Steven, every single act in my video with Nikki Glitch was prenegotiated. One of your models, who is no friend of mine, was on that set running camera and there for the entire pre-scene consent negotiation.
The vast majority of that scene is simulated penetration, with over-the-top acting to make it look harder than it was. As I have stated publicly and repeatedly, the only thing done “wrong” in that scene was the choice to use that collar: neither Glitch nor I had used that style of collar in a scene before (three piece, two pieces of pleather with a chain joining them in a front with a snap in the back). Afterwards, Glitch even remarked to the videographer and I that she was thankful she learned that the collar could malfunction that way in a set, rather than with a civilian in her private life.
The next day, Glitch broke consent in a trade scene with one of your models, Steven. After that, she tried to coerce that model into another scene. Here’s her public statement:
https://mobile.twitter.com/LexiSquie...09822121861123
Afterwards, I asked her to leave my home, and since I live one block from two of San Francisco’s finest hotels, and Glitch had been flashing money all trip, I made the reasonable assumption that she would have no trouble finding a safe place to stay.
Steven, if you’re genuinely interested in consent, you should have done your due diligence here. As should you, Riley.
As far as the allegation in Riley’s video about an improper test, which you personally boosted on your public-facing social media, I find it very interesting that the exact same test was good enough for at least six shoots with one of your producers’ non-grooby paysites. A full-panel, online-verifiable test from the largest health insurer in the state of California is not “improper.”
The only thing holding the woman who shot the Nikki Glitch scene back from making a public statement declaring my innocence is that she fears that you, Steven, will blacklist her in retaliation. I hope that her fears are unfounded.
I continue to make quality content despite these baseless, libelous allegations because of the quality of my personal and professional conduct, and quality of the product that I produce.
I resent the accusation that I do this work for access, pleasure, or clout. I find it very curious that these accusations of “seeking access” are never levied against younger, thinner, or more passing-privileged models.
I do this work primarily for one reason: to positively change how trans women see ourselves, and each other. These movies are the only ones we don’t die at the end of; therefore, they mean something in a way that porn doesn’t to cis people. For many trans women, the only way we see our bodies is in porn, and for every trans woman who looks like the “industry standard,” there are a thousand who look like me. How many trans women only see thin, young, passing-privileged trans women in mainstream content, and say “if I can’t look like that, I can’t be a woman?” And then they shove themselves back in the closet, or worse.
So I won’t leave this business until I see a lot more women who don’t fit the “industry standard” than I see now doing the work. When that’s the case, my work is done, and I’m gone.
Beyond that, I will continue my work, and I am able to continue it because the woman who was there on that set has been confirming my innocence via backchannels, because my conduct on every set I’ve been on has been beyond reproach, and frankly, because Nikki Glitch has more confirmed consent issues than I’ve been accused of. If you’re a professional in the industry, talk to others who have worked with her, and see for yourself. Steven, one of your own models went public about Glitch flagrantly breaking consent in-scene, and you certainly didn’t retweet or otherwise acknowledge her post.
I’m innocent. I’m not backing down, and I will continue my work.
Steven: can the woman who was on the set that day trust that you will not blacklist or otherwise withhold work from her if she makes a public statement?
