Now Jon, I know that you and I have our difference of opinion about this topic and that's fine. Personally, I didn't think Jake was any greater performer or had stellar looks! That's just me. But, I've heard you suggest that models who've breached policy, or procedure be terminated (as in the regular work force). What this model did was out right lie to his employers. (Look at what recently happened with Elen D. and her beauty cosmetic sponsor)
Broke Straight Boys wrote a narrative based on "blind faith" and taking this model's word. He intentionally lied.
I just see this as him cutting his own throat! Now, granted, he may and still will be employable, just not on this site. Maybe it's your "bias" in this case,? I don't know? I just agree to disagree with you on this one...No big deal.
*****************************************************************
Betu,
In my lifetime of working in the "ivory tower"; with business-people; and with government: I can honestly say that I am
not aware of a single, solitary case, in which "THE RULES" subsist in purest aether. "THE RULES" are always coloured by human sentiment, and affection.
In boardrooms, classrooms, and courtrooms, all over the Western world - people who mess up (in non-felonious ways: no robbery; no assault; no murder): but who
yet are loved, and appreciated, are frequently FORGIVEN, and get
second chances..
(Look at the case of Mr. William Jefferson Clinton, for example. He messed up, BIG TIME - taking advantage of a junior staff member: and it brought him to the brink of impeachment and disgrace. But he "got off" - in several ways - LOL!!! And is now remembered, by many, as rather a GOOD President: and even as an "elder statesman". I think, quite rightly so: as I think his
virtues EXCEEDED his faults.) *He balanced the books, and did many other good things.*)
But. . . the crucial thing for President Clinton was that he was LOVED, by many (though hated, by others) -
he had tremendous charm,
and. . . a great proportion of the U.S. population simply couldn't BRING THEMSELVES either to hate, or dismiss him, completely. He did some very bad things, but he also did some very GOOD things (perhaps even better ones): and HE WAS LOVED BY MANY, and (consequently) he got away with a LOT ;-)))
So it is, Betu (I think) even with our beloved models. I think our dear Paul (for example) is so cute and beloved, he would have to join a cabal of murderous bank-robbers, or infamous terrorists, before people would stop pleading for HIS return ;-) (And, rightly so.) To a somewhat lesser extent -
Damien Kyle also - though
Damien Kyle is sometimes rough around the edges, he's beautiful and has a bond with the members (which he's earned!): and people love him, and forgive him, for this reason. (I'm GLAD about it, frankly! This is gay erotic video, not the U.S. Congress, or a Calvinist consistory - thankfully!)
Alas. . . it wasn't so, with poor Jake T. He just hadn't developed that great a following, or wasn't seen as being good-looking enough to warrant forgiveness, or BOTH. (I think you have given your position away, Betu, when you said, "Personally, I didn't think Jake was any greater performer, or had stellar looks." I think that, if you
had thought Jake had stellar looks, you might have argued at least a little, on his behalf. . . or searched for a LOOPHOLE, on his behalf ;-)))
In fairness, to Jon, Betu, I absolutely doubt that Jon would agree with MY view of the world - because I think he BELIEVES in the rules: and the things he has said about employees respecting their employers, and so on. I am sure you do, too. On this matter, I agree with Jon in his conclusions, and disagree with you about yours, but - while I agree with the notion of "rules" in general, I would certainly always argue for a little more
flexibility. (As my dear Scottish Mother always used to say, "Circumstances alter CASES.")
What I would urge upon you, Betu, is that, in this world, there are people of two casts of MIND - Kantians, and Aristotelians. (I don't know into which class either you or Jon might fall, and I wouldn't presume, to judge.)
But, Kantians believe in the rules for their OWN sake, above all else. As a guarantor of goodness, and righteousness. Aristotelians believe in the
telos ~ the GOOD RESULT ~ above all else. (The perverse extremity of this view is sheer Machiavellianism, which takes ALL means to be justified by the ends, but I shouldn't go THAT far, I hope. "A *crosses* himself.)
SOME means - brutal, savage, and wicked ones: ought to be segregated as out-of-bounds, always. BUT - I hardly think poor Jake did anything brutal, savage, or wicked, to any of US. . . he was a poor
Broke Straight Boys who tried to please the members, and fudged his
resume ~ albeit quite egregiously! ~ to do so. Unluckily for Jake, he didn't have (apparently) the charm, or beauty, to win FORGIVENESS from the members, for his transgressions. As others have done. (And, lest you think I am lamenting that this is a double- or even triple- or quadruple- standard: I really AM NOT. Because this is the standard of
life - and such are the machinations of popularity and power, in every moment, in all of our lives, every. . . single. . . day.)
The last thing I will suggest to you, though, Betu, is that I am (in terms of modern, not ancient) philosophy (though the statement that follows is consonant with my understanding, as anachronistic as it might be, of Aristotle, who always saw reason AND passion as inextricably intermingled, not separate) - a real disciple of that greatest of all Scots philosophers, David Hume, who famously declared: "
Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office, but to serve and obey them."
Apart from that intermediate "ought to be" (which I would strike, as excessive, and quite possibly UNTRUE - especially if one were a theist): I think Mr. Hume was substantially CORRECT, in his judgement of ordinary affairs. The WILL and the PASSIONS
always and inevitably govern people's reading of "the rules": in boardrooms and stockrooms and classrooms and BEDROOMS, everywhere.
I am HAPPY to admit that I am biased, Betu - because I AM - and I make no pretence about it, whatsoever. The models I like, I like - and I love them and defend them, no matter what their transgressions - as long as they are not joining fleets of seagoing pirates, and beheading people in the process. I am happy that Paul was forgiven - because he is a sweetheart. I am happy that
Damien Kyle was forgiven - because, despite his rough and tough exterior: he is very cute, and we know there is a good man, inside
I submit, if ONLY a few people had loved JAKE that much ~ a loophole
would have been found, for HIM.. But he wasn't; and it wasn't, and that's the way that particular story ended.
Just don't be thinking that all of this had to do with some clear and impartial application of immutable Kantian RULES, Betu. (Professor Kant, of course, once said, in a flagrant rip-off of the "Golden rule" - 'Let each of your actions be undertaken as if it could be the model for a UNIVERSAL LAW.') But Kant - noble and rational as he was, was wrong. That isn't the way the world works, and it certainly isn't the way erotic video works. . .
Human passion, and preference, and affection, determine it all, right down to the VERY CORE. Right down to the very idea of justice. Even yours. Even mine.
Philosophically yours,
"A" ;-)))))
P.S. And sorry to dump all this on you, Betu, but I am quite passionate about philosophy, and anthropology, and politics - and trying to understand the REAL forces at work in human politics. You may well disagree with me, as may Jon. And, I understand - because I have systematically misrepresented BOTH of you ;-))))
*"Lascia, ch'io pianga" ~ Philippe Jaroussky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpZ5MskYq7A
I'm sure many of us are looking forward to a new Paul scene........................soon. 
