 1, 2015 10:18 am at 10:18 AM

    Uhhh, there were a couple of points in here that were valid, but the vomit spewing from the author’s mouth pretty much obscured them. For example:

    “Rashida grew up in a world of rare privilege. She attended the Buckley School in Sherman Oaks, California, whose other notable alumni include Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. A clip of Kardashian appears in Hot Girls Wanted, yet Jones appears oblivious to the fact that far more young women seek to emulate pseudo-celebrities such as her schoolmates than they do porn stars.”

    The film plainly insinuates, if not outright states, that sex videos of celebrities, e.g. Paris Hillon and Kim Kardashian, play a large role in how young women “feel” about the acceptance of being a porn star. Yet, the author is somehow critical of the producer for not believing this? I don’t understand.

    Finally, if one of the author’s points in this article is to suggest that the “elite” are unfairly picking on working class young women trying to make a living, then why would the author feel the urge (or even the need) to go after one of the young actresses in the film? I might believe the author that the actress was being used by the producers and directors unfairly, both in the film and now in promoting it, but to include information concerning how this young woman currently earns a living seems less about contradiction and more about shaming. Shame on you Mr. Author.

     
    Reply
    • Deep Throat   June 1, 2015 10:51 am at 10:51 AM

      You have it precisely backwards. “[T]o include information concerning how this young woman currently earns a living seems less about contradiction and more about shaming” — No, the fact of the matter is that she is a liar. Either she was put up to it by the producers, or she chose to lie to meet their needs, but the filmmakers have put a liar before the public to speak in support of the film and its underlying anti-porn message. However, to state that she is a liar one needs to provide corroboration.

      I’d like to know where anyone who reads this site would get the idea that we shame sex workers. We out liars. And we support the decriminalization of all sex work between consenting adult parties, and try to fight sex work stigma in our own way.

      Here’s the heart of it, Johnny: the film goes out of its way to portray Riley, the “agent”, as a sleazy opportunistic character. The film also claims that Ava/Rachel left sex work to become a photographer. The press tour in support of the film has been dominated by anti-porn messaging. (As i note in the article, this is easy to understand since every single member of the team believes the core tenets of anti-porn feminism.) On this press tour, they have trotted out Ava/Rachel to parrot those same views of the porn business, to attack her agent, and to claim that she has “better things” to do with herself than use her body to make money.

      So, if in reality Ava/Rachel is still booking porn shoots, AND using Riley to do it, what does that mean? It means that either Riley isn’t as bad as they are making out, or Ava/Rachel is an idiot.

      Alternatively, if Ava/Rachel is an idiot, then why should we care about what she has to say?

      Add to this that we now know Ava/Rachel is a liar, whose lies support the propaganda of her new benefactors.

      ALL of this undermines both the message of the film and the credibility of all concerned.

      Finally, you write: “the film plainly insinuates, if not outright states, that sex videos of celebrities, e.g. Paris Hillon and Kim Kardashian, play a large role in how young women ‘feel’ about the acceptance of being a porn star”

      Not quite. The film insinuates that the pornography and a resultant “pornified” culture is to blame. They don’t blame Paris and Kim, they portray the actions and the resultant fame of these female “celebrities” as a result of the pornified culture (note Jones’ tweet about celebrities “acting like whores”), continuing the Dinesian themes laid out in ‘Sexy Baby’. They lay all blame at the feet of adult entertainment.

      In closing, may I also note the irony of a commenter taking me to task for alleged “shaming” then closing his missive with “Shame on you Mr Author”?

       
      Reply
      • markm   June 11, 2015 11:37 am at 11:37 AM

        Like all successful sex workers, Ava/Rachel is an actress, among other things. It’s far more likely that the liars are the editors and producers who presented her paid performance as real.

