quote: Sorry, boys. You can't even count on uber-skank Paris Hilton to give it up these days.
The sexy socialite, who's had a string of high-profile romances and once starred in a sex tape that was leaked on the Net, claims she is not as promiscuous as everyone assumes.
"People think I sleep with everyone, but I'm not like that," the Simple Life star says in British GQ's September issue. "Kissing is all I do."
In fact, Hilton tells the magazine she's only ever slept with two men in her entire life.
"The reason so many of my relationships don't work is guys are like, 'Hey what's going on? It's been like four months and I'm only getting a kiss here,'" she explains. "I feel good about it. I like the way guys go crazy when they can't have sex with you. If he can't have you, he stays interested, the moment he has you he's gone. Unless he is really in love with you."
In fact, Hilton, 25, says she has even taken a vow of chastity. "I'm not having sex for a year," she tells the magazine. “I've decided. I'll kiss, but nothing else."
Hopefully, someone has warned her on-again boyfriend Stavros Niarchos, who was spotted dirty dancing with the hotel heiress in Saint Tropez last week.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
""The reason so many of my relationships don't work is guys are like, 'Hey what's going on? It's been like four months and I'm only getting a kiss here,'" she explains. "I feel good about it. I like the way guys go crazy when they can't have sex with you. If he can't have you, he stays interested"
Don't those statements contradict each other? First she says that her relationships don't work because she doesn't let the guys have sex with her and then she says that it keeps them with her longer. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay...so if I have this straight, she only ever kisses, but she's taking a vow to not have sex for a year and only kiss.
So, she's one of those people for whom a vow she has taken today means that she's always been like that?
I'd like to sell tickets to a tour of her mind. It could be like a brief sort of warm-up for touring real minds, with, like, oh, what is it...thoughts?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Like, you're so totally right, Bob!
*I Can't believe I'm posting in this thread!* Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Dear Paris,
When you dress, talk, and act like that, people are going to think you are a skanky ho. Get over yourself.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...it's a publicity stunt. She's doing this os that people will talk about her and post threads about her on web forums and such.
And now I feel slightly soiled for going along.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
MrSquicky, they have a cream for that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I bought the cream. Thank god I've got a good prescription drug plan.
The problem I have is that I feel soiled deep down in my soul and I don't read enough German to understand the directions on how to apply it to non-material existential aspects of myself.
I tried using Bablefish but I'm pretty sure the translation got garbled. Even if it didn't, I refuse to live in a world where the ineffable essense of what makes me me is reached by holding a retirement party for my neighbor's dog.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
Paris Hilton causes a pain in my breast. And her little doggy, too.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Walking venereal disease she may be, but girls everywhere seem to idolize the useless sack of antlers. If she's going to wield influence, I'm glad it might have the unintended side effect of making chastity popular -- one tires of watching twelve year old girls call themselves sluts.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: Dear Paris,
When you dress, talk, and act like that, people are going to think you are a skanky ho. Get over yourself.
Thing is, I get her attitude. I just don't know that she actually HAS that attitude.
Man, if I were rich and famous, I'd be making out with bajillions of hot famous people, too.
-pH
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: Man, if I were rich and famous, I'd be making out with bajillions of hot famous people, too.
20 bucks if you can name the guy she starred in her sex video with.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Rick Solamon, who is gross. But I didn't say I'd make porn with them! I said I'd make out with them.
Like Adam Levine. Helloooooo, nurse!
-pH
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
You totally owe her 20 bucks Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Walking venereal disease she may be, but girls everywhere seem to idolize the useless sack of antlers.
.. 'sack of antlers'
That's brilliant. I totally have to use that.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think that article is BS but whatever...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
She's nothing special. Any reasonably attractive woman can be a dirty slut.
There are very few people in the world I can say that I actually hate, but she's one of them.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: "I'm not having sex for a year," she tells the magazine.
Oh Wow! A WHOLE YEAR! *falls over laughing*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Why in the world would you/how in the world could you hate someone you don't even know? Not only is it pretty silly, hating someone based on media reports of them, but goodness, what a waste of energy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I figure it's a hobby.
Not that I hate her. But I figure people get worked up about all sorts of things that may not seem important, so this may as well be one of them. More important than Paris is how Mighty Cow articulates what he likes and dislikes in women/rich people/human beings by disliking her.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, regardless of her sex life or lack thereof, I'm not digging the whole dirty slut/walking venereal disease/skanky ho thing. I thought we were past calling women names based on their sexuality?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
You could hate her for her influence on young girls and for what she does. I agree about the waste of energy though, there are millions of girls like her and plenty that I know personally that are like her, but I don't hate them. People are the way they are. If you don't like them, just stay away from them and ignore them.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Point, kat.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I thought we were past calling women names based on their sexuality?
I don't think so.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:.. 'sack of antlers'
That's brilliant. I totally have to use that.
Fark cliche.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: You could hate her for her influence on young girls and for what she does. I agree about the waste of energy though, there are millions of girls like her and plenty that I know personally that are like her, but I don't hate them. People are the way they are. If you don't like them, just stay away from them and ignore them.
Does she have any influence over young girls?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Why in the world would you/how in the world could you hate someone you don't even know? Not only is it pretty silly, hating someone based on media reports of them, but goodness, what a waste of energy.
ElJay: I hesitate to say it but you may have just stumpled on the solution for the fossil fuel energy crisis!
People say George Bush went to Iraq to steal their oil, NO NO NO. He did it to ignite more hatred for the United States. Hatred that we can use for energy!
They are dumping billions of dollars worth of hate powered energy a day down there, why not use it?
edit: I'd be more than happy to have Paris Hilton also supply additional reserves of hate based energy. Shoot I would like her better if she worked AT a gas station, and held that job for a considerable period of time.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I thought we were past calling women names based on their sexuality?
I don't think so.
That makes me sad.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What do you mean by sexuality? How she dresses/acts?
Because I think public perception of her is shaped by her sex tapes (plural), and tabloid exploits than by how she dresses.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:You totally owe her 20 bucks [Big Grin]
LOL, oh I really do. I dont even know if thats right, that is was Rick Soloman, but there you go. I dont know whether im impressed or scared Ph!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
"I won't have sex for 1 whole year." Said Paris Hilton. What she said afterword, but left out of the article was....
"and that year will be 2118."
"because, like, for a whole year would tire out even my back."
"and that will be three years after I'm dead. I can't guarantee the first two."
"ooops. I meant socks. I won't wear socks for a whole year."
"is #@$#@$#@$ considered sex? It is? How about #$%$#@$%@#$#@. Oh. And )$)#*$#@)$@#? Well @#$#@$@# this idea then."
"unless they have more money than my dad, or are more famous than my dog."
"on cheap video tape."
"with any man dumber than me. Hmmm. That doesn't seem to limit my options too much."
