Okay, time to drop a truth bomb.

Years ago, I did a calendar shoot. One of the shoots was a chainmail bikini. Little did I know that the bikini in question was open rings, and the 12 pounds of sweater meat on my chest was enough for the rings to stretch open.

So during this shoot, the bikini kept breaking, exposing my, ahem, headlights. Based on the logic of Jeffrey Toobin's detractors, the photographer and anyone else on set had the right to go to the media with the nip slip, because I knew there was a camera there.

Another shoot: I had to bend over while wrapped in nothing but a Canadian flag. My ass was exposed at portions of the shoot. According to Jeffrey Toobin's detractors, it's ethical for others to go to the press & describe the birthmark on my ass because I knew there was a camera.

I have done topless modeling for an art book. According to Jeffrey Toobin's detractors, anyone present can go to the media with intimate details of my body because I knew a camera was there. If you think this is not okay, reconsider public shamings.

I don't give a shit about Jeffrey Toobin. I care about the precedent his treatment sets for sex workers and nude models, who DON'T give up all their rights to privacy because their work involves cameras. Revenge porn against a porn star is still revenge porn. S/he didn't consent.

Ethics are NOT about two wrongs making a right. They're about doing the right thing even when someone else does a wrong thing. Jeffrey Toobin masturbating under those circumstances? Gross. Whoever went to Vice with the gossip? Also gross.

And yeah, I started this thread with that pic cause people would read it starting off happy. You're welcome. I also shared this because I want to show how different the whole thing feels when the humiliated party is a woman instead of a man.