         
        Reply
  8. TheRealJPaulRead (@RealJPaulRead)   June 2, 2015 5:46 pm at 5:46 PM

    It seems to be a reoccurring theme from the anti-porn feminists, every five or eight years or so they prop up someone who had allegedly a terrible experience in the adult industry, in the hopes of social outcry, looking for a tipping point where more industry performers would come forward and justify their crusade. But it never happens that way. There’s always a Lubben who claim that many current and former stars and starlets have come to them with their stories of heartache and abuse, only to have said performer make their own statement to clear the air. If the details of the article are correct (a point I’m not disputing), and Ava/Rachel is still heavily engaged as a sex worker on and off film, than it would appear that Ava is getting her fame and quick cash, and the likes of Jones and Company get their agenda across, facts be damned.

    No one should be taken seriously if they need to lie to push their agenda.

     
    Reply
  9. Pingback: In the News (#543) | The Honest Courtesan

  10. Pingback: 'Hot Girls Wanted' Was Director Caught Editing Mention of Bad Review from Wikipedia - TRPWL : TRPWL

  11. Pornfan991   June 3, 2015 7:38 pm at 7:38 PM

    This is a great article. They portrayed porn as not giving these girls any choices but they had plenty of choices. With a better agent and not getting gigs off of craiglist things would have been much better.

     
    Reply
    • Ernest Greene   June 3, 2015 9:18 pm at 9:18 PM

      Obviously they were looking for those who make bad choices to buttress their case. Lots of cam girls are doing very well, living the lives they want and speaking articulately about the issues that concern them. Clearly, their mere existence is a threat to the prohibitionist cause and they’ll never get a minute to have their say as long as the Dines crowd has a death grip on the brainstems of mainstream news producers.

       
      Reply
  12. Elle   June 3, 2015 11:13 pm at 11:13 PM

    “This film is being used as an excuse for more regulation in sex work; save the poor little girls who don’t know any better!” uhm… what’s wrong with more regulation? Later on you quote Elizabeth Shepard who suggests that the film “ignore[s] the real work concerns specific to porn performers.”

    So, like any industry there are real labour issues and there are clearly regulation issues that lead to concerns (do you leave room that these concerns can include exploitation? perhaps not to every performer or by every company). Where is the room to be critical of labour issues in pro-amateur porn? Nadine Strossen, pro-adult side (as you said), even seeks regulation over prohibition. Pro-sex work and pro-pornography seeks re-dress labour issues through regulation not indicting every criticism of its labour issues as anti-sex work. And the film-makers are very clear that this is a slice of the porn industry and specifically pro-am porn. Rashida even asks the question, what then is the solution to the experiences of young women turning to the quick money of craigslist pro-am agents and even licensed agents in Miami or Las Vegas who then go on to exploit some young women (and i am not asking assuming the answer is prohibition, because i don’t think prohibition is an effective option). I think Strossen is getting somewhere with education and opening opportunities to women and stronger requirements for women to understand their rights when it comes to adult entertainment. less stigma as well. but it starts with a willingness to be open to reform and to accept some regulation.

    Did you even watch the panel above? Rachel/Ava clearly states she is in a contract with L.A. Direct that she can’t get out of meaning she still has to work for them and/or they are allowed to use her name and image unless she pays them 3,000$ to get out of it. So she doesn’t deny anything and isn’t really a liar… If any of it later disappeared isn’t it at all possible that subsequent to the panel, Strossen and others helped her out of her contract?

    That being said the panel is a shit-show especially on the part of Gail and Kourtney wow.

     
    Reply
    • Deep Throat   June 4, 2015 5:23 am at 5:23 AM

      “[W]hat’s wrong with more regulation?” LOL A lot.

      “[S]tronger requirements for women to understand their rights when it comes to adult entertainment” Are you shittiing me?

      “Rachel/Ava clearly states she is in a contract with L.A. Direct that she can’t get out of meaning she still has to work for them…” No, the contract does not mean that; it means that IF she works she has to pay them a commission. No contract is enforceable that would require someone to do porn against their will. And in any event, Ava/Rachel HAS BEEN shooting porn voluntarily, using Riley to book the scenes, not LA Direct.

