She got paid to take dick. Whether it was uncle paying for his nephew to lose his virginity or strangers paying to watch it is irrelevant.
She's a whore.
A sign of the times
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
She got paid to take dick. Whether it was uncle paying for his nephew to lose his virginity or strangers paying to watch it is irrelevant.
She's a whore.
https://toofab.com/2025/06/03/annie-knight-only-fans-sex-challenge/
"You have to wear a condom — whether it is for a blowjob or actual vaginal sex — you have to wear a condom," the 28-year-old said on the Monday, June 2 episode of the Broad Ideaspodcast with Rachel Bilson and Olivia Allen.
"They then got padded down and got bag searches from my security, handed a condom, a balaclava and a wrist band with their number on it and then they were in a line for ages," she said.
There was also a security guard at the door to Knight, who told the men what they were and weren't allowed to do.
Unfortunately for Knight, her "fluffer" did not show up on the day. In the context of pornographic filmmaking, a fluffer is a person employed to ensure male actors are aroused. This meant that Knight was required to do some extra work to ensure the men were ready to have sex.
Along with 5-20 men in the room at a time, Knight had a videographer and photographer and another assistant timing each man, who were all given 30 - 60 seconds with Knight.
"You have to wear a condom — whether it is for a blowjob or actual vaginal sex — you have to wear a condom," the 28-year-old said on the Monday, June 2 episode of the Broad Ideaspodcast with Rachel Bilson and Olivia Allen.
"They then got padded down and got bag searches from my security, handed a condom, a balaclava and a wrist band with their number on it and then they were in a line for ages," she said.
There was also a security guard at the door to Knight, who told the men what they were and weren't allowed to do.
Unfortunately for Knight, her "fluffer" did not show up on the day. In the context of pornographic filmmaking, a fluffer is a person employed to ensure male actors are aroused. This meant that Knight was required to do some extra work to ensure the men were ready to have sex.
Along with 5-20 men in the room at a time, Knight had a videographer and photographer and another assistant timing each man, who were all given 30 - 60 seconds with Knight.
Nailed it!
Saying that it's their choice and they can do what they want with no regards to the ultimate effect on society at large as it becomes normalized is like saying that a liver cancer is no big deal if it does not affect the rest of the body.
No part of human society exists in a vacuum. Ultimately, the position take on matters of conduct and morality can affect the body politic, and when things like this become "popular" and normalized, it will affect the body of human society.
Cancers are not tolerated in the physical body because of the damage they cause to the whole organism. The same happens in situations like this.
How should we go about imposing your morality onto everyone else?
Do we make a law? Or do you disapprove and complain and hope others join in?
I guess I'm living in a vacuum, because I see all these OnlyFans whores raking in huge amounts of cash and I can only think "How?"
I work in IT. Porn is FREE on the internet. It's EVERYWHERE. Especially on the laptops of the sales teams.
Why would some simp PAY to see a naked girl?
My only guess is that they have failed at the internet.
I work in IT. Porn is FREE on the internet. It's EVERYWHERE. Especially on the laptops of the sales teams.
Why would some simp PAY to see a naked girl?
My only guess is that they have failed at the internet.
I don't know that it would be possible to "make a law." Legislating morality does not generally work. There are two issue that come to mind with your question:
First, a society generally holds a collective moral standard. e.g., 50, 25, probably even 10 years ago in western society culture, this kind of corruption would not have shown its face. Did it happen? Maybe, though I doubt to that degree. But it was not something that a woman or her betrothed would have flaunted like this.
That leads to the second issue. This, I would say, is a bellwether to where things are headed. With this kind of debauched behavior becoming acceptable, it will eventually be considered within the bounds of normal behavior, and a society built on this kind of debauchery cannot long sustain itself. History proves this.
The solution lies not in legislation, but it a moral and spiritual renewal wherein society once again puts value on things like modesty, decency, family, protecting women and children from predatory behavior - their own self-predatory behavior as well as that of others. This cuckhold of a "finacée" (the word loosely used) has failed in his duty as a husband even before betrothing the woman. He has let her be used as sex toy and a whore by a host of men.
I recently had to essentially rescue a woman very close to me from an attempt at being sex trafficked. She was blind to what was being done to her. I stepped in and intervened. Had I not, she would, by now, be locked in some filthy room somewhere, drugged up and being abused multiple times a day by numerous men. This is what men do for the women around them. They do NOT stand by and egg them on as they are used and abused by other men. Men (actual, real men, not just some dufus who happens to have XY chromosomes) take the lead and care for and protect. This jerk did not.
If this is where we are headed as a society (and I believe that this is truly a bellwether), then we are done.
Even there, the problem is not smartphones, but the lack of discipline and parental responsibility.
Alcohol is not a problem. Abuse of alcohol is the problem.
Guns are not the problem. Murderous intent in the human heart is the problem.
Automobiles are not the problem. Irresponsible drivers are the problem.
Sex is not the problem. A complete lack of understanding of what it means to be human is the problem.
I don’t have too. My children don’t have them, nor would I allow them to.
I would have no need to. 41 years married to the same woman, body count of 1 (her), and I need nothing more.
Somewhere in the complexities of humanity it has an overlap with why some people throw money at gambling and neural reward centers and church tithing.
Yet we have people all over the political spectrum that keep trying - which is what moralists generally do. I do things that certain people would consider "immoral" every damn day - and I'd consider those types to be "immoral" in return, except I'm more about ethics, than so-called "morality". Morality means someone, somewhere disagrees with it AND wants/expects everyone else to follow along with their opinion. Ethics simply asks "who gets hurt?" If no-one gets hurt, or its only the person "doing it" that gets hurt, moralists need to butt OUT.
I rampantly disagree with both smartphones and "social media" - I'll rant about it but I won't ask or insist that they be outlawed. That's the difference. That gal wants to "do" 583 guys in 6 hours? No skin off anyone's ass - nothing to see here, move along. Now if she were giving them a disease on purpose - that's another story. Incidentally, its "OK" to purposely give someone an STD in Commiefornia - a breakdown of ethics if I've ever seen one.
If you're content with that--then I'm sure miss OF is content making $200k a year doing what she does.
Right. Lack of tolerance has killed MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people throughout history. I can go on all day on this subject...
Might want to make a new thread for that
I'm too tired. All anyone needs to do is consult history.
Agree
I would wager to guess that anyone in this thread has not lost any sleep over this girl (for moral reasons)
Similar threads
