So, Scarlet Johansson recently said she gets checked twice a year for HIV, in order to demonstrate how socially responsible she is.
Recently she gave an interview where she talked about her views on US reproductive policy.
quote:We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions.
I'm mostly just stunned by the vapidness of the comment. I haven't found the original interview, so maybe the article makes it sound more juvenile than it really was, but still. When you take a public stand, if you can't make it a well-thought out one, at least make it well-worded.
[ November 21, 2006, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
That's strange, Hollywood is usualy the source of well thought out and balanced opinions.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Huh? I'm sorry, did she say something? I was too distracted by her hotness.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
The thread should probably read "Scarlet Johansson: the young American liberal".
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Everyone in my eyes is right and wrong, it's just different degrees of wrongness or rightness, she has a bit of a point when it comes to abstinence education, but she didn't frame it well enough I think.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Could be an issue of context.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
I'm reminded of Cameron Diaz who warned Oprah that rape would be legalized if Bush were reelected. I'm assuming that Miss Johansson must give some credit to Laura Bush for puttting her foot down with George and insisting on having just two kids.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How do you know it was her idea? It could have been George who only wanted two.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Well, Cameron Diaz isn't nearly as hot as Scarlett Johanssen, so we can call her an idiot all day long with no objection from me.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I dunno, I'm not a big Scarlett Johanssen fan. Possibly because she seems to always play a ... loose woman (proud of myself for using board-appropriate language).
It's surprising that you're stunned at the vapidness of the comment. I would've been stunned by a well thought out, intelligent comment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Huh? I'm sorry, did she say something? I was too distracted by her hotness.
Exactly what I was thinking.
and then I thought
quote: It's surprising that you're stunned at the vapidness of the comment. I would've been stunned by a well thought out, intelligent comment.
Hatrack is dictating my thoughts in advance! Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We are supposed to be liberated in America but if our President had his way, we wouldn't be educated about sex at all. Every woman would have six children and we wouldn't be able to have abortions.
Sex education varies from state to state, and it's atrocious to non-existent in Illinois. The state governments are taking their cue from the White House. Of her three claims, only the one about six children seems to be a gross overstatement.
I'm not sure about the difference between "abstinence only," and "we wouldn't be educated about sex at all," or "pro-life" and "we wouldn't be able to have abortions." In these two statements, Johansson seems founded in her assertions.
[ November 21, 2006, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I see her point, and yeah, she has one, but I think she voiced it in the wrong way.
She's giving in to hyperbole, but she's nowhere near alone in that vein of conversational technique.
Opponents of sex education that includes use of contraceptives usually use the argument that educating youth about them is more or less giving a green light to have sex. I've yet to hear anyone seriously claim that contraceptives and birth control as a whole should be made illegal, so her six kids claim is dubious.
Oh well, I give her points for getting involved in the process, but none for articulation of her message.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If her point is that more beautiful women need to have safe sex, I agree.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
quote: So, Scarlet Johansson recently said she gets checked twice a year for HIV, in order to demonstrate how socially responsible she is.
Not suprisingly, this is the part that we centered the discussion around at work. Is she as loose in RL as she is in the movies? I know I get checked every year, I have too. It's not due to anything of me, just a medical routine done on everyone in the Navy (at least. I am not going to speak for the other branches) once a year.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man:
quote: So, Scarlet Johansson recently said she gets checked twice a year for HIV, in order to demonstrate how socially responsible she is.
Not suprisingly, this is the part that we centered the discussion around at work. Is she as loose in RL as she is in the movies? I know I get checked every year, I have too. It's not due to anything of me, just a medical routine done on everyone in the Navy (at least. I am not going to speak for the other branches) once a year.
It's kind of sad that she states she practices safe sex and the only thing we can say is "Oooooo, she must be loose and have lots of sex!" She's being safe about it, and that's what matters most.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stan the man:
quote: So, Scarlet Johansson recently said she gets checked twice a year for HIV, in order to demonstrate how socially responsible she is.
Not suprisingly, this is the part that we centered the discussion around at work. Is she as loose in RL as she is in the movies? I know I get checked every year, I have too. It's not due to anything of me, just a medical routine done on everyone in the Navy (at least. I am not going to speak for the other branches) once a year.
