Free Markets, Free People

And this woman wants to be a lawyer

I’m sure by now you’ve at least heard of the female Duke freshman who is paying for her college tuition by being a porn star.

She apparently wants to be a lawyer some day.  She’s a woman’s studies major.  She says she can’t afford the financial aid she needs to study at Duke and so she’s decided to do porn.

So what’s my beef with her?  Well it is not that she is okay with being in porno.  Its not illegal, and if there is no force or fraud involved, I have no problem with her choice even if I disagree.

The beef?  Read this first:

I was offered scholarships at a lot of places. I was offered full tuition at Vanderbilt, for example, and was accepted into USC, Wellesley, Barnard, Pepperdine, some others. But I visited Duke last year on Blue Devil Days [Duke's programmed weekend for admitted freshmen], and I remember walking into the Duke Chapel — I’m a very spiritual person — and just feeling an energy that told me, “This is the place you need to be.” And I felt something in the chapel in that moment that told me that I needed to be here and go to Duke and it was something that would be an amazing experience for me.

Yup … apparently something “spiritual” happened and she just had to choose Duke. Had too.  That is the place for her, even though she couldn’t afford it.  Even with a “full ride” at Vandy, she wanted to go to Duke instead.

And?

Would you still do porn if Duke cost less?

No. If Duke had given me sufficient financial aid, if they had given me the proper resources and made college affordable for my family, I would not have done porn. I would’ve just gotten through college and been fine. The financial burden that Duke put on me was absolutely enormous and insurmountable with the resources that I had.

And it’s Duke’s fault she’s doing porn because, apparently, it was Duke’s job to realize what a catch they had in her and make college more affordable for her family and herself.

So, instead of going to a very good college which had offered her full tuition (which I’m sure has “womens studies” major as well), she selfishly chose to go to one she couldn’t afford because, you know, something happened in the chapel at Duke or whatever.  She’s now doing porn to pay for it.  And it’s all Duke’s fault or at least Duke is the reason she had to make that choice.

You know, I think college has gotten outrageously expensive and I hope the bubble pops very soon.  ROI for the money has been shown to be not so good.  And the debt load one has to take on to get a degree is outrageous.

But seriously, her justification is just so pathetic I couldn’t pass up commenting on it.  Btw, she says she loves doing porn, so who cares?  But to lay it off on the school when it was completely a result of her choice of  schools – is just the ultimate in BS reasoning.

Yeah, if she ever gets a law degree, I’d say avoid her like the plague.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

39 Responses to And this woman wants to be a lawyer

  • <b>No. If Duke had given me sufficient financial aid</b>

    Gimme, gimme, gimme

    • No more so then Sandra Fluke really needed someone else to fund her birth control. No, this woman wants being a victim. She is building her resume.  

  • “The financial burden that Duke put on me was absolutely enormous and insurmountable with the resources that I had.”
    uh-kay.
    And the burden that a castle in Scotland I just HAD to have put on me caused me to become a bank robber.   Not my fault, not my choice, the spiritual feeling the castle gave me …..ohhhhhh baaaabbbbbbbbyyyyyyyyy.
    I could have bought a small house in the country and would have been just fine, but that castle MADE me do it.
     
    Enter your justification for irresponsible behavior here.   Anything goes.
     

  • I think you are not getting it. She is studying to be a professional leftist. Woman’s studies at Duke, law degree, porn. Not only porn, but porn she was forced into by the greedy capitalists who run Duke. Excellent resume for what she wants to do.

    Look at Sandra Fluke for a comparison.

  • Think you’re off base on this one.
    To the extent that the tone of the article was defensive/”I’m a victim”, I think the catalyst was others criticizing her for doing porn not because she felt put upon.  From my read, she’s fine with doing porn and is justifying her choices to those that are attacking her for those choices.
    If you had a different situation where someone said, “I really wanted to go to Duke and had other options where scholarships were provided for me, but I decided to choose Duke and I decided that I was going to pay for it by working at McDonald’s because the combination of going to Duke and working was more attractive to me than going to Vandy and not working,” you wouldn’t have an issue.
    To the extent that she’s opining on the difficulties of the middle class affording reputably elite educations, don’t think anything she said there is really all that controversial.

