E-Mail to a Friend: Are We Being Too Judgmental About the Duke Porn Star?

Posted on | March 12, 2014 | 115 Comments

@Belle_Knox is Duke freshman Women’s Studies major Miriam Weeks.

If nothing else, the controversy over Miriam Weeks, a/k/a “Belle Knox,” is proving the truth of Rule 5 (“Everybody Loves a Pretty Girl“), as the most popular posts here in recent days have been the ones about the Duke University freshman’s pornography career. And the second-most popular story Tuesday at the New York Daily News had this headline:

Duke University porn star
Belle Knox denies report that
her parents are heartbroken
The Duke University coed who turned to porn to pay tuition claimed Monday that her parents are not upset with her X-rated off-campus activities.
Miriam Weeks, 18, denied a report that her dad, an Army doctor, was heartbroken when he learned of her moonlighting gig upon returning from deployment in Afghanistan.
“My parents aren’t upset,” Weeks told the Daily News Monday in between filming scenes for an upcoming adult film.
“I want my family left out of it. If people criticize me that’s one thing, but leave my family alone,” Weeks said.
She said she was “really, really upset” over an online article Monday in The Daily Mail that identified her parents as Dr. Kevin and Harcharan Weeks, devout Catholics from Spokane, Wash.

Except, of course, that in earlier interviews conducted behind a pseudonym, she conveyed the idea that her parents’ inability (or unwillingness) to pay her tuition at prestigious Duke was responsible for her decision to do porn. In other words, her family was relevant, as long as Miriam Weeks could tell stories about them without anybody being able to fact-check her. However, once journalists started doing some actual reporting — rather than just acting as stenographers for the privileged prep-school graduate — suddenly her family is off-limits, because their version of the story doesn’t exactly match her version.

Considering that Miriam Weeks told Real Clear Education that she started watching porn when she was 11, maybe there is something about the story between her and her family worth examining, but I rather doubt her Catholic parents are overjoyed that their daughter was the No. 1 most-viewed video on PornHub Sunday. “Oh, look! Our daughter’s bisexual female co-star described Miriam as ‘quite the little freak.’ Isn’t it wonderful? Her teachers at Gonzaga Prep will be so proud.”

Controversy requires disagreement and conflict, and one friendly reader e-mailed to say I was “out of line” using the plain English word “whore” to describe Miriam Weeks. But why play word games? You can call her a “sex worker” or “adult entertainer,” and your preference for politically correct language doesn’t change the reality of what she does. So I sent my friend the following e-mail reply:

We can agree to disagree on porn and sluts. Remember: I’m a father of six, including two daughters. My oldest daughter graduated high school at 16, worked her way through community college and state university, and graduated summa cum laude, debt-free.
What we are being asked to believe in the case of Miriam Weeks, the youngest daughter of an affluent doctor — his reported income is $200,000 a year, and his home is valued at nearly $500,000 — is that it was so important for her to attend Duke (ranked #7 nationally) that she turned down a full scholarship to Vanderbilt (ranked #17) and, poor pitiful thing, she was practically compelled to do porn to pay the bills.
What originally irritated me about this (as with so many stories I report about) was the way the media handled the story, trying to tell us what to think, and just flat-out lying:

First, the Duke Chronicle and other outlets tried to pretend that “Lauren”/”Aurora” was still anonymous, when (a) evidently everybody on campus at Duke had known for weeks that her name is Miriam Weeks and that her porn name is “Belle Knox”; and (b) anybody with Google could find this out.
Second, tasteful euphemism was deployed to disguise what Miriam Weeks actually gets paid for — e.g., sucking c**k on camera — and we were told that her career was “empowering,” so that Belle Knox was presented as a sort of feminist hero role-model. Would you want that message conveyed to your daughters? I think not.
Third, the media tried to sneak a sort of clever reversal of morality past us, telling us that while (a) there was nothing shameful about an 18-year-old girl getting paid for sucking c**k on camera, on the other hand (b) there is something deeply shameful about disapproving of Miriam Weeks’s choice of careers.

While I am a social conservative, I am not a prude, nor am I ignorant of the ways of the world. Remember, I used to be a Democrat, and in my hedonistic hellbound youth, I worked briefly as a strip-club DJ and dated a few dancers. However, as a DJ, it was my job to remind patrons of the club’s “touch-and-go” rule:

“Gentlemen, all of our lovely Kelly’s Girls are here for your viewing pleasure, but let me call your attention to the large man beside the door. Say hello to Bruno. You can look all you want, but if you decide to touch, our friend Bruno is in charge of enforcing our touch-and-go policy here at Kelly’s and, trust me, you don’t want to argue with Bruno. All right, now, guys, put your hands together for the beautiful Shondra, coming up on the main stage!”