Posted by just_me (Member # 3302) on :
quote:"I won't have sex for 1 whole year." Said Paris Hilton. What she said afterword, but left out of the article was....
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Dan wins the thread!
--Enigmatic
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: What do you mean by sexuality? How she dresses/acts?
Because I think public perception of her is shaped by her sex tapes (plural), and tabloid exploits than by how she dresses.
I was talking acts, actually, not dresses. There are all these negative words for women who enjoy sex, and very few for men. Male socialties who go around making out with celebraties (or even making sex tapes) don't get called skanks, hos, sluts, etc. Or walking venereal diseases.
I mean, someone was willing to bet $20 that pH couldn't name the man in the tape. Because no one cares if men have sex, and even make a tape of their conquests. But for the woman involved it's seen as shameful. Whatever.
I don't know and I don't care if Paris Hilton is telling the truth about how many people she's had sex with. But if you're labling women who have sex with multiple partners without the benefit of marriage, you're labeling me, too.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: More important than Paris is how Mighty Cow articulates what he likes and dislikes in women/rich people/human beings by disliking her.
I should probably be offended by this, but I'm too busy hating all women, rich people, and human beings to care.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I mean, someone was willing to bet $20 that pH couldn't name the man in the tape. Because no one cares if men have sex, and even make a tape of their conquests. But for the woman involved it's seen as shameful. Whatever.
Uh, I was joking to show how the people she kisses arent famous. Not that that matters per se, but I personally dont care if women have sex. Its not shameful in my book. Hey, the more the merrier I say, and if a few could include me, that would be great.
Although that actually might be shameful in and of itself...
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Uh, I was joking to show how the people she kisses arent famous.
That's what I thought you were trying to get across.
I guess people can always try and find offense if they look hard enough.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Did you notice the part about skanky hos, sluts, etc. in my first paragraph? Because I wasn't taking offense at Humean's statement, I was using it as an illustration. And I believe I said the whole thing made me sad. No one brought offense into it until you, Cow.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mighty Cow, it wasn't meant to be offensive at all. *puzzled*
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I mean, someone was willing to bet $20 that pH couldn't name the man in the tape. Because no one cares if men have sex, and even make a tape of their conquests. But for the woman involved it's seen as shameful. Whatever.
That's not because he's a man, it's because he's not famous.
Slut, skank, and ho are all, unfortunately, gender specific. There aren't any words for men who exhibit the same behavior, to my knowledge.
I describe promiscuous guys with some homemade slang, but I'm not sure it doesn't violate the TOS. I also use "male slut" to describe that behavior in men. I'm equal opportunity, so the old 'women are sluts while men are studs' inequality doesn't apply to me. You were speaking generally, though, and not just to me though, so I guess your argument is still plenty valid for a lot of people.
There's also an important distinction between between sexual and being a turbo-slut. I don't have any problem with independent, confident women. I have a problem with people whose only discernable talent is milking their sexuality for fame and fortune. If there was a man who was as guilty of that as Paris Hilton, I'd have just as little respect for him as I do for her.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Colin Ferrel?
I'm trying to imagine Colin Ferrel making a vow of chastity for a year.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Slut, skank, and ho are all, unfortunately, gender specific. There aren't any words for men who exhibit the same behavior, to my knowledge.
I use those terms for either gender.
-pH
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What else she may have said after...
"I won't have sex for 1 whole year..."
"Oh, that sounds difficult. Maybe I'll hire someone not to have sex for me."
"And, if um, I get paid not to have sex, is that like being an anti-prostitute?"
"and I will focus all my on my research into the aerodynamic effects of LOX based exhausts on the stability of trans-atmospheric lift capabilities. Why yes, I am a Rocket Scientist."
"unless I'm really, really, really drunk. Care for a shot?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. Even I couldn't keep from laughing on that one. Can we try another take..."
"Unless, of course, its with that hunk Dan Raven."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
pH, yeah, but you're weird.
I wouldn't put Colin Farell in that category because he became famous because he's an actor. Not an especially talented one, at least at this point, but he does have some talent beyond making out with celebrities.
His extracurricular activities did enhance his reputation quite a bit, which is the main reason I can't stand him. But he's still two steps below Paris Hilton.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Colin Ferrel?
I'm trying to imagine Colin Ferrel making a vow of chastity for a year.
Colin Ferrell "milks his sexuality for fame and fortune"? Moreso than your average actor? And you believe that is his "only discernable talent?
I think you're being harsh. Colin Ferrell is about as sexy as they come, but he's a pretty good actor, too (IMO). He's done some less than stellar movies, but I don't think they were misses because of him. Tigerland was a great movie, and Farrell's performance in A Home at the End of the World was excellent as well.
Edit to add: If he ever does make a vow of chastity for a year, I'm praying he gets stranded in my town with no place to stay on the first anniversary of that vow. /slut
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:I mean, someone was willing to bet $20 that pH couldn't name the man in the tape. Because no one cares if men have sex, and even make a tape of their conquests. But for the woman involved it's seen as shameful. Whatever.
That's not because he's a man, it's because he's not famous.
Neither was she, really, until after the tape.
quote: You were speaking generally, though, and not just to me though,
Seeing as you hadn't, you know, actually made any pejorative comments in this thread, I wasn't speaking about you at all. I was answering your question, but certainly not saying that you were doing any of those things. As obviously a quick scan of the thread would show you weren't.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Come on, now. I saw her in either FHM or Stuff magazine at least 3 years before this tape surfaced. She was a good deal more well known than the guy, even if her fame was spurred a lot by the tape. Not even just the tape, but moreso her reaction to it.
quote:Seeing as you hadn't, you know, actually made any pejorative comments in this thread, I wasn't speaking about you at all.
I know, I just realized that my answer to your question didn't invalidate your larger point, which is the stigma on females who are sexually forward, so I thought I'd mention that I did realize that.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm not saying she'd never been in a magazine, but I'd certainly never heard of her. I'd imagine some people knew who she was. But he was a musician, wasn't he? So there were probably people who knew who he was, too. And she's from an extremely wealthy family, so that might have something to do with why all the news stories were talking about her rather than him.
And really, the other thing you can say is that she did a much better job promoting herself from it than he did. They both had to sign a release in order for it to be distributed, and there is evidence that they actually went back and made a new, better quality tape for the distribution. (I read a really interesting article awhile back about the promotion of porn, and how people in the media spotlight frequently aren't trying to do what they want you to think they are. I'll see if I can find it.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think he was anything. Maybe that he called himself a producer, but I never heard of him being a musician. I'd google it, but, um, I don't wanna.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
ElJay, you're thinking of Ricky Sambora, I think.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmm, I thought I read that he was a small-time musician. But I don't really want to google it from work, either. kat, I wasn't thinking of Sambora, because I was sure he wasn't that famous. So you think he was just some random guy, JT? Why would she hook up with him?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
If you can find that article, ElJay, I'll be interested to read it.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ah, found it, he was Shannen Doherty's husband at the time they made the tape. So no, not famous.