    • No … I’m responding to her claim that Duke put such an enormous strain on her financially that she had to do something to pay for it.  Duke did not put the financial strain on her.  She did.  How she choses to pay for it is her business, but it isn’t anyone’s fault (i.e. the “financial strain) but hers … by choice.

      • Fair.  Duke did not put that strain on her.  Again, from my read of the article, that specific part of the answer was a poor choice of words rather than typical victim claims that I’ve ready.  And the answer itself seems honest enough – she wouldn’t have worked at any job if Duke had given her those things.
        Better phrasing would’ve been: “The financial burden I put on myself as a result of choosing Duke instead of other alternatives was absolutely enormous and insurmountable with the resources that I had.”  Perhaps her selection of phrasing is really a window into her subconscious, but given it seems like it was a direct quote from a verbal interview rather than a written answer that was proofread and edited, think she deserves benefit of the doubt on this.

        • Bottom line is she’s where she is, doing what she’s doing, by choice, not chance.  Duke has no role in this as far as “fault” goes.  Nor was it up to Duke to ease her finanacial strain because she chose to go there.

          If she had said “i’m in porn because I like it and it pays the bills”, I’d be fine with her.  That’s not what she said or how she chose to characterize her situation.

    • Working in porn, working in a McDonald’s.  To pay for an education at Duke.  Because the feeling in Duke’s chapel makes one believe it’s right to go to Duke, even if having to pay for it by working in porn or working in a McDonald’s.
      One of these things is not like the other.
      By the way, I worked during between semesters also, to help pay for my education and other things.  I worked at McDonald’s (and another fast food place, and in a warehouse).  I don’t think my parents were too upset at my choices (in fact, they weren’t upset at all); they might not have felt the same way had I decided to pay for my education by doing porn.

      • Thank you for providing evidence that the reason she may feel defensive is because other people are judging her for choosing to work in a field that they find objectionable even though it’s completely legal.

        • “No. If Duke had given me sufficient financial aid, if they had given me the proper resources and made college affordable for my family, I would not have done porn. I would’ve just gotten through college and been fine. The financial burden that Duke put on me was absolutely enormous and insurmountable with the resources that I had.”
           
          She’s judging herself.   She judges that doing porn is not something she would have chosen except for that mean old college asking for all that darned old money.   She’d have gotten through college and “been fine”.   So, she’s not fine?
          Those are her words.  That’s her judgement.
           
          This isn’t a bait and switch, she knew in advance she’d have to come up with the extra scratch for Duke.   And she chose porn.   We can assume she understood that could pay well, which is presumably why she chose it.
          Everything she’s done here is her choice.   None of it is the fault of the school.
           
          Consequences.
           
           
           

        • So other people are judging her – so the hell what?  Is the standard for making judgements about other people’s behavior whether or not it’s illegal?  The people who run around in this world proclaiming judgement to be bad usually mean is ‘I want a free pass – or better yet, a medal – for my personal behavior.’ Judgement is necessary and useful feedback for behavior.  That’s not to say it’s always correct or pleasant.

        • What is wrong with judging people who decide to engage in porn? Shouldn’t we be able to do that in a free country?

          • No, but we are allowed to judge people who judge, especially if they make judgements we don’t like.
             
             

      • You can make anything horrifically wrong “legal”.
        See Nuremburg, Judgment At.
        What a morally bankrupt standard.  Maybe that’s how you want it.

        • Morally bankrupt, heh.  Nuremberg – nice straw man.  Here we have a consenting adult choosing to do something that hurts no one other than perhaps herself, that other consenting adults are willing to pay her for.  Sorry, I thought the tagline to this blog was “Free Markets, Free People”.
          In fact, the original post’s author once wrote: “Simple economics spells out how this works.  There is an unfulfilled demand and whether or not you agree with the demand, the market will do all in its power to fill it.   Government declaring something “illegal” may dampen demand – at least for a while – but the market will still do its best to fill the demand as long as there’s a profit to be made.  All government does is change the nature of the market in question.   It can be legal (which means regulated, controlled and taxed) or illegal (which usually means unregulated, untaxed and usually dominated by criminals and gangs), but it is not going to go away just because a government declares something “illegal”.”
          prohibition, war on drugs, vice laws.