Dancers are not hookers, in other words. There is a difference between being nude — live on stage, or posing on camera — and getting paid to have sex. The admiration of beauty is one thing, and hired fornication is another. Perhaps many people, whether they generally approve of porn or not, don’t see the real distinction between the two, but it is important to keep it in mind.
Would I approve of my daughter posing in Playboy? No, of course not. But merely posing nude would not be as so objectionably sinful and morally corrupting as being paid to have sex on camera (or off-camera, for that matter).
If you would disapprove of your daughter or sister doing porn — as I think most men would — isn’t it in some sense hypocritical to say that it’s OK for other women and girls to do it? Let’s grant that there have always been prostitutes in the world, and some women are going to do it, no matter how much anyone may disapprove. But what the enthusiastic admirers of Miriam Weeks are trying to tell us is that we do not have the right to disapprove, that anyone who disapproves is somehow less “enlightened” than those who approve of porn, so that in effect we are being bullied into the “enlightened” view that there is nothing wrong with an 18-year-old girl getting paid to do bisexual three-ways on camera.
And hey, what about the bondage-and-rape scenes Miriam Weeks was doing? Are you telling me that having this petite, innocent-looking teenager enact the sadistic rape fantasies of perverts is harmless? Is it really “empowering” to send a message to weirdos that young girls enjoy having sex imposed on them violently? Excuse my skepticism.
The story of Miriam Weeks isn’t really about Miriam Weeks. I have no personal animosity toward her. How could I? I don’t even know her. And I wish her no harm. No, this is a story about the elite intelligentsia and their enlightened friends in the liberal media trying to tell us what to think, trying to impose their nihilistic amoral secularism on allegedly benighted Americans who, in Our President’s memorable phrase, are clinging to their guns and Bibles. But I’d rather my daughter go to a state college and maintain her dignity, than to have her go to some elite university and become an “empowered” feminist whore.
Ultimately, I believe, dignity and honor are more valuable than any prestigious credential. And I hope most Americans agree.
Respectfully yours,
— RSM

The elite are free to enjoy their prestige, but they have no right to tell us how to think. We are still free to disagree with them. We are doomed, if we lose our liberty to call sin by its right name.

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Education, Feminism, Sex

Comments

115 Responses to “E-Mail to a Friend: Are We Being Too Judgmental About the Duke Porn Star?”

rmnixondeceased
March 12th, 2014 @ 3:29 pm

We already have. Take , for instance, the mother of Robert “Noel” Marucci!
wmiller
March 12th, 2014 @ 3:30 pm

So I can not have a free discussion about this? Your reply is to tell me to leave Rather than address it? How charitable. BTW, I would ask that you look at my previous statements to Wombat before you say such a simple remark.
rmnixondeceased
March 12th, 2014 @ 3:33 pm

It always boils down to the consumers personal choice regardless of how many words, threats to leave, etc. Grow up and quit whining.
Adobe_Walls
March 12th, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

No such thing as bad publicity? I think she knows exactly what she’s doing. And the advertising is free.
RS
March 12th, 2014 @ 3:37 pm

I’m not McCain. As a practical matter, I could do without the “illustrations” appended to posts of this nature. I understand why it’s done. Plus, if my wife see’s them, I can honestly say, “Honey, I go there only for the articles.”

🙂
RS
March 12th, 2014 @ 3:45 pm

Maybe OT. My apologies in advance.

The talk of how the cost of education is somehow contributory to this sort of behavior overlooks another part of this story which is not being discussed. The fact that our government has not only managed to raise the cost of a college degree beyond all reason through indirect subsidies of student loans, while at the same time devaluing those degrees. In Ms. Weeks’s case, her Womyn’s Studies degree will cost her north of $160k. It’s value is nil, the Duke University imprimatur notwithstanding. She’s debasing herself for nothing, if indeed she’s doing it solely to attend college and funneling her earning into tuition and expenses. Query whether in a true market system where lenders were free to refuse to lend money for B.S. degrees, whether the costs of college would plummet, thereby obviating the need for Ms. Weeks to engage in her extracurricular activities.
wmiller
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:05 pm