Of the few interviews I've read about her, she seems very sexual, but at the same time, not a slut. She's been in a few committed relationships, but isn't opposed (obviously) to sex before marriage. How often do we have a conversation about how loose guys are? I mean, look at that Pierce Brosnan, the man is ALWAYS sexing up the ladies in his movies, is he really that loose in real life?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I wish people in the US, and perhaps other places as well, had a less puritanical view on sex. Why should being intelligent in your health be considered a social flaw? Making an effort not to take part in a worldwide epidemic should be praised.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I wish people in the US, and perhaps other places as well, had a less puritanical view on sex. Why should being intelligent in your health be considered a social flaw? Making an effort not to take part in a worldwide epidemic should be praised.
I really think the term "Puritanical" is incorrect here. I have it on pretty good authority that the Puritans highly encouraged open frequent sex between married partners as a way of strengthening the relationship.
If restricting sex to the confines of the stability of a married relationship is encompassed in the word Puritan, well then color me Puritanical.
I understand Puritanical usually denotes strict conservative view points, but I honestly think its alittle inaccurate as far as sex is concerned. They were much stricter on other principles.
When compared to some tribes in Africa or to Muslims, the Puritans views on sex and women are positively progressive.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I do think that it applies here though. Nobody is saying, "Boy, that Scarlet Johansson sure has a lot of sex within the stable relationship of marriage." They're saying, "If an unmarried woman is sexual, it makes her bad."
I could refer to it as prudish or backward.
I'm not sure why people expect her to be stupid either, except that she's beautiful and seems to enjoy her sexuality, or heaven forbid, act in roles where her character is sexual.
I can't believe people actually seem to be equating an actresses choice in movie roles with her personal morality.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
My question was more how many partners does she have in one year that she needs to get checked every six months to be socially responsible?
If it said she gets checked twice a year as a reminder to others that it's an important test, I'd have been less weirded out by it. As is, the sentence is worded so I thought it said she was sleeping around.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That article doesn't even give the part where she talks about being tested as a quote, it's the author's paraphrase of what she said. I read a longer version somewhere, that included what she, you know, actually said, and it made much more sense. Don't have time to find it now, but maybe I will later, if no one else does.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I mean, look at that Pierce Brosnan, the man is ALWAYS sexing up the ladies in his movies, is he really that loose in real life?
Yeah, but it took him like three years to get Laura Holt to sleep with him, so . . .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wonder how long it'd take Scarlet Johansson to get Laura Holt to sleep with her.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bernice never managed it, so I'm thinking forever.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
bam chuka bam won.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I didn't miss Bernice so much after the first season. I did miss the guy, though. The first season was good, energetic, stylish, campy television. After that, Steele became too competent and perfect.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You're talking about Murphy, played by James Read (who would play Jimmy Olsen's James-Bond-like dad years later, but I digress).
I always rather liked Mildred. But yeah, I'm really enjoying the first season. I'm about 2/3 through it on Netflix. And Murphy is lots of fun.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I thought the writing in the first season was lovely. I liked how the mysteries mimicked the personal dynamic between Steel and Holt. It's remarkable how many crimes that first season were crimes of prestige, which played in perfectly with how Steele getting all the glory. About the first season, I liked how Steele was a rogue and a thief, but only a mediocre crime fighter. He made big, costly, glaring mistakes. In the later seasons, I got bored with Mildred, but mostly, I got bored because Steele could do no wrong.
Murphy is a sweet pea, and I appreciated the Murphy/Holt/Steele dynamic. I think that Steele brought out a gutsy side of Murphy, it's too bad the writers didn't know what to do with him.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
First of all, I have no idea who Scarlet Johansson is. But that's not my point. I take offense that her moron comments are represented as typical of feminism. Is it your opinion that the feminist movement is congruent with moral decline?
I like to think of myself as a responsible, moral person who is also a feminist.
Can you understand where I'm coming from?
A better title for the thread, although perhaps less provocative, might be: Scarlet Johansson: the dingbat.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is it your opinion that the feminist movement is congruent with moral decline?
Heck, that's my opinion.
That is, I think that there that there has been a moral decline which has occured during the same time period as the fiminist movement, causing the two to be linearly congruent.
But that's probably not what you meant.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I think that my definition of feminism must be at odds with yours.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I think that Steele brought out a gutsy side of Murphy, it's too bad the writers didn't know what to do with him.
That's not quite accurate, at least not according the the extra bits on the DVD. The writers and producers made a decision to focus on the Remington/Laura aspects over all else. Bernice's and Murphy's roles were merged into the single character of Mildred to give the couple more airtime.
I have exceedingly mixed feelings about that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I think that my definition of feminism must be at odds with yours.
While that's certainly possible, I see no reason why you would say that from what I said. The only relationship I proposed between the feminist movement and moral decline was one of coincidence -- they have both happened during the same time period.
