The Porn Industry Is Ready To Exploit Nadya Suleman

Sorted under reproductive rights, sexism on February 26, 2009

Nadya Suleman Nadya Suleman is easily the most vilified mother in recent history.  She became famous for giving birth to eight children using invitro fertilization in January.  The media have stopped at nothing to portray her as an irresponsible nitwit too crazy to know what is in her own best interests.

It would be far too much to look at the cultural treatment of motherhood or the fact that we have long since socially abdicated responsibility for our children.  We are for more focused on forcing women to give birth to children that they do not want, than caring for the current children in existence.  Oh dear, someone might have to donate some of their tax dollars to helping a child when they  would be  so much better spent on fat pensions for bureaucrats who don’t serve the public need, foreign wars of aggression that have left untold numbers dead and damaged,  and bailing out companies like AIG who are once again begging for a new handout (private jet anyone?).   Let’s not talk about our social responsibilities, or our skewed sense of values, oh no lets persecute a poor woman for choosing to exercise her biological imperatives.

Finally when I thought I could not get anymore disgusted with the news stories surrounding this poor woman, the porn industry has reared its ugly exploitative head. Vivid Entertainment has offered her one million dollars to star in a porn movie. Nadya is in deep financial trouble, the home that she lives in is about to be foreclosed on and the hospital has threatened to refuse to release her children to her. The website that she created to give people the opportunity to help her struggling family has been ridiculed and all avenues of support have been radically slammed in her face.

Well, clearly this woman is in need of some serious need,  and the porn industry just loves a vulnerable woman.  They have always been there to “extend aid” as long as a woman is willing to take off her clothes and become nothing more than a glory hole for men to fuck with wild abandon.  While I agree that some women actively choose this, when there is an issue of clear exploitation, porn and I clearly part ways.  How much is this media company going to make on this movie? Already the media is playing with potential titles for a movie that she has not even agreed to star in.

Suleman has never stared in any porn movie and obviously with the pressing state of financial concerns and public rejection, she may have to take this offer to stave off financial ruin for her large family.  Should this woman who has been repeatedly judged decide that this is what she needs to do to support her family, one can certainly rest assured that this will be yet another opportunity for society to rip her shreds and shame her for not being the “perfect mommy”.  No one wants to help her but if she takes the only avenue available to her, she will be  by default a terrible person.

This issue is so much larger than Nadya and her 14 children.  This is about the right of women to have autonomy over their bodies and our social obligation to care for all children.  This is about women not being forced to make “choices” that are harmful to them to ensure the subsistence of their families.  Suleman is a vulnerable woman and if we look closely we can all see a little bit of ourselves reflected in her.

Cross posted at Womanist Musings



You May Also Enjoy:

  • Not sure, this is definitely a crucial situation for every women. A mother can never see her children crying out of hungry.
    But this is definitely not the right way.
  • RealWorld
    I think her skank ass should take whatever money she can get. Let's not give her a way out again and make sure she is on the pill before "acting" in any porn movies. Has no one thought that we are all going to be financing her one-woman Jackass Festival for the next 18 years?!! If she wants to support her family by going to work, pretending she likes it, and going home with a smile on her face at the end of the day I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world. I'm sure there are people in Customer Service positions all over the world who do the same thing EVERY DAY.
  • I cant imagine it... to be a mother of 14 children! Unbelivable.
  • When you say poor woman, please keep in mind that she has gone out and attracted a lot of the publicity herself. Even Dr. Phil (whether you like him or not) got her to admit it.
  • I still haven't decided how I feel about this young woman's decision to have multiples, but I am disgusted by the idea that she may well feel forced to accept the offer to do a porn movie. Vultures! Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Barbara Weibel
  • This one of the most outhere articles I have ever read. I dont think that Nadaya Suleman is going to even consider doing porn, but in answer to your title, Of course the porn industry is ready to exploit Nadaya Suleman.
  • I hope she doesn't do it. For my sake, and hers.
  • Surely some other company will offer her a lot of money for her story . Or she will end up on a reality show like the Duggar family in Arkansas.
  • Well, she will have to weigh out all of the benefits to doing this. She will probably be able to take care of her children, and it's just 1 movie, although the movie would be spread everywhere. I think if I were her I'd ask for more money, maybe 10 million. Nothing else has worked out, so there comes a point where you have to do what you can do.
  • I actually watched her interview on TV. She said that each of those embryos was a baby and she couldn't bear to think of throwing them away like trash. She worked double shifts for years to save enough money for the in vitro. She stated she had been implanted with multiple embryos before, but because of her medical history, never expected all six to take this time, much less two of them splitting into twins.

    Why is it the Duggers can receive donations, and Jon and Kate +8 can also profit, but this woman is so vilified? Jon and Kate couldn't afford their kids, either -- they've received mega bucks, diapers, equipment, help, etc. from people. Is it because she's single? Not saying it's right, just sayin'. Leave the woman alone. She's made her bed, now she has to lie in it. No one else is stepping up. It's the double standard that's sticking in my craw.
  • I think there's more than she just "chose to have the children". We haven't heard much about her religious beliefs, and if they're anything like the pro-lifer loonies, she may have completely believed that the frozen embryos were actual "babies". That would also explain why she wouldn't allow the doctor to remove any once they found that all had successfully implanted.

    I notice the pro-lifers are strangely quiet on this whole thing.

    I truly hope she's able to take care of the children and finds a source of income that doesn't involve p0rn.
  • Mark
    While I agree that women have the right autonomy over their bodies, and that idea should be a no brainer, I disagree that there is a social obligation to care for ALL children. With rights come responsibilities, and with choices come consequences. She choose to have the children, fully aware that she did not have the means to support them. That she had conceived them through artificial insemination is an indictment of her poor choice and is a disgrace to the doctor who took her money to do so. There is no social obligation to care for children that were brought into this world so that a woman can garner her fifteen minutes of fame.

    If anything this woman, in my opinion, is a detriment to feminism and women's rights in that she has made herself a poster child for "freedom without responsibility" that old guard male perspectives want to perpetuate. She is the woman who wants society to pat her on the head and say "there there, don't worry your pretty little head" when women should be seen as more powerful and more profound and more responsible to shatter that "pretty little head" stigma.

    She made choices, she should bear the weight of the consequences. I don't think she should do porn, but she should not be the recipient of a social obligation.
  • I hope she doesn't do it, but based on her past history, she might take up the offer.
blog comments powered by Disqus