Here's the article I was thinking about. It's kinda long, and it makes comparisons between reality TV and porn, and talks frankly, so it might not be to everyone's taste.
quote:As Blatt suggested and the Times article explained, 1 Night in Paris wasn’t exactly the end of Paris Hilton’s life. “Ms. Hilton tried to stop distribution of the tape, although its notoriety paradoxically catapulted her to an even higher orbit of fame, establishing her as a kind of postmodern celebrity, leading to perfume deals, a memoir, and the covers of Vanity Fair and W,” the Times wrote.
Because of U.S. Code 2257, the Kid Rock video will never be distributed without his permission. But what about Paris Hilton’s? According to the Times article, Paris Hilton receives profits from her sex tape. According to Blatt, “There’s no way of putting out the DVD unless Paris Hilton signed off on it.” Without connecting the dots explicitly, Blatt hints that the second video of Paris and Rick Salomon, the better-quality version, was produced subsequently, with both parties’ full cooperation, for mutual profit. “Put it this way,” Blatt says, “by looking at both tapes, I believe she’s aged somewhat since then, a different hair style, et cetera, more consistent with how she looked on [The Simple Life] than when she was 19.” (Ms. Hilton’s manager and agent were contacted several times to comment on this story but did not reply.)
Why would Paris Hilton allow the tape to be released? The easy supposition is that all people, even billionaire heiresses, like to make a little more money. The more complicated theory is that she needed something more important to her than money—celebrity. While Paris Hilton’s appearance on The Simple Life mocked her disconnection from the common folk, she seemed to share the common desire of reality TV participants for fame. With fame, the logic goes, comes more fame, as well as further appearances on TV, lines of print in the newspapers and tabloids, not to mention business opportunities, memoirs, and the like. The only thing shocking about that motivation is Paris Hilton’s apparent willingness to participate in her own public degradation. But then again, the payoff hasn’t been so bad, so maybe Paris is onto something. As Kevin Blatt might put it, the media loves this shit.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
My understanding was that the two of them were dating when the tape was made. As for why, I couldn't begin to guess. Her's is not a mind I'm comfortable stepping into to guess motivation.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
Thanks for stepping into the conversation, ElJay.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I still like to tilt at windmills every now and then, Sara. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, there's a very big difference between women who use sex as a primary aspect of themselves and try to make that why other people value them and women who have a strong sense of self respect and deep personalities and also like to have sex.
Looking down on the one does not necessarily involve looking down on the other. I know for myself, I am - now that I'm older and possibly wiser than I was - somewhat repulsed by the first type but strongly attracted by the second.
Of course, this is not at all limited to sex and that it is sex that earns such approbation (but also vivid interest and attention) is, to me, both a symptom and a cause of America's hangups with sex.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like using pejorative terms like skank because that refers to the person and not what they are doing, and therefore it lacks nuance. But I admit that part me of thinks that if anyone qualifies, it would be a self-promoting porn star.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I was thinking about this thread and I realized that, while I don't use perjorative terms for promiscuity freely (except with my friends in a tongue in cheek manner), I do throw the term 'crazy' around quite a bit.
Like, "Yeah, she's hot. But she's crazy, and not in a cute and neurotic way, either. In a 'stab you in the neck with the handle of a butcher knife' way."
Now, to be fair, I only do it to describe people who's behavior I've observed; if it's just a rumor that someone is crazy, I don't comment.
But I'm not the only one guilty of this. A lot of my friends use that descriptor for both guys and girls, and it's like an instant veto of that person's dating eligibility in most cases.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I wanna know how you stab someone in the neck with the handle of a butcher knife. Sounds like a weird prison shiv or something...
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:But I admit that part me of thinks that if anyone qualifies, it would be a self-promoting porn star
Katie, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.
Do you mean someone who exploits porn for their own image while maintaining that image (ie porn) isn't them?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I meant someone who is self-promoting to the end of getting attention for it's own sake and is also a porn star.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
So would a non-self promoting porn star be less of a skank?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I wanna know how you stab someone in the neck with the handle of a butcher knife.
Exactly. Crazy.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...I really am kind of uncomfortable with the term. It's very dismissive of a person's humanity, and I hate that it's only applied to women.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Sorry - I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable.
I was trying to work out whether it was the 'porn star' aspect or the 'self-promoting-as' aspect that was getting to you.
For what it's worth, I hate the term 'slut' for exactly the same reason. It is dismissive, and it is pejorative of women. A 'man-slut' doesn't have the same connotations as just 'slut' does, and I hate that some people can't see it's a horribly degrading word.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
To be fair though, aren't there judgments against men which don't apply to women?
Interestingly, I've heard gay men referred to as sluts, and in that case, it does seem to have the same connotations.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Sorry - I didn't mean to make you uncomfortable.
I was trying to work out whether it was the 'porn star' aspect or the 'self-promoting-as' aspect that was getting to you.
For what it's worth, I hate the term 'slut' for exactly the same reason. It is dismissive, and it is pejorative of women. A 'man-slut' doesn't have the same connotations as just 'slut' does, and I hate that some people can't see it's a horribly degrading word.
Would the pejorative bother you less if it was applied equally to men and women?
Because honestly, while I understand that for the most part it is applied to women, people in my everday life definitely apply it with equal frequency and equal meaning to both genders, and this seems to be an increasing trend.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Imogen & kat, for what it's worth what bothers me about the Paris Hilton situation is the hypocrisy. On record, the tape was distributed without her approval. In actuality, she almost definitely signed a release and gets part of the proceeds. And she pulls all these stunts that are calculated to generate more publicity. Did you read the article I linked? Here's another exerpt:
quote:When Blatt was trying to promote 1 Night in Paris, he ran into a problem Barnum would have recognized. Although David Joseph, the president of Red Light District, was willing to spend big bucks to advertise the DVD, Blatt soon discovered that no one would take their money because of the notoriety of the subject matter. He tried innocuous billboards and radio spots but was unsuccessful in securing any contracts.
In the end, two forces helped get the word out. The first was the mainstream media’s willingness to report on the story again and again. As Blatt puts it, “You need to give them what they want—something very salacious, very inside, that scoops everybody else.” The second factor was Paris Hilton herself. According to Blatt, “She was her own worst enemy. Every day there’d be something stupid that would happen to Paris and she’d be her own news. The more she wished bad juju on the tape, the worse shit happened to her. One morning, someone sent me an anonymous picture of her leaving Hustler Hollywood with a copy of her own DVD in her hand. I was like, ‘This is genius, this should be in every newspaper in the country,’ so I sent it out. Did I stage it? No way. You can’t stage something that perfect. When she stole the DVD off that newsstand…you can’t ask for better press.”
