And the inter- vs outercourse (which isn’t even a word) argument is moot. It’s not as if intercourse needs to occur for rape, as you said, she was fingered, that’s penetration. And even that isn’t necessary for rape to occur, in my opinion.

I don’t care how the penetration occurs, or with what, if it occurs without consent, that’s “real rape”. But to be clear, I’m not saying that this is the full extent of rape, there are other ways too. But for penetration to have to be specifically with a penis is a ridiculous premise. 

Yeah, i wasn’t quite clear, I intended for that to be in cases where performers own/create their own content, so they have a legitimate case to collect their ad revenue.

Fair enough, that’s definitely the ugly side to it and thanks for shedding light on it for me.

You know her to personally own her tube site and official website? I would think as a mainstream performer such as Mia that would be unlikely, especially given how short her career was.

Yeah, it’s still unfair though, given her popularity.

hahaha, well played.

I never said she could. The post I responded to was about them not receiving royalties. That’s why I specifically said she “could be collecting”, if she got said royalties.

but actors and singers at least, when they become famous, usually get some sort of royalty deal. It may be an unfair deal in many cases, but there’s something at least. I think as an adult film star, this may not be common. As mainstream pornstars always seem to quip that they should be in producing if they want to…

So much this. Mia could be collecting money for years and years to come off views to her pornhub, and other tube-site views. Pornhub will even back-pay you if you can make a legitimate claim on a video uploaded without your authorization.

That’s not terrible pay for 3 to 4 months of work, especially if the amount of hours weren’t equivalent to a full time job.

Let me re-frame my point:

Exactly, in my eyes, this has nothing to do with under staffing, overworking or cost-cutting or any other excuse. If they had actually wanted to keep the, at the time, highest profile prisoner in the US alive, they w/could’ve. End of story.

This however, in my eyes, has nothing to do with under staffing, overworking or cost-cutting. If they had actually wanted to keep the, at the time, highest profile prisoner in the US alive, they could’ve. End of story.

I take it this doesn’t apply to me? I bought my Pixel XL used.

I will repeat for the 3rd time: if they had actually wanted to keep him alive, they absolutely could have, he was the highest profile prisoner in the US. He does not compare to your coworkers friend of a friend, OR the woman in an old movie. Or the Korean in a drama.

Yep, something managed to get the prison to be willfully negligent.

Where there’s a will there’s a way, only goes so far. When we’re talking about the highest profile prisoner in the US, I refuse to believe that we are so incompetent that we couldn’t have kept him alive, IF we wanted to.

exactly.

In this case funding is irrelevant, no matter how bad it was, nobody, and I mean nobody, can convince me that they couldn’t have found enough resources to keep THE highest profile prisoner in the US alive. As someone recently said, you’d be considered a conspiracy theorist if you did not think his death was extremely…