      “If any of it later disappeared isn’t it at all possible that subsequent to the panel, Strossen and others helped her out of her contract?” LMAO No. Nothing was removed from the LA Direct site, and the escort agency moved her to UTR — they did not remove her.

       
      Reply
  13. Elle   June 4, 2015 7:26 am at 7:26 AM

    “[S]tronger requirements for women to understand their rights when it comes to adult entertainment” Are you shittiing me?”

    No, lol. There are plenty of non profit organizations in the states that work specifically on labour rights education. I think more can be done around adult entertainment, a good initiative is http://apac-usa.com/ who you cite. Click on “education” and you see a perfectly good example of a video full of adult entertainment performers using their platform to discuss what someone’s rights and responsibilities are when it comes to filming porn. That being said, i am not familiar about any others besides APAC that do specific work with women/people in porn or specifically pro-am porn where this kind of stuff is happening. I know a bunch that work with women who do sex work and escort work on the street and I know a bunch that work with migrant workers around immigration and labour rights but I also don’t know many who specifically target adult entertainment performers (besides the california based APAC). California seems to have the most progressive policies around adult film stuff because its hollywood and high end porn production is so prolific there. There aren’t national standards across states or organizations that work across state lines to push for similar legislation hence why we see Riley working out of miami and not L.A. Without indicting porn as the problem, sexual exploitation does seem to be a problem (those for whom it is a problem) and without indicting the entire industry, its fair to look at that problem and discuss how to address it and suggest it be open to reform. Education isn’t even much to ask.

    the more you take a libertarian stance on regulation and talk about your “confirmed sources” around AVA/Rachel the less legitimate you even sound. Its clear Rachel is in it for the money and making the choice to do porn and is locked into her contract. There is no lying about that on her part. It is also true she’d rather not do porn. The two aren’t incompatible (nor is she being forced to do it against her will, neither does she want to do it – there is room in between). I hate my job, but i need to do it for money. I want to quit, but i am locked into a contract and its easy money. I’d rather not do it, but its better than welfare lol. her situation is not unlike most people’s situation. So she has every right to do whatever the fuck she wants, she can work if she needs to work and she doesn’t when she doesn’t want to. That’s not at odds with not wanting to work. We all work when we don’t want to in order to make money. So your indictment of her shows complete ignorance to the context of women in porn anyway.

    The issue is that stigmatization makes it difficult for some women to leave porn, few alternative options and a lack of knowledge of their rights (to those who don’t know) make it more likely for women who don’t want to do something in porn (perhaps pro-am moreso than others) to feel like they have to do something they don’t want to do (just like in any work setting). the problem is that we have a black and white understanding of consent making any person in sex work or adult entertainment doing sex stuff they don’t want to do sound like rape when we can consent to work we don’T like all the time. However, we do need to be sensitive that consenting to sex scenes that a persons doesn’t really want to do is especially difficult in a world that both slut shames women and blames them for sexual violence. this specific context makes looking at how these decisions are negotiated and protecting workers in these negotiations really important! even if one can consent to sex work they’D rather not do because they’d rather have the money, its important to realize the type of toll on a person might be harder than in other industries because its sex and society and people that would help other workers in similar situations have poor understanding of both adult entertainment and sex work.

    There are many companies who do the right thing. There might be a plethora of education happening among young performers in some places. this clearly isn’t enough to stop aspects of exploitation that are clearly still happening. Pro-sex work pro-adult film advocates talk about regulation and education as a legitimate way to protect people entering the industry. Even the people you cite recognize there are labour issues in the industry. Its fair to look at those and discuss how to make it better.

    Its not just abolition or laissez-faire. there are other options in between.

     
    Reply
  14. Pingback: Hot Girls Wanted Tries and Fails to Turn Its Porn-Star Subjects Into Victims - Hit & Run : Reason.com

  15. Nikki Swarm   June 4, 2015 11:58 am at 11:58 AM

    There is enough to critique in the film and the behavior of the filmmakers to fill up an article without outing a sex worker as an escort. This only adds to the anti sex work slut shaming that Hot Girls Wanted its parading around like education. We don’t need to participate in their garbage behavior and mistreatment of young women. If she wants her escorting to be private, we should respect that. I urge you to reconsider your decision to publish this information, and take it down. If this stays up, how are we any better than the schmuck kid who outed Bella Knox? Thank you.