Emphasis mine. So does it lower my opinion of her that she had sex with this guy? Nope. That he was married to someone else at the time? Yep. That it was on video? Nope, he almost certainly made the first tape without her knowledge. That's not her fault. That she then made a second tape and gave permission to distribute it while still publically claiming that she didn't plus did things that she knew would get her in the press and promote the tape. . . THAT'S what I think is poor form. So I wouldn't label her a skank, I'd label her a hypocritical, dishonest manipulator.
You know, if I cared enough to pay attention. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Um, I watched both, and there's no way she didn't know she was being filmed in the first one. I only watched part of it, but it wasn't a distant stationary camera -- it was handheld.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I hate the term 'slut' for exactly the same reason. It is dismissive, and it is pejorative of women. A 'man-slut' doesn't have the same connotations as just 'slut' does, and I hate that some people can't see it's a horribly degrading word.
I think that calling a man a slut is pretty much identical to calling a woman a slut.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Like, "Yeah, she's hot. But she's crazy, and not in a cute and neurotic way, either. In a 'stab you in the neck with the handle of a butcher knife' way."
YOU PROMISED THAT WOULD STAY BETWEEN US!
*grabs butcher knife*
-pH
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have a hard time believing that she didn't know she was being filmed.
I think she is skanky, because she has done all the things she mentioned, and she did it with sex.
I get the feeling that that's what I'm being driven to say: That to beg for and court attention using sex - not innuendo or sensuality, but actual sex - is sleazier than it would be otherwise. I am perfectly willing to claim that sentiment.
Posted by Demonstrocity (Member # 9579) on :
More thoughts:
I think part of the reason the term "slut" and "skank" get applied more often to women is that a lot of people I know think of "slut" and "skank" as meaning "someone who has a lot of sex for reasons other than pleasure," as opposed to someone who just enjoys sex for sex's sake.
I'm making a sweeping generalization here, but women are more likely to be having sex for reasons that have nothing to do with pleasure and enjoyment.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I think the part where Paris feels she needs to hold sex over guys' heads but just out of reach to keep them makes her a skank.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If it helps (and I can't believe I have an opinion on this), I don't believe for a second she actually does that.
I wonder how you get to that, though. It is many things, but I wouldn't say it's skanky. What definitions of skanky are you using?
[ August 10, 2006, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have a problem with people whose only discernable talent is milking their sexuality for fame and fortune.
Why?
I've never quite understood why, of all the qualities one might possess that could be used for fame and fortune, that sexuality is the one that gets mocked. If that's your strength, why not? I was much more bothered by the cheating aspect of Hilton's tape than the somewhat boring sex part of it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think the someone else's husband part is scuzzy, but I don't blame her for the guy she was sleeping with being married. I don't like blaming the other woman/man in such a situation. The married person is the one who is lying and betraying.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If she knew he was married, I blame 'em both.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't. She wasn't breaking any vows.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
But its not a moral issue to knowingly participate in someone else's immorality?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think of all the moral issues going on there, that is among the least important. His faithfulness is not her responsibility. He's an adult. If she got him drunk, then maybe.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So its not really a moral issue to telling someone to lie to get out of a jam they are in, for example?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So she was just an enabler?
"Blame" might be the wrong word. I think less of her, that much is certain. I would have to hear a lot more about Rick's marriage and whatever situations might justify an affair before I wouldn't. Was Rick's wife aware and OK with it? Got no problem with that. Were they separated? Was she fooling around herself? No clue.
It's not the letter of the marriage contract. It's the dishonesty and the shameful treatment of a commitment. Unless something else was going on I don't know about, I think she should have stayed out of his bed (or chair, or whatever) until he resolved the situation with his wife.
Edited to add: his faithfulness was not her responsibility. True. Her participation in his faithfulness is.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It would certainly be ladylike to not participate, but she isn't morally at fault for not taking his vows more seriously than he does.
I think cheating is terrible. He's a scumbag. But I blame him. She dated someone who made himself available to her. If he shouldn't have done that, it's on his head.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
If I were in Paris' shoes (wow -- there's a sentence I never thought I'd type), I wouldn't be able to date someone I knew was in a relationship, no matter how cavalierly they treated said relationship. But maybe that's a personal thing. I'm not ready to give her the pass that kat's giving her for that, but that's just personal preference.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
She dated a married man who made himself available to her. The fact that she considered a married man "available" marks her down for me.
I would still think much less of him, if I didn't already for releasing the tape in the first place (breaking another commitment, at least the first time). But if she knew going in that he was married, to my eyes she is not blameless. Had she not participated, it would not have happened. Or, at least, not with her.
If someone walks up and asks me for a ride and doesn't tell me he's a bank robber on the way home from work, I would be blameless for his crime even if I drove him to the airport and waved as he boarded. If he did tell me, showed me his sack of loot, and I still gave him a ride, would I then be an accessory? In the eyes of the law, yup. I didn't commit the crime, but I helped facilitate it with full knowledge of what I was doing.
I'm fuzzy on the moral thing, myself. But if nothing else I think it was a stupid thing to do, and disrespectful of the wife and the concept of marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'd never do it (and I've never done it), but I think it is a personal thing. I think that if someone says they are available, then they are. They might still be a crummy person and a liar and a cheater and a bad idea, but for the purposes of a new datee/dater, a person's availability is defined by his or herself.
Even if I were single, I'd never do it for a dozen reasons, starting with Anyone I'm Dating Only Dates ME and including What Kind of Loser Cheats and Why Would I Want Anything To Do With Him? and No, I Don't Think So, I Like Good Men.
I'm not giving her a pass, but I don't think that's the biggest problem there.
I just don't like blaming The Other Woman in these situations. Adults choose who they get romantically involved with. I don't think it's women's responsibility to save men from themselves.
[ August 10, 2006, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Obviously, I disagree
I'm not only blaming The Other Woman, or giving him a pass. I'm not marking her with a scarlet A, either. I'd feel the same if she had been married and he was The Other Man. If a person is married, then unless both parties in the marriage agree that dating is allowed, that person is not available no matter what his or her personal opinion on the matter might be.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I dislike her much more because she's rude, mean, self-centered and treats everyone else like crap than her sexual misadventures. She's just so narcissistic that she is happy to make other people miserable, hurt them, use them, and it doesn't even register to her that she's doing anything wrong.
I made the mistake of seeing a couple of her shows, and she's just such a bad person, it makes me a little sick.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think the South Park episode revolving around her pretty much nailed the whole situation involving her and her place in the media.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Pretty much.
quote: I wonder how you get to that, though. It is many things, but I wouldn't say it's skanky. What definitions of skanky are you using?