          • You don’t know what a “straw man” is.
            Heh!
            There’s a real strong market for tyranny.  For theft.  For murder.
            Whatda dope.

          • Here we have a consenting adult choosing to do something that hurts no one other than perhaps herself, that other consenting adults are willing to pay her for.  Sorry, I thought the tagline to this blog was “Free Markets, Free People”.
            So what?  Does ANY of that mean it’s above reproach?  It’s one thing to tolerate it as a free choice – however bad – people make, it’s quite another thing to agree with it.  Bad ideas are still bad ideas, irrespective of liberty.

          • Free markets, free people, no judgements eh?
            Lawyer, rather odd career for someone if there’s no judgement going on.
            It’s freedom, there are consequences for our actions even in the most free society.
            She’s just going to have to prove to be an exceptionally good lawyer, and should probably give up the idea of politics unless she moves to Italy.
             
             
             

          • And mommies and daddies who encourage little skippy and little sally to think that the world will change the way it sees things to match their view, are actually rather cruel.
             
             

  • There are many films, newspaper articles, and even some student organizations in France and other European countries discussing how students turn to prostitution to pay for school.  I saw one film on an indy channel (IFC, Sundance, or something like that) which told a sad story and then closed with slides giving statistics of the numbers of students “forced” into this lifestyle.
    I guess it never occurred to the hand wringers to tell these young adults that prostitution is gross and dangerous, to respect themselves enough to reject that as an option, and to accept no as an answer, as in: no, you can’t go to school because you don’t have enough money.  Do something else.  Be a janitor.  That has more dignity.

  • I felt so spiritual and connected to a Higher Power in Duke’s chapel that I knew it would be worth doing regular anal.

  • Sounds like a deciple of Sandra Fluke to me….

  • Oh yeah….”Patriarchy” and stuff.
     
    At least she’s not like the other idiot college girl who made waves in the blogosphere for saying “at a liberal arts college we don’t need to hear diversity of opinion” because an evil conservative wanted to speak.
     
    THAT one needs a good biff to the back of the head

  • Am I the only one who sees more than a little humor or irony in a spiritually motivated female studies porn star?

    • The whole thing sounds like it is a hoax to me. Or at least some girl who has gotten caught out doing porn and concocting a story about *why* she is doing porn to make it sound less of her own decision. But yeah, her musings on spirituality and proclivity for selling herself sounded far more like a pol sci professional.

  • http://theothermccain.com/2014/02/25/miriam-weeks-real-name-duke-porn-belle-knox/
    This will make your head swim.  Poor kid.  She’s got bad wiring somewhere.

    • I think she has entitlement and failure to be accountable for her actions issues.
      But those problems pretty much cover half the US voting population (and GM….) at this point.
      She’s high profile, but really, she’s average.
       
       

  • Baffling, yes.
    Friend of mine got her JD with a full ride at a decently ranked school on a full ride – and law jobs are tough to come by now. So she’s working a low-end lawyer gig, but <I>no debt</I>.
    Why anyone would turn down a full ride JD at Vanderbilt for paying immense piles of loot for Duke is beyond me. (#11 vs #15 in the USNews rankings? Rounding error.)

    Kudos on her for paying her way with porn, sure, but she threw away three years of Duke tuition vs. Vandy because she <I>chose</i> to not take a full ride scholarship.

  • I suspect she’ll be equally as succesful in her later career as she is in this one; she’s a natural for both.
    Now, I realize there’s many fine lawyers out there, like Mike Wade, and Ragspierre, and…um, there’s whathisname…?

  • She is doing porn for the money?
     

  • At least she’s doing it with human beings, unlike a Farmington teacher arrested for trying to make a porn with a cow.