     
    Reply
    • Deep Throat   June 4, 2015 2:19 pm at 2:19 PM

      “We don’t need to participate in their … mistreatment of young women. If she wants her escorting to be private, we should respect that.” You are so off base it’s hard to describe.

      You clearly have a unique definition of “private”: this young woman has advertised her escort services online — PUBLICLY — using her adult performer name to trade on its value.

      AFTER she was caught in her own lies (by us, by the way) — lies which threw sex workers and the adult business under the bus — the escort site moved her to the UTR section.

      “[H]ow are we any better than the schmuck kid who outed Bella [sic] Knox?” That’s simple: we have published only that information which SHE has made available. We know her last name, and the city she lives in, and much more about her, but NONE of that information is in this article because it’s not relevant.

      In closing, not one word of the information published about her will ever be removed. Ever.

      P.S. Nikki, while you’re fretting about us pointing out a lying fraud who sold out her fellow sex workers by spouting Gail Dines talking points, Ava/Rachel will be throwing all of you under the bus again on ABC News Nightline tonight.

       
      Reply
      • Ernest Greene   June 4, 2015 4:03 pm at 4:03 PM

        I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would leap to the defense of a Quisling who sells out to people intending to make her livelihood impossible along with those of all her colleagues while still soaking every dime she can out of the business her new “friends” are trying to destroy with lies and smears.

        If it turned out that a labor organizer working for the UMW was also in the pay of the Koch brothers I can’t imagine any of the hand-wringers here would be so protective of that individual.

        As for Ava, if she wanted to avoid being exposed for betraying her own kind, she had the option of not participating in this odious propaganda product or giving up her day job to promote it. Trying to have it both ways reveals her to be as much a fraud as the film itself and impeaches the producers’ credibility as much as it does her own. it speaks to the manipulative way in which this so-called “documentary” was made and who was specifically recruited to make it.

        The information posted here is germane to the question of the film’s source’s reliability. If the sources the film used are liars that’s a thing viewers should know before they swallow the film’s premise uncritically.

         
        Reply
    • Deep Throat   June 5, 2015 1:15 pm at 1:15 PM

      Her you go, Nikki — ABC news outed your girl Rachel’s full name and hometown.

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/hot-girls-wanted-teen-girls-seeking-fame-lured/story?id=31290984

      They also add: “[Rachel] is back at home with her parents and her dream is to become a movie director. She now works doing photography for local musicians.”

      But woe unto us if we point out that this is a calculated lie by a conniving liar, right?

       
      Reply
  16. Pingback: Hot Girls Wanted | JD Blog

  17. Pingback: <em>Hot Girls Wanted</em> Tries and Fails to Turn Its Porn-Star Subjects Into Victims | Michigan Standard

  18. Pingback: 'There is no such thing as bad publicity' Riley Reynolds- Hussie Models - TRPWL : TRPWL

  19. Pingback: Three Performers Weigh In On Hot Girls Wanted - Kinky

  20. Sandra Webbear   June 11, 2015 2:10 am at 2:10 AM

    Mr. Throat, after listening to “Rachel/Ava” in the AOL segment, wouldn’t you agree her education surrounding the industry, representation, even STDs and transmission is seriously lacking? I’m sure there are many other young ADULT women/men who have this same problem and their ignorance can be easily exploited. I’m really doubting the level of comprehension some of these women have when they supposedly, ‘know what they signed up for.’

     
    Reply
    • Ernest Greene   June 11, 2015 12:20 pm at 12:20 PM

      And they were cherry-picked to inspire just this kind of leading question. In a manipulative piece of propaganda no fact that might upset the creators message. Again, the producers went to someplace far removed from where most camming is done, sought out what they thought would be the easiest targets for their rhetoric and posed questions intended to draw out answers supportive to their main contention, which is that cam girls are exploited labor and are just too ignorant and immature to be making these decisions for themselves without the “help” of Gail Dines. The producers count on gullible viewers to assume that what was shown them accurately reflects an entire industry and everyone in it, which it does not.