I was using it as describing someone who has an unhealthy attitude in general about dating, sex, and the relationship between the two. Vague, but that's pretty much how my understanding of the word (it's slang, right?) is.
Posted by Squish (Member # 9191) on :
As much as the media loves to say she's one of the "hot" ones, I really don't find her attractive AT ALL... She looks... like a cross between a mouse and a snake. But hey, to each his/her own.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I hate the term 'slut' for exactly the same reason. It is dismissive, and it is pejorative of women. A 'man-slut' doesn't have the same connotations as just 'slut' does, and I hate that some people can't see it's a horribly degrading word.
I think that calling a man a slut is pretty much identical to calling a woman a slut.
Really? I completely disagree.
I think it is a much, much tamer word when referring to a man.
Maybe it's different in a sub-culture where pre-marital sex full stop is frowned upon.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
quote: She looks... like a cross between a mouse and a snake.
That's a strange mental image! I always thought that she looked like a spaced-out gelfling.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by katharina: Adults choose who they get romantically involved with.
I think that's the point, really. She made a choice just as much as he did.
quote:They might still be a crummy person and a liar and a cheater and a bad idea, but for the purposes of a new datee/dater, a person's availability is defined by his or herself.
Not completely. To an extent, I'd argue that the new datee also defines the availability of that person. Specifically, when Jack asks himself, "should I get involved with Jill," he is determining her availability, not in general, but with reference to himself.
I have some experience in dating a girl who's taken, and it was just a nasty situation. Not all of that was my fault, and it worked out better for me and the girl in the end, but it was enough to make me rethink my position on the issue.
At the time, it was very convenient for me to look at the issue and say, "well, she made herself available. Who am I to make that decision for her? I'm interested and I should take her up on it." That she made herself available is true, but it doesn't change the fact that I chose to take her up on it, and am therefore as responsible for her cheating as she was.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I hate the term 'slut' for exactly the same reason. It is dismissive, and it is pejorative of women. A 'man-slut' doesn't have the same connotations as just 'slut' does, and I hate that some people can't see it's a horribly degrading word.
I think that calling a man a slut is pretty much identical to calling a woman a slut.
Really? I completely disagree.
I think it is a much, much tamer word when referring to a man.
Maybe it's different in a sub-culture where pre-marital sex full stop is frowned upon.
It's only tamer for men if you have a double-standard about sex for men and women.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: It's only tamer for men if you have a double-standard about sex for men and women.
Nope. It's only tamer for men if society has a double-standard about sex for men and women.
Which I think it does.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:There are all these negative words for women who enjoy sex, and very few for men.
I've been thinking about this thread today and this issue in particular. Something odd occured to me. Probably just a coincidence.
For all they are applied to women, all these perjoratives are very masculine sounding words. Skank. Slut. Whore. Ho. One syllable. They sound like something a caveman could grunt.
Now, the one and only male term I could think of has a very effeminate sound to it. Gigolo. Three syllables. It is hard to imagine a macho gigolo.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
For the record, I (and everyone I know) can be put in the "uses-those-words-for-both-geneders" camp.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's rather interesting that the biggest discussion is about WHICH pejoratives to apply to her, so as not to give offense to everyone else.
I was only vaguely aware of her sexual escapades before this thread. I don't follow celebrity news much, and really don't care about who is doing what with whom, usually. I just recall seeing interviews with her and thinking she was vacuous and mean.
Other than for reasons of her access to vast wealth, I was sort of puzzled to understand how she got anyone to pay attention to her.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: It is hard to imagine a macho gigolo.
quote:Other than for reasons of her access to vast wealth, I was sort of puzzled to understand how she got anyone to pay attention to her.
This is one of the mysteries of the universe, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Now, the one and only male term I could think of has a very effeminate sound to it. Gigolo. Three syllables. It is hard to imagine a macho gigolo.
Slut is a perfectly fine word to apply to a male. In fact, I saw it used that way while watching TV last night.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I've heard "man whore" bandied about a lot lately, actually.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I was using it as describing someone who has an unhealthy attitude in general about dating, sex, and the relationship between the two. Vague, but that's pretty much how my understanding of the word (it's slang, right?) is.
I think skanky is much more specific than that. There are a hundred ways to be weird about sex, but they are not all interchangable. If the "skanky" has any meaning at all, it isn't interchangable with "repressed". For the behavior you described, if someone actually did it, I'd say it was tacky and disrespectful and manipulative, but not skanky.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
When I think of "skanky" I think of "inappropriate." Sexual behavior or dress that simply isn't right for the situation.
Obviously it's a subjective term. There isn't an equivalent term for guys, it gets summarized with "jerk" or stronger.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: It is hard to imagine a macho gigolo.
Amusing. But masculine?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Ha, when I think of "skanky" I just think "nasty". Like, probably full of diseases due to their sexual behavior.
But that's just me.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I've heard "man whore" bandied about a lot lately, actually.
But often "man whore" is used for comedic effect (say, Deuce Bigalow). I can't think of a film which uses the calling of a woman a whore as one of its repeating gags.
Maybe I just haven't been watching the right movies (or, more to the point, maybe I have been!)
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I've never seen a movie (that I can think of) that uses the word "whore" at all, man- or otherwise O_o
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
the first American Gigolo is actually funny and rather touching at the same time. I didn't see the 2nd installment, but I was actually quite impressed with the first one.
"Man-ho" is the word used most frequently in that one.
come to think of it, the full word "whore" probably not since Holy Grail have I heard it used. It was during the scene with all the raving "prophets" in the market. "And the whore of Babylon...something something, 9-bladed, not 6 or three, but 9!" Anyway, something like that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It was used in Pretty Woman.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Is there a difference between "ho" and "whore"? I always thought they were pretty much the same thing, just pronounced differently.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I've never seen a movie (that I can think of) that uses the word "whore" at all, man- or otherwise O_o
So when it's used on "Firefly", was I misunderstanding and this is a word I think I know which is being used wrong, like "conjure" and "shiny"?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should stop judging people solely by the number of people they sleep with, male or female?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, in Firefly it was used in its conventional meaning.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Ah yes, Firefly.
Nope, I think they use whore in the strict meaning - as in "whore" = "prostitute".
But often when someone uses it as an insult, it's not because they person they are insulting is actually a prostitute.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should stop judging people solely by the number of people they sleep with, male or female?
Sounds good to me. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It was an insult in Firefly, though it was an apt description of her job.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should stop judging people solely by the number of people they sleep with, male or female?
Now you're talkin' crazy talk!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I wonder why these words arise? It seems like they appear because a society has decided that sex is one of the private behaviors that affect it as a whole, and thus create a structure intended to proscribe what behavior is appropriate in that sphere.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
That's a tenable theory, for sure. I'm also struck by how societies also seem to always have words to demarcate those of the lowest caste in the social system (whatever their proclivities may be): white trash, redneck, untouchable, n-----, and so forth. Similarly, there are always colorful names for sexually transmitted infections, but they often seemed to be attributed to other cultures: syphillis as the "French pox," the "Italian disease," the "Polish disease," etc.