I am assuming you did not read my other posts? Your argument is {if you re-read it} one of desperation. You want to shut the door by accusation and questioning, what, my manhood by saying quit ‘whining?’ You clearly have not read McCain’s post nor have you read my posts to Wombat. If you had, you would see that I have never asked anybody to move anything from this site, what I am asking is how they can rail against porn and have Wombat shovel it out every week. I do not care if you watch porn it or not, however, I like reading McCain and I want to know why he lets someone like Wombat post pics of naked women on his site. I am a Conservative in the traditional meaning of the word {Reagan} and if a website claims to represent my beliefs, then I have a right to question how they portray them. I will be happy to play name call with you after you have read both sides. However, until you have and are ready to discuss the merits of my arguments, please spare me your insults.
wmiller
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:08 pm

Please forgive the mistake.
Finrod Felagund
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:20 pm

I often turn that back around on leftist trolls that use the term ‘teab*gger’. I ask them, “Why do you hate gays?”
Finrod Felagund
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:23 pm

There’s a name for this phenomenon: the Streisand Effect, from when Barbra Streisand tried to shut down images of her house that were part of an effort to photograph the entire coast of California, and just ended up making sure everyone saw the picture of her house.
Finrod Felagund
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:30 pm

I’ve seen it proposed that student loans be dischargeable in bankruptcy court, and to hold the college or university where the money went partially responsible.
rmnixondeceased
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:31 pm

His blog, his rules. No matter how eloquent an arguement, attempting to enforce your will is futile. Don’t like it? Start your own blog. I stated you are a whiner because that is exactly what you are, despite your attempts to conflate my comments into an attack on your manhood or anything else. I am blunt and to the point. You sir, are a childish idiot with no redeeming qualities that I can discern. I have read your comments to Wombat and the content of Stacy’s post. The mere fact you see everything through distorted lenses of pride and soi-disant self-appointed authority forms the basis of my opinion. Now good sir, I thank you to go pull your self-rightous head out of your overly pucked ass.
K-Bob
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:41 pm

Annnd just in time, your government, which could fuck up getting fucked up, has issued a report on the economics of the Sex Industry.

I was amazed at the fact they devoted so many pages to the pimps out there. About all you really need to write about them is, “They’re Pimps. that’s why”. But No0O0o.

Skipping past those many pages, to the “reasons for starting” by the actual prostitutes, they totally gloss over the abuse factor and calmly state that “friends and family members” introduced them to the business. Now that’s supposed to mean, “I had coffee with Gladys the other day and she said to me, ‘You could always turn tricks, you know’, and so I thought, ‘Yeah, she’s right!'”

But in reality, they went into detail about how many mothers turned out their own daughters, well below the age of consent.

No abuse here. Nothing to see. Move along.
Proof
March 12th, 2014 @ 4:47 pm

Yes. High tuition costs are a tough nut to swallow!
RS
March 12th, 2014 @ 5:03 pm

They used to be dischargeable. Then, about 30 years there were a spate of stories about doctors and lawyers discharging their student loans then making zillions of dollars after the fact. Of course, something just had to be done, and voila, Congress changed the law. Alas, the actual incidence of what I called “inappropriate” discharge were extremely small, and indeed for professionals, almost non-existent, simply because a bankruptcy screwed with a doctor’s or lawyer’s credit for seven years. They didn’t want the hassle.
wmiller
March 12th, 2014 @ 5:05 pm

Again with the insults. And you still have not read any of what I suggested, have you? You really do not know what I am arguing here do you? Shows a weak mind, however, I am making you feel good because you get to call me names and feel self-rightious yourself. Ok, Look, you do not need to defend these guys, they are big boys, they can fight for themselves. What I am wondering is why are you so angry? Because you are protecting…porn? Is that what has you upset? That someone may take away your chance to look at porn? Have at it! I am trying have a rational discussion. If you need to get your Kmart catalogue and run into the garage, go for it. I am questioning the site and the author, not you. As I said before, please spare me your insults. i have no quarrel with you.
charles w
March 12th, 2014 @ 5:12 pm

Hey now, pimping ain’t easy.
Zohydro
March 12th, 2014 @ 5:32 pm

Heh…
robertstacymccain
March 12th, 2014 @ 5:40 pm

“Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”
concern00
March 12th, 2014 @ 5:46 pm

…or transgender…
K-Bob
March 12th, 2014 @ 6:02 pm

My God, when you read some of the interview notes. A lot of these women (including a humorous number of references to “trans women” types) actually sought out their pimps.

“I heard he could get us work.”

I think we need to simply admit that a helluvva lot of DUMB comes into play here.
K-Bob
March 12th, 2014 @ 6:08 pm

I also missed that part. Do you know why? Because it’s never been posted on his site.

