Marilyn Monroe Sex Tape To Be Sold
Apparently there is a guy in Argentina who claims he has a Marilyn Monroe sex tape made in the 1940's and he is offering it for sale. What is strange is who would actually buy the tape. Let me tell you why. Back in 1997, this same guy sold a sex tape that was in 16mm film and that tape was later made into about 600,000 copies until the original was sold to a collector for $600K.
So, is this a new sex tape the guy is selling? No. It is an 8mm version that is exactly the same as the 16mm version. So, why would anyone buy it if there are 600,000 copies of the 16mm version? It makes no sense to me. Apparently there are those who also doubt whether the tape is really Marilyn. It was good enough where someone dropped $1.2M for it and good enough where her estate did not sue back in 1997 when he sold the first one. When I look at the pictures, I don't think it looks exactly like her, but it was before she was discovered and in her late teens and not any older than 21. The other question is how did a sex tape of Marilyn from the 1940's end up in Argentina?
Let her rest in peace. These people are low life bloodsuckers.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree with you more bluebonnet!
ReplyDeleteParasites.
ReplyDeleteI agree Bluebonnetmom -
ReplyDeletehowever, I could swear I read where she had work done just before being discovered.
This reminds me of that post himmm did about Old Blue Eyes staging and filming the gangbang of Marilyn at the CalNeva Lodge in the early 60's to shut her and the Kennedys up.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds (if it's authentic) like a thousand other unknown actors, many now famous, who needed the money and took the plunge, hoping it would never come to light. That being said, "parasites" is an appropriate term for such people.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAwww, look at that babygirl face.
ReplyDeleteSIGH
She has always been an icon I feel oddly protective of. And if Sinatra really did stage that gangbang I wouldnt be surprised at all. Talk about a piece of fucking shit. Now theres a man who shoulda died a long time ago. Not to go off on a tangent but people complain about Micheal Jackson being famous when he supposedly molested those kids and yet Frank bloody Sinatra has a revered stature SO not on par with his horrible past. Is that distinction a part of something Race related? hmmm, I dunno.
Sinatra...ultimate douche. no surprise there.
ReplyDeleteHaven't read the post yet, but by the headline this is a real shame and a disgrace. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteMay the fleas of a thousand camels infest their crotches for doing this...to ANYone.
comparing these snaps to andres d es dienes book of photos of marilyn when she was still norma jean, i think this isnt marilyn monroe. the eyes are different, the face slightly more square.
ReplyDeleteThey are lower then parasites --- is their something that only feeds off dung?? This person gaining $$$$ by exploiting Norma Jean is that dung feeder.
ReplyDeleteOn off topic; because Robert mentioned him; has anyone heard from Himmmmm lately? I know he has health problems. I hope he is well. I miss his posts.
Question; what is the difference between a sex tape and porn? Isn't porn illegal? Why is it allowed to be sold?
ReplyDeleteOk, so yeah its most likely her - especially when compared to some her of early photo sessions (see below). But really - $500,000 for this version and $1.5 Million for the 1st one back in 2008. You can see on the film at the JLA Watercooler that both films with Marilyn Monroe look like some cheap back alley production and surely not the way many want to remember her. Again, just can't get over the money these guys are trying to sucker someone into paying. Why pay $500k or 1.5 mil when you can watch it for free???
ReplyDelete…how did a sex tape of Marilyn from the 1940's end up in Argentina?
ReplyDeleteFedex. When it absolutely, positively has to be there in 70 years.
Jerrry ftw!
ReplyDeleteIt isnt ner and if it is I choose not to believe it. Leave her alone. Poor woman.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't look anything like her, except that the woman is white, blonde, young, and reasonably attractive. The facial features look completely different, even when she was 19-21.
ReplyDelete