Jennifer Lawrence : Missing intimacy scenes

In interviews they talked endlessly about the "sex" scenes, but those scenes were not in the movie. Who removed them? Did Jen veto them, or were they removed to avoid an R rating?

Pretty sure it was scaled down to receive a PG-13 rating, as was the intent all along.

Jennifer doesn't like people staring at her naked, and has declared that you are a sex offender if you have seen her pictures.

---

Jennifer doesn't like people staring at her naked, and has declared that you are a sex offender if you have seen her pictures.

---

Try quoting her saying this in her own words. Good luck with that.

---

Try quoting her saying this in her own words. Good luck with that.

---

Well, from Variety:
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/219979-jennifer-lawrence-wants-new-law-to-fight-nude-photo-hackers

---

It is not a scandal. It is a sex crime, the Oscar-winning actress told Vanity Fair in her first public comments since her pictures appeared online earlier this year, alongside those of supermodel Kate Upton, teenage Olympic gymnast McKayla Maroney and other celebrities.

The law needs to be changed, and we need to change, she added. Thats why these websites are responsible.

---

Sounds like she is trying to absolve herself from any responsibility in taking pictures like that to being with. Seems more like she is angry that she was caught, rather than actually interested in having the laws changed.

I do not recall her asking for this type of a change during the earlier parts of her career. Why only the sudden interest after she was exposed?

Were pictures of celebrities in sexually compromising experiences never released on the internet prior to 2014, when Jennifer suddenly took an interest?

---

Well, from Variety:

---

At no point in your quote does she say that looking at the pictures is a sex crime.

Case closed.

---

Sounds like she is trying to absolve herself from any responsibility in taking pictures like that to being with.

---

She has nothing to apologize for or "take responsibility for" since there was nothing wrong with any of it, as anyone with the slightest bit of moral and ethical literacy knows.

---

Seems more like she is angry that she was caught, rather than actually interested in having the laws changed.

---

Your latest delusion has been duly noted.

---

I do not recall her asking for this type of a change during the earlier parts of her career. Why only the sudden interest after she was exposed?

---

Earth to Final Hiccup: it is human nature to not think about or pay attention to certain types of criminal events until they happen to you or a loved one, especially when they are rare, happen primarily to a certain class of people, and you have just become that certain class of people and are still figuring out how to navigate that kind of life.

Of course, no one should expect the slightest sign of human empathy from a tool like you.

---

At no point in your quote does she say that looking at the pictures is a sex crime.

---

Read the article. I only posted the highlights for you to enjoy.

---

She has nothing to apologize for or "take responsibility for"

---

Absolutely she is accountable. She does not need to apologize, but she should have never tried to place the blame on ANYONE but her own self for not only agreeing to take those photos, but keeping them afterwards.

---

since there was nothing wrong with any of it

---

Sex Trafficking is illegal in most cities, counties and states in America. You should be quite familiar with this law.

---

Earth to Final Hiccup: it is human nature to not think about or pay attention to certain types of criminal events until they happen to you or a loved one

---

You literally just admitted that Jennifer did not consider the consequences nor the ramifications for taking part in such antics and therefore is fully responsible.

To claim that she was unaware of this type of action from happening is absurd, considering that she grew up in an age were Paris Hilton had a sex tape leaked, as did Kim Kardashian and many other celebrities.

Just when I thought you couldn't make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you went ahead and demonstrated that your claims continue to be baseless.

---

Read the article. I only posted the highlights for you to enjoy.

---

I read the article, several times, before you highlighted it. The fact still remains that you cannot and will not find her saying, in her own words, the belief you falsely attributed to her.

---

She does not need to apologize, but she should have never tried to place the blame on ANYONE but her own self for not only agreeing to take those photos, but keeping them afterwards.

---

There is no one to "blame" for anything, other than the hackers for stealing private photographs. As a complete moral illiterate, you seem hell bent on somehow making her appear guilty of something when she was in fact the victim. How much time have you spent condemni238ng the hackers here rather than implicating her in something nefarious?

---

Sex Trafficking is illegal in most cities, counties and states in America.

---

Taking erotic photographs for your boyfriend is not sex trafficking, you ridiculous piece of excrement.