       
      Reply
      • Gerald   June 11, 2015 5:25 pm at 5:25 PM

        http://bit.ly/1f5OizI
        TLC link of Ava
        lel Gail Dines, I can do without this demagogue. The coon probably subscribes to theminion Rashida is a pretty fair host though. Would fap to naked Nadine >paid rape >muh statistics
        @Deep Throat, why can’t you reveal your confirmation of the escorting? sounds a little hearsay at this point

         
        Reply
        • Deep Throat   June 12, 2015 12:07 am at 12:07 AM

          Gerald, I cannot out my sources. I would not have run that part of the story had I not confirmed those facts through credible sources. All I can say is, my sources are unassailable, and I have detailed statement(s) in writing.
          Also, had I belabored the point by using some of the info I have, I could predict being accused of “shaming” a sex worker for her work, which is not my aim.

           
          Reply
  21. Sandra Webbear   June 11, 2015 11:05 pm at 11:05 PM

    Ernest, I’m not making a sweeping generalization of the entire industry. But, I don’t think it’s too far fetched to believe there are other women like “Ava/Rachel”. AND, that there are women targeted and exploited within the industry. I’m not talking the industry in its entirety. It’s pretty telling when the chick doesn’t even know condoms offer very minimal protection against herpes, particularly when exposed (condom or no condom) to an outbreak. Shouldn’t knowledge of STDs and their transmission be one of the tools of the trade?

    I’m sure they did cherry-pick “Ava/Rachel” and, in a sense, exploited her to do their bidding (which, I admit, is equally disgusting). Fortunately for Ava/Rachel, she’ll end up benefiting in the long run, by accident. Not because SHE employed a strategic publicity move, but because her benefactors did.

    Dines lost me the moment she started frothing at the mouth with assertions usurping our constitutional rights. She’s out of her mind and no way could she have the mental fortitude to HONESTLY help anyone sans her radical judgments.

    I’m waiting for a film to show the other side of the industry. The side of the industry where women/men have a head on their shoulders with a sincere passion for pushing past taboos and fulfilling a personal life philosophy, whatever it may be. That’s what interests me. So where is it, Ernest?

     
    Reply
    • Ernest Greene   June 11, 2015 11:26 pm at 11:26 PM

      That’s the question that should be put to the producers at places like ABC and MSNBC. It costs money to make a network standard documentary and people like Dines are supported by colleges (Wheelock in her case, NYU in the case of Chyng Sun), government agencies (as Melissa Farley’s “prostitution research” was funded by the Bush administration in exchange for a pledge not to allow any suggestion of decriminalization by anyone interviewed into the final report) and right-wing religious outfits like The Family Research Counsel that take in millions yearly in tax exempt contributions.

      Why don’t major news gathering organizations do their own homework instead of relying on patently biased professional advocates? So far, only the fearless folks at Vice have ever given sex workers a fair shake in mainstream media. The real blame lies with media professionals who outsource their jobs to partisan hacks. Would they let the RNC run their election night coverage? I highly doubt it. But when it comes to sex work, nobody cares to challenge the “conventional wisdom” out of gutlessness and laziness.

      Accurate information is readily available from experienced, credible sources but it’s necessary to reach out to them and mainstream media simply doesn’t want that gig, so it falls to Gail Dines by default.

