About Me 0084: Women Making Money

It looks like all you have to do to go from an escort and adult film actress who does just everyone and everything on camera to the cover of Playboy is to screw a famous guy. Charlie Sheen’s “goddess” #1, Bree Olson, is featured on the August issue. Advance details of her interview have her talking up Charlie Sheen as a lover and claiming she never did anything sexual with the other goddess, Natalie Kenly, who hung around longer than Olson did but eventually ditched Charlie too. (Probably once the money started drying up.)

She may have broken up with Charlie Sheen in April, but Bree Olson insists she’s “still a goddess. I’m just not Charlie’s goddess.”

How did the 24-year-old Indiana native end up with the troubled actor, who was fired from Two and a Half Men in March? “I suppose it was my movies,” Olson, who has appeared in more than 250 adult films, tells the August issue of Playboy.

When Sheen, 45, first contacted Olson (whom he had never met), the actor invited her over to his house for a meet and greet. After hitting it off, the adult film star — along with Natalie Kenly — soon began cohabiting with Sheen in his Sherman Oaks, Calif. mansion.

“He’s intelligent, he’s charismatic, he’s superfunny,” Olson (real name: Rachel Oberlin) says of the actor. “And he’s good in bed. I mean, he’s had a lot of practice.”

Despite rumors to the contrary, Sheen was “gentle and considerate” in between the sheets, Olson says. “He’s just a rock star. He’s a powerhouse. He’s a very sensual and sexual person, and when I was with him I felt as if we became one together, because he’s just so enticing sexually.”

As for the sex she reportedly had with Kenly? “That was a lie,” Olson now says. “I didn’t really even know her. Okay, all three of us got together, I think, twice. They did their thing together, and Charlie and I did our thing together. And we had two different beds. She and I would go to whichever bed, and he would pick. You know, ‘Where am I sleeping tonight?’”

Currently single and living in Los Angeles, Olson tells Playboy she’s retiring from the adult film industry to focus on becoming a real actress. “I can do this,” she says. “I’m so winning right now.”

[From US Weekly]

Is anyone else skeeved out by the thought of Charlie Sheen making an O face with those gold teeth of his? Bree is being demure and trying to act like she didn’t have sex with the other “goddess,” and it was just straight sex with Charlie. It took me five seconds to google and find a scene where she has sex with famous porn actress Sasha Grey, so it’s not like she’s never screwed another woman. She’s also done just about everything else on camera. Maybe she’s telling the truth though and she only does sex with women for pay. (Strike that, it’s not like Charlie wasn’t paying her.)

Other mistresses of famous guys do sex tapes to make money after they gain a little notoriety, but it’s not like Olson didn’t do that to death already. Now she’s going to be a “legitimate” actress. She did get the cover of Playboy, that’s a start. Maybe Sheen will cast her on that mystery sitcom he keeps leaking to the press that’s about to happen but never materializes. That must have been her motivation to make sex with a bipolar crack-smoking lunatic sound like a harlequin romance novel.

Photo credit: WENN.com

Via Think Progress, Rep. Virginia Foxxxxxxxxx is at it again. This time, she wants to tack on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill (HR 2219) to authorize the Department of Defense to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Which it already does, of course, but she wants to make extra super-duper sure that gay members of the military really, really, really are denied all benefits that "opposite-sex married couples" are guaranteed:

The proposed amendment would reaffirm Congress’ expectation that funds shall not be used for benefits, such as housing, education, medical services, transportation, etc., for same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex married couples.

Even though the DOD already denies these benefits to same-sex couples under DOMA, Foxxxxxxxxx is thinking ahead and planning for hypothetical contingencies in which—heaven forbid—the courts acknowledge that discriminating against gay servicemen and women is, you know, illegal:

It is not enough for the Department of Defense to dismiss all concerns about this and many other issues involving marriage status and benefits by pointing to the existence of the DOMA. There is no contingency “Plan B” to deal with this issue if federal courts invalidate that law.

But hey, it's not like Foxxxxxxxxx wants to make it extra super-duper clear that the DOD should not grant benefits to gay couples because she hates gay people. She's already done plenty to demonstrate that—like voting against the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And sponsoring a bill to amend the Constitution to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. And of course giving her noxious speech against the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act:

I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.

But this bill isn't about hating on gay people. Nope, this is about how gosh darned expensive it would be for the DOD if it had to suddenly start treating everyone equally:

Given the potentially enormous cost of extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples and their dependents, Congress can and should enact a policy making it clear that Defense Department funds should not be used in ways that violate federal law: the Defense of Marriage Act.

And that's why Congress needs to act fast to pass yet another law to ensure that something that is already illegal is even more illegaler. Because we certainly wouldn't want equal rights for all Americans, particularly those willing to sacrifice their lives for their country, to cost us money.

surface encounters reviews url

Friday, July 29, 2011

Women Making Money

No comments:

Post a Comment