---

You literally just admitted that Jennifer did not consider the consequences nor the ramifications for taking part in such antics and therefore is fully responsible.

---

No, only a knuckle dragging, unethical half wit t5b4roll would think that. In other words, you.

You are basically so completely unable to reason with any humanity or ethical consideration that you are exactly as much of a fool as someone who blames the victim of a mugging for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

---

To claim that she was unaware of this type of action from happening is absurd, considering that she grew up in an age were Paris Hilton had a sex tape leaked, as did Kim Kardashian and many other celebrities.

---

Her account was password protected and advertised as secure. She had as much expectation that the pictures would be protected as someone with jewelry stored in a safety deposit box.

Only the worst kind of scumbag blames the victim for a crime.

---

Just when I thought you couldn't make an even bigger fool out of yourself, you went ahead and demonstrated that your claims continue to be baseless.

---

Just as I thought you couldn't be a worse human being, you've proven to be more and more worthless, someone utterly incapable of humanity or understanding of basic human decency. Thankfully, your disgusting presence on this board will be no more in just a few days.

---

The fact still remains that you cannot and will not find her saying, in her own words, the belief you falsely attributed to her.

---

You were saying?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/07/jennifer-lawrence-nude-photo-hack-sex-crime

---

In the interview, Lawrence expresses a sense of anger and violation not just with the hackers but people who chose to view the images, accusing them of also committing a crime. Anybody who looked at those pictures, youre perpetuating a sexual offence. You should cower with shame.

---

---

How much time have you spent condemning the hackers here rather than implicating her in something nefarious?

---

I am not defending the hackers, but am merely stating if you do not willingly take photos of that nature then there is nothing of yours to be exposed.

---

Taking erotic photographs for your boyfriend is not sex trafficking

---

They were not for her boyfriend, those photos were not selfies. Also the reason why she lost her fight with 4chan is because they were not her photos and she did not have the rights to them. Which means someone else took them!

---

No, only a knuckle dragging, unethical half wit troll would think that.

---

Is this the type of "heated but civil" discussion that goes on at your safespace board?

---

Her account was password protected and advertised as secure.

---

Yet she did not secure her icloud account.

---

Thankfully, your disgusting presence on this board will be no more in just a few days.

---

That won't change the fact that Jennifer Lawrence willingly took those photos of her own naked self that were later uploaded to the Internet.

Faustus5 has been EXTERMINATED.

He tried but failed again!

He admitted in his post that he is not himself on his safespace board, and censors what he chooses to say to others there.

Doesn't sound very healthy, and obviously confirms what people have said all along he's so bored over there it's why he's still posting over here.

---

You were saying?

---

Not surprising at all that you cant logically process the meaning of basic sentences of English. At no point does she say that people who looked at her pictures are sex offenders. Maybe you should get out a dictionary and look up what the word perpetuating means.

Actually, dont bother. You are such a brain damaged monkey that it would all go over your head. You fundamentally dont know how to think.

---

I am not defending the hackers, but am merely stating if you do not willingly take photos of that nature then there is nothing of yours to be exposed.

---

This is the moral equivalent of saying, If you didnt buy expensive jewelry, it wouldnt be there for robbers to steal.

---

They were not for her boyfriend, those photos were not selfies.

---

They were for her boyfriend, as she has stated on a couple of occasions. That they obviously arent selfies has nothing to do with anything.

---

Also the reason why she lost her fight with 4chan is because they were not her photos and she did not have the rights to them.

---

They were her photos and they were illegally stolen. You will not be able to find a respected, mainstream source that says otherwise. Go ahead and try. I dare you.

---

Is this the type of "heated but civil" discussion that goes on at your safespace board?

---

Worthless maggots like you dont post on that board and therefore dont draw harsh criticism.

---

Yet she did not secure her icloud account.

---

It was hacked, idiot. Thats the equivalent of a robber picking a lock. Of course, such basic understanding of how reality works is completely beyond someone like you who possesses the intellect of a turnip.

---

Maybe you should get out a dictionary and look up what the word perpetuating means.

---

Nice ALTERNATIVE FACTS there FRAUDstus5!

You were PROVEN WRONG with FACTS and still cannot admit that you were wrong.