Everyone might have their own definition of porn, but most people know it involves more than nudity.
K-Bob
March 12th, 2014 @ 6:09 pm

It helps if you remember to add a (D) after your name.
K-Bob
March 12th, 2014 @ 6:10 pm

The Bitcoin is in the mail!
JeffS
March 12th, 2014 @ 6:45 pm

He didn’t insult you. He described you. Big difference.
rmnixondeceased
March 12th, 2014 @ 7:02 pm

Angry? Hardly. I do not suffer fools gladly. You have an English comprehension problem and a self-entitlement problem. Seems that you believe your opinion and views trump everyone’s. Thus you hector with multiple demands that the operators of this blog pay attention to your opinion and do something to satisfy your pompous and demanding attitude. God forbid someone do something you find distasteful without explaining to you their motives or failures to comply with your desires that they think or act a way in which you approve. Divergence of opinion is healthy. Demanding answers puts you in the same category as Bill Schmalfeldt. No one on any blog is under any burden to answer your questions or to respond to you in any way. Having read your previous comments to Wombat (the long-suffering) as I have previously stated (which you ignore because you seem to believe that anyone who has read your oh-so-perfectly-logical arguments simply must agree with you), hence my comment about your poor comprehension skills. I am done with you and your shitty attitude. Have a happy life being perpetually offended.
rmnixondeceased
March 12th, 2014 @ 7:05 pm

Thanks JeffS! He appears to suffer from offendluenza …
daleyrocks
March 12th, 2014 @ 7:16 pm

Why did your daughters take naked pictures of themselves for creepy men to stare at? Are you going to post the URL here?
Bob Belvedere
March 12th, 2014 @ 7:39 pm

Poor cats.
Bob Belvedere
March 12th, 2014 @ 7:40 pm

It’s not much of a leap for us to picture you in a G-string, you know…

http://thecampofthesaints.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/stacy-mccain-speedo-1990-264.jpg
cmdr358
March 12th, 2014 @ 7:58 pm

Good point.
DaveO
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

If one takes Zombie’s perspective (http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/03/10/progressive-racism-the-hidden-motive-driving-modern-politics/) the reason the Leftist Elites want everyone to approve of the gay and slut lifestyles is that these lifestyles really piss off the African-American and hispanic communities, who must be broken of their last vestiges of independence. What the Left Elites proclaim isn’t aimed at conservatives because conservatives won’t ever comply.
cmdr358
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:01 pm

Ugh….you just made my stomach turn.
To think that that young man’s mother approves of his….ugh
Disgusting.
DaveO
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:04 pm

Care of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-Bank of America).
cmdr358
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:06 pm

They love to pull the old “Since you hate it so much then it must be because you secretly…”

They’ll always fall back on cheap shots, insults and arguments a 12 year-old would make.
cmdr358
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:14 pm

Our host must be slipping.
As I read his comment I immediately thought “Here comes Bob.”
RS
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:18 pm

Um, point of order. The “cats” bit leads to several potential jokes, I’ll not attempt to make.

You’re welcome.
RS
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:23 pm

Oh, for the love of all things good, put that photo away!
rmnixondeceased
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:23 pm

Exactly. Her reason is pure greed. She wants the money his gay porn brings in.
darleenclick
March 12th, 2014 @ 8:29 pm

This is the second time I’ve read you making a similar remark. Nudity, per se, isn’t porn, even soft porn. Unless you want to so label some of the most celebrated works of art in countless museums.
Zohydro
March 12th, 2014 @ 9:05 pm

That’s more than Wombat will ever see…
M. Thompson
March 12th, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

I’m referrring to the practice of unmarried middle aged women keeping cat populations. You merely have a dirty mind!
Zohydro
March 12th, 2014 @ 9:22 pm

I feel so cheap and dirty now…
darleenclick
March 12th, 2014 @ 10:07 pm

I’m a conservative woman and I certainly don’t begrudge men looking at pictures of naked women. More importantly, I don’t consider pics of naked or semi naked women, per se, as porn.

My husband & I are photographers who hope one day to quit our day jobs and do it full time. I have never considered some of our shoots with models in various states of dress anywhere near porn.

Really, I’m curious why YOU do.
Bob Belvedere
March 12th, 2014 @ 10:30 pm

For a price, yes.
Bob Belvedere
March 12th, 2014 @ 10:31 pm

Obviously, I have a reputation.
charles w
March 12th, 2014 @ 10:40 pm

Word…
ChandlersGhost
March 12th, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

Bob! Son of a…
Kirby McCain
March 12th, 2014 @ 11:34 pm

Hide the statuary.
Kirby McCain
March 12th, 2014 @ 11:39 pm

Are we going to hide the statuary again?

Free Agents
SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Triple-A Franchises
Blogroll