[ November 24, 2006, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I think that my definition of feminism must be at odds with yours.
While that's certainly possible, I see no reason why you would say that from what I said. The only relationship I proposed between the feminist movement and moral decline was one of coincidence -- they have both happened during the same time period.
Ah, so you did. Never mind.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do think that some women have taken the wrong lessons from the feminist movement and used the concept of female empowerment and gender equality as an excuse for irresponsible sexual behavior ("guys can fool around, we should be able to as well"), the same way many men have taken the wrong lessons from a patriarchal society ("guys call the shots, women are here to serve us").
That doesn't mean feminism is the cause or even the inspiration of such behavior. But for some people it became a handy excuse. Like teenagers thinking that being an adult means only that now you can drink and have sex, and copying that to feel older while missing what really makes one an adult.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Huh? I'm sorry, did she say something? I was too distracted by her hotness.
PRETTY MUCH.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I do think that some women have taken the wrong lessons from the feminist movement and used the concept of female empowerment and gender equality as an excuse for irresponsible sexual behavior ("guys can fool around, we should be able to as well"), the same way many men have taken the wrong lessons from a patriarchal society ("guys call the shots, women are here to serve us").
That doesn't mean feminism is the cause or even the inspiration of such behavior. But for some people it became a handy excuse. Like teenagers thinking that being an adult means only that now you can drink and have sex, and copying that to feel older while missing what really makes one an adult.
Chris: shows like Sex in the City have pretty much championed that attitude you described. It drives me nuts, do women really aspire to be like the guys I consider to be the dregs of society?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:My question was more how many partners does she have in one year that she needs to get checked every six months to be socially responsible?
quote:Periodic testing is recommended for persons who are at risk for infection. (). Most healthcare providers recommend repeat testing every 6 to 12 months for such persons.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It should be noted that I don't consider premarital sex, or even sex with lots of different people to be, by definition, immoral. Work your way through the phone book if you want. I do consider sex without responsibility, without care for the consequences (physical, legal, or emotional), or without concern for the feelings of the other person/people involved to be highly unethical, male or female.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I do think that some women have taken the wrong lessons from the feminist movement and used the concept of female empowerment and gender equality as an excuse for irresponsible sexual behavior ("guys can fool around, we should be able to as well"), the same way many men have taken the wrong lessons from a patriarchal society ("guys call the shots, women are here to serve us").
That doesn't mean feminism is the cause or even the inspiration of such behavior. But for some people it became a handy excuse. Like teenagers thinking that being an adult means only that now you can drink and have sex, and copying that to feel older while missing what really makes one an adult.
I know the gist of this post was "don't practice irresponsible sex," but to answer your tangent, there is some merit to sexual equality. Until the two examples in this thread, Johansson and Brosnan, are considered equally "loose" for equal amounts of sex -- and face equal criticism or praise -- feminism does find a sort of liberty in shows like Sex and the City. I'm not a fan, neither of the show nor the lifestyle, but if nothing else, women on the show are in charge of their own sex lives. They're not answerable to religious guilt or cultural scorn, and they pursue their relationships with the same abandon virtually every other television show grants men.
Seriously, Sex and the City is iconic (for both fans and critics) exactly because it represents female sexual liberty. I can't think of one of how many thousands of films that shows frat boys getting laid, agents seducing targets, protagonists working their way through any number of women -- there's too many for any one to represent them all. Until female sexuality's as commonplace, I have no problem seeing a lot more of women fooling around to the same degree as men. Social equality aside, it's at least relatively unexplored territory for Hollywood to exploit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We can all be equally irresponsible?
Gah.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Forced responsibility isn't actually responsibility.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And the force would be...?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Scarlet letters, that sort of thing.
Would you find "coerced" to be a better word?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Taxes, mandatory community service requirements, I'm sure there are a few others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: That is, I think that there that there has been a moral decline which has occured during the same time period as the fiminist movement
So you're saying that you think we're less moral now than we have been in the past? *giggle*
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: That is, I think that there that there has been a moral decline which has occured during the same time period as the fiminist movement
So you're saying that you think we're less moral now than we have been in the past? *giggle*
Or perhaps he was suggesting that in certain regards we are less moral now, even though overall we may be more so.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I've been thinking about this a lot recently. It seems like in our society most moral wrongs are not universal moral wrongs. Very few people would say killing, or stealing, or lying are wrong no matter what. The debate over US torture is really a debate over whether or not torture is a universal wrong. But sexual immorality is considered a universal wrong by everyone who considers it a wrong in the first place.