I think we can learn a lot about ourselves and the societies we create by the commonalities in language amongst us. I'm pretty sure this reflects our common views on the Other as well as on sex. Fascinating stuff.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I've always found it interesting the way generic terms for woman become pejorative over time. Hussy, for example, started out in 1530 meaning "housewife", came to mean "woman or girl", settled into "a woman or girl who shows casual or improper behavior" by 1650, and had become completely degogatory by the 19th century.
I had thought that "slut" had a similar history, but it looks like I was wrong.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ssasse: [QB] Similarly, there are always colorful names for sexually transmitted infections, but they often seemed to be attributed to other cultures: syphillis as the "French pox," the "Italian disease," the "Polish disease," etc.
Things sexual or vulgar are often attributed to other cultures, I think. Non-disease examples would include "French letter" as a euphamism for a condom, and "French" as a general term for swear words in English.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Plus the kissing.
I had never heard of condoms referred as "French [blank]s" until I read The Thorn Birds a few months ago.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hey, I have an idea. Maybe we should stop judging people solely by the number of people they sleep with, male or female?
No problem there. Sleep with none or a thousand, and I'll judge you not. It's how you go about your affairs that will trigger my judge hat. Did you treat all of your thousands honorably? Never lying, always considering the other person/people? Good on you, and fare well.
But Hilton acted selfishly, in my view, by involving herself with a married man (who acted even more selfishly himself). There may be good and fine reasons that an affair is justifiable, but I haven't heard that any of them applied here.
Numbers don't bother me. A lack of ethical behavior does.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
"French letters" is definitely an antiquated term.
Apparently during WWI "French" was a verb meaning "to perform oral sex", which was something I wasn't aware of until a few minutes ago when I looked up the word "French" in the Online Etymological Dictionary. That site refers to that definition, along with "French kissing" and "French letter" as most likely stemming from "the Anglo-Saxon equation of Gallic culture and sexual sophistication".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I make fabulous french toast.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But Hilton acted selfishly, in my view, by involving herself with a married man (who acted even more selfishly himself). There may be good and fine reasons that an affair is justifiable, but I haven't heard that any of them applied here.
Numbers don't bother me. A lack of ethical behavior does.
I kind of agree about the marriage bit. In any case, I definitely wasn't defending Hilton with my remark, though. Thought that was clear because it seemed like the conversation had moved past her. Pardon.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I think it did, but I brought her back in as an example. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, it's interesting, but I have much less of a problem with Hilton having an affair with 'a married man' so much as Hilton having the character of, well, a spoiled, stupid... little girl. I recognize that I am basing this off of the media's representation of her, and very brief exposure to how the media represents her, at that, since I've never actually watched any of her films or shows. So, I freely concede that I could be wrong. However, I can't help but think that a Paris Hilton/Steve-O matchup would be pretty much a match of equals, of two people who achieve fame by being and doing stupid things, and that Paris has appeared, what, three times now? in shows that pretty much potray her as a spoiled, stupid dingbat (from what I gather from commercials. Haven't watched'em) who gets by on her looks and has no interest or clue in how the world works. So she must be o.k. with that potrayal of herself in the media, right?
If Paris dedicated herself to something that required some dedication of time and effort to achieve master of, and conducted herself with some degree of poise, this would in my mind very much outweigh, in the balance of her character to arrive at a conclusion, most sexual funnies she engaged in.
I don't know why I think this. I recognize that screwing around with married people often results in at least one person having their heart torn out, but if you held a gun to my head and asked me which was worse, someone who dedicated themselves to achieving mastery of writing/acting/international finance, whatever, and just being a stable person in a relationship, but otherwise sat their ass in front of the glass teat every day and did nothing, emotionally (and from a distance) I think the greater tragedy is the person who does nothing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I make fabulous french toast.
::scandalized by the licentious toast making::
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, put a lid on it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think everyone has a different line. To me, Paris had gone so far into skanky territory by sleeping with someone she wasn't married to, didn't have a relationship, for the camera, and then selling the footage that the fact that her partner was married almost doesn't register. If sex outside of marriage isn't a problem, then the line is drawn farther back, but it's still a line. Clearly sex is something we have decided to place boundries on, and the words we use to describe those who break the boundries reflect that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
People who obsess over the sexual activity of others are just as ruled by sex as people who obsess over their own sex life. Just in different ways.
Unfortunately, it's particularly difficult to pin down what a "healthy" attitude about sex would be, and that changes for different times in life as well as different life circumstances within any single culture. We live in a time and a country where cultural traditions are mixed. That just adds to the confusion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think anyone in this thread is obsessing. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Too bad. It's one of the joys of growing up in America.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Being young in America, you get the chance to be obsessed about sex without anyone thinking you're abnormal. That has its advantages. It also has a few downsides to it too.
But compared to really anti-sex-obsessed cultures, I think our way is preferable, if not yet ideal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think obsessed and anti-sex-obsessed are the only options.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I didn't say they were.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you're asking people to stop judging others based on the amount of partners they've had, you almost have to ask them to stop judging others entirely, which I don't think is likely or possible. We judge instinctively, sometimes without even knowing.
But I think number of partners is fair game in use for judgements of others. I judge girls who've had what I might consider an excessive amount of guys for partners. If I delve into it, my judgement/opinion changes greatly depending on the nature of the partners, but the number by itself is a factor too. I judge guys too, based on the same criteria.
The number of partners you've had says something about you, it doesn't say the same thing for every person, but it does say something. It's a choice you've made, and the choices you make are used as criteria for others to form opinions about you. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
If you don't know the reasons behind their choices, I don't really see how you can form opinions about it. I mean, I certainly can understand you not wanting to date someone who has had fifteen partners in the last week, but that's your choice. It might very well be mine too, because that just squicks me out. But there isn't anything you can base opinions off of, just knowing the number.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Have you EVER formed any opinion (scratch the word judged, from my previous post as well) on someone based on any part of their physical apperance? Be it their clothes or their actual bodies?
Have you ever formed an opinion on someone based on something they said?
Either of those can use the same argument, that it isn't fair to judge them without knowing the reasons behind why they are the way they are. In the cast of the second one though, I do think it is fair to use a quote from someone as a single factor in forming an opinion on them.
I might also argue that the fact that a high number "squicks" you out is part of a latent formation of an opinion of that person.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like thinking that a person IS something because of things like that. I think everyone's life is filled with stories and actions from all across the spectrum and that any single area doesn't define the person, so calling someone a [blank] is unfair and not a good idea.
