No images remotely like this were found in a Google search of "Sunny Dae" bondage. And yes, safe search filters were turned off. And no, that's not Sunny Dae. Image source: Sex and Submission.com.
The lead sentence on the Huffington Post story about the conviction of Amanda Logue, who made porn films under the nom de porn "Sunny Dae," had a degree of wrongness to it that's hard to match. "Sunny Dae is known for her bondage -- and now she'll be restrained for a long, long time."
OK, first of all, Amanda Logue is a horrible person who did a horrible thing, a willing participant in the murder of a man who was stabbed and bludgeoned to death, who expressed her eagerness to have sex with her partner in crime to celebrate the bludgeoning. She deserves to do time for what she did. I'm not arguing that point at all.
What's more, she's an incredibly stupid person, one who would surely be gracing a video on "World's Dumbest Criminals" if her crime had only been more telegenic. She was hired as a prostitude for a sex party held by the murder victim, who had some money in a safe at his home, and they wanted the money, and apparently to commit a horrible murder. She and her lover/co-conspirator TEXTED about their crime to one another BEFORE, AFTER and DURING it. When the cops got hold of Amanda's blackberry, it was all over but the crying. There wasn't even a trial, the boyfriend pled guilty and took a life sentence without possibility of parole and Dae pled guilty and took 40 years. (I'm guessing they were both looking at the possibility of a death penalty with all that evidence floating around.)
I mean, what were they thinking ... TEXTING messages about their murder plans? About how much they looked FORWARD to doing it? About how they wanted to have celebratory sex right afterward? Did it not occur to them that those text messages would constitute evidence? ("Hey, we were just kidding around about murdering that guy who coincidentally got murdered!") Did they think no one would suspect them? (COP: "Well sure, the last person in his company was this prostitute he hired for the sex party, but we should probably look at passing strangers for suspects instead.") It boggles the mind.
So what bothers me about the story if I think they deserve their sentences?
Well it's the way the lead sentence commingles consensual sexual bondage scenes made for a movie, and the nonconsensual bondage that will constitute Dae's jail term. Let's put it in vanilla terms: "Sunny Dae was known for having sex in porn films: now she will be forced to have sex every day for forty years whether she wants to or not!"
There's a BIG difference between consensual and non-consensual sex, and also between consensual and non-consensual bondage. It makes ALL the difference between huge fun and, well, rape. I'm not saying that being put in jail is the same thing as rape. I AM saying both are nonconsensual. And I AM saying that Andy Campbell, the idiot who wrote that Huffington Post story, shouldn't have knuckled under to the temptation to develop a lead sentence with some cheap irony, when the price is conflating the consensual with the nonconsensual.