I just find that interesting.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Taxes, mandatory community service requirements, I'm sure there are a few others.
Hmm. Taxes are a good counter-example. Community service is more of a punishment. The manner in which you fulfill your punishment could be called responsible, I think, but less so the simple act of completing it.
When I originally posted that response to rivka, I was thinking in terms of personal responsibility. It seems to me that you consider this topic more in the realm of a civic responsibility - and maybe rivka does too.
I suppose a better way to make my point would simply be to contend that irresponsibility doesn't necessarily follows from lots of sex. In fact I think increasing openness about sex will generally make us into a much more mature, personally responsible society.
I know some people here believe all premarital sex is wrong. I really don't think it'll be possible to argue that without getting into an abortion debate, and Hatrack doesn't really need that right now. So why don't we preemptively agree to disagree on that one? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: We can all be equally irresponsible?
Yes.
I don't share your "gah" sentiment, though.
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I know some people here believe all premarital sex is wrong.
Even more broadly, plenty of people here believe that all nonmarital sex is wrong.
I agree with the point you're making. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that it could be because it's difficult to reasonably concieve of a situation where someone must have sex or else suffer dire consequences.
Unless, of course, you are talking about rape. There actually are exceptions to the no-nonmarital-sex rule: if it is against your will, there is no blame or sin attached whatsoever.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not sure I understand your first sentence. Are you saying the belief that nonmarital sex is wrong (with exceptions) may stem from the severity of certain possible outcomes?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I'm saying that in cases where other serious sins are seen as less serious, then THAT comes from the severity of certain possible outcomes.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm sorry, I still don't understand. I'm tired, muddled, and possibly getting sick -- maybe I'm just slow today. Can you clarify some more?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think kat is referring back to blacwolve's post, where she says:
quote:I've been thinking about this a lot recently. It seems like in our society most moral wrongs are not universal moral wrongs. Very few people would say killing, or stealing, or lying are wrong no matter what. The debate over US torture is really a debate over whether or not torture is a universal wrong. But sexual immorality is considered a universal wrong by everyone who considers it a wrong in the first place.
kat is saying most people can concieve of situations where killing, stealing, or lying are the more moral choice, because the alternatives are worse. But if you take as a given that non-marital sex is wrong, like lying or stealing is wrong, it's a lot harder to come up with a situation where the alternatives to not having sex are "worse."
Is that a valid reading of your posts, kat? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, that's it exactly, ElJay. I apologize for not being clear about what I was referencing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Oh, okay. It makes sense now. Thank you for the explanation. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Fighting a visual of TomD giggling....
....and losing that fight.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that it could be because it's difficult to reasonably concieve of a situation where someone must have sex or else suffer dire consequences.
Unless, of course, you are talking about rape. There actually are exceptions to the no-nonmarital-sex rule: if it is against your will, there is no blame or sin attached whatsoever.
Unless, of course, you live under Sharia Law or your family is composed of Islamic fanatics. In which case, it the rape victim's fault for making herself available or attracting the attacker.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mig: Oh come on!
All you gotta do is supply *four* male eye witnesses not related to you to say it was rape and you're ok! (well, maybe ok.)
And we all know how easy that is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that it could be because it's difficult to reasonably concieve of a situation where someone must have sex or else suffer dire consequences.
Unless, of course, you are talking about rape. There actually are exceptions to the no-nonmarital-sex rule: if it is against your will, there is no blame or sin attached whatsoever.
Unless, of course, you live under Sharia Law or your family is composed of Islamic fanatics. In which case, it the rape victim's fault for making herself available or attracting the attacker.
But then again with how much flesh your average extremist female is displaying you'd think men would drift towards homosexuality. Its no wonder it must be the woman's fault if a man can get excited enough to try anything.
edit: In retrospect I thought I should note that I am being purely facetious as the last two posts sorta rubbed me the wrong way.
[ November 27, 2006, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Why did they rub you the wrong way?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, why?
I don't agree with Sharia law at all - I meant what I said in my post.
What are you objecting to?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Sharia law has nothing to do with women who are raped being killed. That's stupid human behavior completely separate from the law.
According to Sharia law, the victim of a rape should never be punished, but the aggressor should.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Scarlett's line is like the Left's equivalent of George H. W. Bush's that if Bill Clinton had his way, we'd be "up to our ears in spotted owls and out of work for every American." (See An Incovenient Truth.)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm tired, muddled, and possibly getting sick -- maybe I'm just slow today. Can you clarify some more?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)