       
      Reply
      • Gerald   June 13, 2015 4:03 am at 4:03 AM

        @Mr Throat, you might have seen http://jezebel.com/in-hot-girls-wanted-porn-isnt-ruining-women-exploitat-1709109263 but here it is in case anyone else hasn’t. They’re also running with the “she was back in business and an escort on top” story, citing you as a source. The she was back shooting porn part was proved with the release of new scenes starring: her, but I have to remain sceptical on the other claim given the weight of available evidence or lack thereof. Imho if your evidence is as damning as you say, I’m certain it’ll be seen as proper investigative journalism rather than any malice or as you say, slut shaming on your part. I’m sure you’re quite capable of publishing sensitive evidence while at the same time protecting the anonymity of your source, so I guess we’ll never know the real reason why or ever see that proof come to light. Anyway thank you for writing this piece and bringing it to all our attentions

         
        Reply
        • Deep Throat   June 13, 2015 10:33 am at 10:33 AM

          Gerald, one of the screenshots we published is of a post that was published on The Erotic Review announcing her availability through a leading escort agency. Multiple sources confirm she is escorting (she’s also, all of a sudden, driving a new BMW). Moreover, you assume that the writer for Jezebel used my article as the sole source for the escorting assertion.

           
          Reply
  22. Anthony Kennerson   June 14, 2015 5:56 pm at 5:56 PM

    One fascinating aspect of the Gawker article updating Ava/Rachel’s hypocrisy is how they go deep into her supposed conflict with LA Direct Models agent guru Derek Hay over getting paid for some scenes. Perhaps that explains how Lisa Ann all of a sudden has been sending out love tweets to the producers of HGW? Or, is it just the countinuing search for a camera to preen since her career went bust…..errrrrrr, her retirement? Or, her continuing war to “purge” the sex industry of “escorts” and “whores”?

     
    Reply
    • Deep Throat   June 14, 2015 6:21 pm at 6:21 PM

      Ava/Rachel came under Lisa Ann’s tutelage some time ago, and coincidentally or otherwise, that was when things appear to have started to go off the beaten track for ol’ Rachel.

       
      Reply
  23. Awesta   July 26, 2015 11:56 pm at 11:56 PM

    rachel has stated numerous times that when she was in the industry she signed a contract that allows the escort company to keep her name on the site as long as they keep offering her work, not mattering if she’s in the industry or not. She just got accepted into the art institute of Chicago and is a thriving photographer so tell me where porn still fits into her life? And the other porn stars that are bashing the doc obviously didn’t catch on to the fact that Jill and Ronda made it very clear that they were focusing on amateur porn, not the whole industry.

     
    Reply
  24. john paul   August 17, 2015 12:43 am at 12:43 AM

    What was the escort site that Ava was on?

     
    Reply
  25. johnny   January 19, 2016 2:38 am at 2:38 AM

    Who ever own the picture,can basically do whatever they want with them,unless otherwise is stated in the contract, cant they?

     
    Reply
  26. Dave Nielsen   February 2, 2016 2:36 pm at 2:36 PM

    What a moron. Do you have any real proof that “Ava” didn’t leave the industry, as she says? Notice, I said “real proof.” This site is an embarrassment. You’re a loser who doesn’t want to have to feel guilty when he jacks off.

     
    Reply
  27. James Rustles   May 7, 2016 6:09 am at 6:09 AM

    Ava Taylor has a body that was meant for porn. Regardless of the article, interviews, or tweets and boohoos, she’s fulfilling her life’s destiny. I, for one, give her my best one-handed salute and hope to see her back on the camera doing what she does best before she gets BTFO by too many huge penises.

     
    Reply
  28. Ashley J.   May 8, 2016 12:02 pm at 12:02 PM

    @Dave Nielsen She had a video release February 2016 through Passion, and when this video debuted on Netflix she had a number of clips from Mofo, Porn Pros, and Digital Desires.

     
    Reply
  29. Tom   July 11, 2016 3:34 pm at 3:34 PM

    It is quite common for adult video companies to hold on to content for up to 2 years before actually releasing it. This can be proven by looking at the current videos being released by Dakota Skye. Earlier this year she got a half sleeve tattoo on her left upper arm. You will see content with the release dates within the last few months where there is no tattoo. She the fact that Ava has content being release doesn’t mean the content was filmed recently.

     
    Reply
    • TRPWL-Sean   July 11, 2016 3:38 pm at 3:38 PM

      Ava is actually back to shooting…

       
      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.