I'm a lot more comfortable with identifying behaviors (starring in porn and lying about it) that I don't like.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never said it should be the ONLY factor. But that it IS one, and I don't see why it should be exempted.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
*shrug* I form opinions such as "I don't think me and this person will get along" or "I don't think we will have much in common."
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think the problem a lot of people have isn't that we as a society judge people based on the number of partners they've had. It's that we judge women far more harshly than men. And whether or not you, personally, judge them equally is pretty much irrelevant to wether the society does. If the words we use to describe sexual behavior reflect the boundaries society wants to place on it, then society only thinks women having lots of sex is wrong. There have been several derogatory words for women used in this thread. I can think of a dozen more. There has been one word for men, man whore, which is based on the word whore, used for women. And incidentally, which I have never heard used in a derogatory manner. Although if people point out some instances, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong about that. It's still telling that it's the only word to describe sexually active men, though.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Well, for that there is "player" (which is the man counterpart of slut, someone who sleeps around a lot and has little to no connection emotionally to those individuals), and "pimp" (less negative but it depends on who says it). I think words like skank and ho which are often used for men are more derogatory as used towards men because guys generally are insulted when there is even the slightest chance that they are being called girly, no matter how indirectly.
I feel weird writing words like this at Hatrack.
Anyway, I just feel that where I live things are different than they used to be, and sexual females are not looked down upon unless they dress promiscuously, and only by those who don't dress that way. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but I tried Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Unfortunately, it's particularly difficult to pin down what a "healthy" attitude about sex would be, and that changes for different times in life as well as different life circumstances within any single culture. We live in a time and a country where cultural traditions are mixed. That just adds to the confusion.
That's why my standards don't relate to the sex part. Doesn't matter a whit to me if you are married, single, chaste, or working your way through the Milwaukee phone book.
Treat people honorably and ethically, act unselfishly, and try to leave the situation better than before you arrived. That applies to sex, raising children, running a business, posting in a forum, whatever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Doesn't matter a whit to me if you are married, single, chaste, or working your way through the Milwaukee phone book.
Good golly, it does to me.
Milwaukee? Have some pride!
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Wait, "pimp" is less negative than "player"?
Where have I been?
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Well, when not used literally it still has connotations of "being in charge of a large number of sexy, experienced women", whereas player has always been... a player. Nobody wants to date a player. Or a pimp, for that matter, but people want to BE them Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have heard words that are applied only to men, based on sexual activity, and are derogatory.
They also have a tinge of racism, so for all of the above reasons, I prefer not to put them here and perpetuate the meme, however inadvertently.
I have only heard the terms in Utah. Laying aside the yucky racism part, I wonder if the term arose because there isn't as much of a double standard? The society expects the same behavior from both sexes.
quote:Well, when not used literally it still has connotations of "being in charge of a large number of sexy, experienced women",
Really? Because to me, it means "taking advantage of and living off of women while contributing nothing" which is NOT a pleasant connotation.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Really? Because to me, it means "taking advantage of and living off of women while contributing nothing" which is NOT a pleasant connotation.
Yup.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I was talking about the non-literal meaning. Obviously real pimps are, for lack of a better word, bad.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The non-literal meaning is still not good - it still means someone who sees women as commodities to make him look good/improve his life. Every twist on "pimp" means someone that disrespects women.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Yes yes, I agree. When I'm saying there's slightly positive connotations with "pimp," I'm referring to the way that in the hip-hop and rap world, it's something to be proud of... rappers brag about being a P-I-M-P (up in NYC, etc etc... just like they sometimes brag about being "thugs"... it's not necessarily and probably isn't true), so, just like grills, fancy rims, and bling, there's a bit of glam surrounding it and there are people out there who would like (to be/to be with) these things/people.
No one would be jealous of a man called a "skank" or "ho", and no one would want to be with a "player". (there are exceptions, I know this, but for the sake of simplicity pimp > player).
[edited a bajillion times for clarity]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Yes yes, I agree. When I'm saying there's slightly positive connotations with "pimp," I'm referring to the way that in the hip-hop and rap world, it's something to be proud of... rappers brag about being a P-I-M-P (up in NYC, etc etc... just like they sometimes brag about being "thugs"... it's not necessarily and probably isn't true), so, just like grills, fancy rims, and bling, there's a bit of glam surrounding it and there are people out there who would like (to be/to be with) these things/people.
No one would be jealous of a man called a "skank" or "ho", and no one would want to be with a "player". (there are exceptions, I know this, but for the sake of simplicity pimp > player).
[edited a bajillion times for clarity]
I watched an interesting documentary about Tupac Shakur, and a women interviewer asked him how he felt about women and the double standard that if a man sleeps around he is a player but if a woman does it she is a ho.
Tupac basically said something to this effect, "I really dont care if a girl sleeps around, she can sleep around all she wants she can still be my home girl, its when she is sleeping with some guy because she wants his stuff, then she is a ho, take guys, we sleep around, but we do it for free!"
I don't completely agree with his logic, but I agree that its not the sex that is wrong in of itself, its the way you are treating your partner.
I happen to think that you do more harm then good by sleeping around, but if 2 people say they had sex and are no longer together but they are both happier for having had sex with each other, I will not tell them I know better. I won't think less of them either.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
There are a lot of positive connotations to Pimp, depending on which circles you're in. Pimping something means making it fancy, adding new features. I think it has kind of a old west gunslinger feel. You're not necessarily a good guy, but you have a certain badass kind of respect.
And a lot of women.
From a purely genetic standpoint, males succeed by spreading their genes to as many females as possible, and females succeed by insuring that their offspring thrive.
There must be some sort of biological connection to the idea that it's positive for men to sleep around, but negative for women.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: There are a lot of positive connotations to Pimp, depending on which circles you're in. Pimping something means making it fancy, adding new features. I think it has kind of a old west gunslinger feel. You're not necessarily a good guy, but you have a certain badass kind of respect.
And a lot of women.
From a purely genetic standpoint, males succeed by spreading their genes to as many females as possible, and females succeed by insuring that their offspring thrive.
There must be some sort of biological connection to the idea that it's positive for men to sleep around, but negative for women.
If you look at the leaders of many ancient powerful civilizations, one of the manifestations of their power was multiple wives.
That seems to be supporting evidence of your assertion, though I am refraining from making a moral judgement on the matter Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I think the problem a lot of people have isn't that we as a society judge people based on the number of partners they've had. It's that we judge women far more harshly than men. And whether or not you, personally, judge them equally is pretty much irrelevant to wether the society does. If the words we use to describe sexual behavior reflect the boundaries society wants to place on it, then society only thinks women having lots of sex is wrong. There have been several derogatory words for women used in this thread. I can think of a dozen more. There has been one word for men, man whore, which is based on the word whore, used for women. And incidentally, which I have never heard used in a derogatory manner. Although if people point out some instances, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong about that. It's still telling that it's the only word to describe sexually active men, though.
quote: Clearly sex is something we have decided to place boundries on, and the words we use to describe those who break the boundries reflect that.