---

This is the moral equivalent of saying, If you didnt buy expensive jewelry, it wouldnt be there for robbers to steal.

---

Robbery of tangible goods is now the same as naked pictures posted online?

---

That they obviously arent selfies has nothing to do with anything.

---

Sure it does, it means that SOMEONE else took them. And if they were "for her boyfriend", it means that he didn't take them either.

So who took them??? The casting couch is calling

---

They were her photos and they were illegally stolen.

---

Then why did she lose her potential lawsuit with 4Chan about having the photos taken1908 down? Her requests by her lawyers were denied, since she was not the owner of the images, hence why they are still available today.

---

Worthless maggots like you dont post on that board and therefore dont draw harsh criticism.

---

So really, you're just a bitter and angry person and this is where you expose your true self? That's not very healthy and something that you should discuss with your therapist.

---

It was hacked, idiot. Thats the equivalent of a robber picking a lock.

---

Once again, no naked photos no issue of them being exposed!

---

You were PROVEN WRONG with FACTS and still cannot admit that you were wrong.

---

Actually, I wasn't proven wrong. I just understand the meaning of English better than a lunatic like you.

---

Robbery of tangible goods is now the same as naked pictures posted online?

---

Yes. The guy is serving jail time for it, idiot.

---

And if they were "for her boyfriend", it means that he didn't take them either.

---

I'm sure a worthless maggot like you has trouble with the concept of "friends" since no decent person would ever spend time in your company, but look up the word and consider that a friend might have been involved. Or a personal assistant. This isn't rocket science to a person of normal intelligence.

---

So who took them??? The casting couch is calling

---

That's just your sick imagination. There is no evidence whatsoever for this ugly fantasy of yours, which tells us more about your depraved state of mind and morals than anything else.

---

Her requests by her lawyers were denied, since she was not the owner of the images, hence why they are still available today.

---

I asked for a citation from a mainstream news source to back up this claim, and you have nothing. Your addiction to the world of make believe is duly noted.

---

Once again, no naked photos no issue of them being exposed!

---

Once again: your moral illiteracy and basic nature as a worthless scumbag has you saying the equivalent of "Too bad your jewelry got stolen. If you hadn't had any, it couldn't have happened."

It gives me such solace that your disgusting posts and ability to make them in a widely read public forum is soon going away.

---

Actually, I wasn't proven wrong.

---

Yes you were, and you are just TRIGGERED and once again denying FACTS to try and save face, it won't work.

---

Yes. The guy is serving jail time for it, idiot.

---

You seem to think that all crimes are the same. Next you'll say that if you've looked at Jennifer's naked pictures online you've committed a sexual offense.

---

consider that a friend might have been involved. Or a personal assistant

---

You have your friends take naked pictures of yourself so that you can send them to your boyfriend?

Literally, take a step back and think clearly about what you just proposed.

---

That's just your sick imagination.

---

I do not have an obsessive obsession with Jennifer like you do, therefore it is not in my interests to fantasize about Jennifer on the casting couch.

---

I asked for a citation from a mainstream news source to back up this claim

---

Every time FACTS are provided to you, you deny them. Unless you can somehow verify them on IMDb

---

Once again: your moral illiteracy and basic nature as a worthless scumbag

---

Well that's not very nice. I certainly hope this is not the type of abuse that one would be subjected to on your "troll-free" board.

As ALWAYS, no naked pictures, no risk of exposure to the world.

---

Yes you were, and you are just TRIGGERED and once again denying FACTS to try and save face, it won't work.

---

What would work is you quoting her saying that people who looked at her photo's were sex offenders, in her own words. But you can't, since she never said it. Now, because you're such a child, you have to stick to the lie to save face instead of doing the grown-up thing (which I have no problem doing) by admitting you were wrong.

---

You seem to think that all crimes are the same.

---

He stole her pictures. He's doing time for it. Get a clue, idiot.

---

You have your friends take naked pictures of yourself so that you can send them to your boyfriend?

Literally, take a step back and think clearly about what you just proposed.

---

She has said these pictures were for her boyfriend (she has also said that a requirement for any personal assistant is a comfort level with nudity).

Until you present evidence to suggest otherwise, the default position of anyone with more than half an IQ point is that she meant exactly what she said.

