posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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 . . .
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
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? Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