---

I do not have an obsessive obsession with Jennifer like you do, therefore it is not in my interests to fantasize about Jennifer on the casting couch.

---

It is obviously in your interests to have these fantasies, since you post about them in a public space for anyone to see.

---

Every time FACTS are provided to you, you deny them.

---

Like the time I admitted I was wrong about the Passenger's BO compared to other 2016 movies?

Face it: you didn't cite a mainstream source backing up your claims because your claims have no merit and there are no sources. You are just an idiotic liar who has been caught and exposed.

How does it feel to know that your ability to publically defecate in a popular website is going away in a matter of just a few days? Makes me happy, that's for sure.

---

What would work is you quoting her saying that people who looked at her photo's were sex offenders, in her own words.

---

The link was provided, twice. You're just too TRIGGERED to admit how ridiculous of a statement your precious Jennifer made when claiming that.

---

He stole her pictures. He's doing time for it. Get a clue, idiot.

---

What does that have to do with a jewel thief you were talking about?

As usual, you are not comparing Apples to Apples, like how triggered you get when I compare the Domestic Box Office of "Passengers" to the Domestic Box Office of other movies.

---

She has said these pictures were for her boyfriend (she has also said that a requirement for any personal assistant is a comfort level with nudity).

---

That is NOT what you said though.

You literally said that one of her friends may have taken the pictures of her that were "intended for her boyfriend".

You really have your friends take naked pictures of yourself???!?

---

It is obviously in your interests to have these fantasies, since you post about them in a public space for anyone to see.

---

Not everyone fantasizes about Jennifer Lawrence. One day you'll recognize that. Not on your safe space board though.

---

Like the time I admitted I was wrong about the Passenger's BO compared to other 2016 movies?

---

You didn't at first. First you had to complain that it was a Domestic and not a Global comparison. Then you had to add in additional qualifiers about it being live action.

---

The link was provided, twice.

---

Yes, and at no point in that link does she say that anyone who looked at her pictures is a sex offender. You fundamentally don't know how to look at facts and draw logical, justifiable conclusions from them.

---

What does that have to do with a jewel thief you were talking about?

---

If the similarities between someone breaking into a locked safe to steal an object and someone breaking into a password protected online storage space to steal data goes over your head, you are so ill equipped to understand the 21st century that you are beyond help.

Luckily, our justice system understands the similarities. Enough said.

---

You literally said that one of her friends may have taken the pictures of her that were "intended for her boyfriend".

---

Yes. Sorry if this basic concept is too complex for you to understand. It must be awful being such a brain damaged loser.

---

Yes, and at no point in that link does she say that anyone who looked at her pictures is a sex offender.

---

Yes, she does. You want to defend her, that's obvious. Hence why you made up some baseless claim that her friends took naked pictures of herself in a hotel room.

Seriously, think of the lunacy of that suggestion! I realize it is difficult for you to imagine having a girlfriend but let's pretend that you did. And you wanted to surprise her with naked pictures.

So, you have a FRIEND take naked pictures of you in a hotel room that you will then send to your girlfriend?!?

C'mon, even you can admit that is the exact definition of reaching. Face it, Jenny's no angel. She never, was and she never will be.

---

Yes, she does.

---

No, she doesn't. She says that if you looked at her photo's, you are perpetuating a sexual offense. That doesn't mean you originated the offense. You are just passing it along, making it continue. It is still immoral, and not a crime.

I know, these concepts are too difficult for a chimp like you to understand.

---

Hence why you made up some baseless claim that her friends took naked pictures of herself in a hotel room.

---

First all, you are the idiot who keeps saying the pictures came from a hotel room. You have no evidence for this. You are just making crap up.

Secondly, there is nothing baseless about it. A third party probably took the pictures. The most logical explanation is that it was the boyfriend, a friend, or a personal assistant. There is nothing remarkable about it, however much you bizarrely try to pretend otherwise.

Any alternative theory you want to propose is just your vile, obscene imagination at work. Certainly evidence and basic reality have nothing to do with your motivations.

She said the pictures were for her boyfriend. The discussion ends there in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

It's bad peoples privacy was hurt but she shouldn't be ashamed if that's what's she's into fine but instead she just attacks people like okay