See, society is wise, intelligent, and perceptive in placing boundaries around women but not around men. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: I think the problem a lot of people have isn't that we as a society judge people based on the number of partners they've had. It's that we judge women far more harshly than men. And whether or not you, personally, judge them equally is pretty much irrelevant to whether the society does. If the words we use to describe sexual behavior reflect the boundaries society wants to place on it, then society only thinks women having lots of sex is wrong. There have been several derogatory words for women used in this thread. I can think of a dozen more. There has been one word for men, man whore, which is based on the word whore, used for women. And incidentally, which I have never heard used in a derogatory manner. Although if people point out some instances, I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong about that. It's still telling that it's the only word to describe sexually active men, though.
I agree completely blacwolve.
I should add - I do think this is changing. But I still think that as a generality there is still a sexual double standard between the genders.
I also think that in sub-cultures where there isn't that double-standard (usually where sexual promiscuity is disapproved for both genders equally) the connotations behind derogatory words may not be the same as they are in wider 'general' culture.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
Same with subcultures where it is approved for both genders equally Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:See, society is wise, intelligent, and perceptive in placing boundaries around women but not around men.
Some societies do place the same boundries on men as on women.
Whatever the double standard, it is still seen as sleazy for a man to have multiple children by different mothers.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Some societies do place the same boundries on men as on women.
No more 'we'? What happened to 'society' has decided?
The point that I was speaking to, Kat, which you seem to have ignored, is that you seemed to be insinuating that 'society' was wisely policing itself, that it could, or was, doing so intelligently.
I do not think that this is the case, that a large society can intelligently use a unified standard of moral behavior with any degree of usefulness, because that standard, when implied to individuals, is going to be lacking in accurate information with regard to each individuals situation, and is going to be burdened down by blind custom and assumptions--as is it is in the case of the double standard.
There is a chapter in Naomi Wolf's "Promiscuities" entitled 'Sluts' that I really have been wanting to type up and post on Hatrack that speaks to this issue, of how stupid even the teachers of a High School can be in seeing people clearly.
quote: Some societies do place the same boundries on men as on women.
Whatever the double standard, it is still seen as sleazy for a man to have multiple children by different mothers.
I'm not sure if you meant to tie your two sentences together. They don't read to me that way, so I"m going to address them as seperate ideas. If I misunderstood, pardon.
What's interesting is that your first statement is true, and your second is false. Quite often men sleeping around and having children by different mothers are doing so because it is the norm, the standard, in the communities in which they live, particularly the male community, again highlighting the capricious usefulness of standards.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:you seemed to be insinuating
I didn't say what you are arguing against. I'm happy to explain anything I did say, but I'm not going to defend the words you have chosen to put in my mouth.
For my last post, it's down to "I think there is a stigma." and "I don't think there is a stigma." Clearly we have different perceptions of societal standards.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
I'm still a bit discomforted by the (perceived, by me, and possibly in error) implication that just because societies in general share an unease or distaste that is reflected in the language, this must reflect some underlying truth about how it must be.
That is, I take studies of the beliefs of societies and underlying vagaries of language to be descriptive in nature, not prescriptive. Like much of induction, it seems to be to be highly useful for generating hypotheses (which must certainly come from somewhere, and being able to generate them systematically is a most useful part of science), but not for negating the null.
Consider the prevalence of disgust-laden words for those of mental or physical deficiencies: crip/cripple, gimp, retard, spaz, villiage idiot. Although this may reflect a general social trend to distinguish and distance Us from Them, I'm not sure that this fact establishes that this is reasonable or proper.
As regards counterexamples of small[er] societies that buck trends, certainly there have likely been, or may be, some examples of societies whose language reflects distate for men who engage in sex frequently or (in some sense) indiscriminately, just as for women. Certainly, too, it is likely that there have been at least some societies that don't seem to have drawn that same distinction of distaste for either. (We can debate this point, although I'll privilege in advance discussion of documented societies who may not be currently represented.)
Same for crips, gimps, and idiots. But the sense of distate and even -- as our sndrake continues to remind us -- the more insiduous assumptions about quality of life still pervade our "enlightened" culture. Doesn't mean that it establishes the worth of such a stance, though.
---
I'm not sure if I am the only one reading some of the vibes this way. It's entirely possible that my concern reflects issues in my own mind rather than what is actually on the table. Nonetheless, I'd like to bring that current out into the open (if it is there) and critically examine it together.
If it's just me, on the other hand, feel free to let me natter on to myself in the corner.
---
Edited to add: Ahh, I see this has been broached more directly while I was writing. Carry on, then.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I didn't say what you are arguing against. [Smile]
I don't understand this.
quote: I'm happy to explain anything I did say, but I'm not going to defend the words you have chosen to put in my mouth.
What makes you think that I'm putting words in your mouth, rather than that I either misunderstood what you said, or you weren't clear enough, or both? You aren't someone who just discovered internet forums, so it can't be new to you that someone *innocently* misinterpreted what someone else wrote.
quote: For my last post, it's down to "I think there is a stigma." and "I don't think there is a stigma." Clearly we have different perceptions of societal standards.
I dont' understand how this applies to your last post and my last post, exactly? Sorry. Perhaps I am being slow today. Can you please elaborate?
edit: Got rid of the first quote, which I didn't mean to be there. Pardon.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not sure of what you're saying, ssasse.
quote:I'm still a bit discomforted by the (perceived, by me, and possibly in error) implication that just because societies in general share an unease or distaste that is reflected in the language, this must reflect some underlying truth about how it must be.
It seems like you're classifying society's standards for sexual behavior with society's standards for "quality of life." The implication seems to be that just as society is severely wrong in judging some lives to be not worth living, it is just as wrong for judging some sexual behaviors to be inappropriate.
I don't believe in calling people names at all, and I think that's been made clear. A person is made of many things and is primarily a human being, and pejorative terms ignore all of that and reduce an individual to a single (negative) characteristic. That's wack.
I do think that it's okay for a society to have some standards for and limits on the sexual behavior of its members. And actually, I don't think there is disagreement on that. It seems like the disagreement is on where the line may lie.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by MyrddinFyre: Same with subcultures where it is approved for both genders equally
Yep. But I would suggest the other type of subculture is more prevalent (if solely for the fact that any religious subculture will tend to be disapproving of premarital sex) - which is why I used it as an example.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Whatever the double standard, it is still seen as sleazy for a man to have multiple children by different mothers.
I'm going to have to agree with Storm, here. I don't think this is true in at least a significant percentage of society. I've encountered too many men who are proud of it. In some sub-groups it's considered proof of masculinity to get your girlfriend pregnant. (And your next girlfriend, and your next.) Unfortunately, it's not always also considered proof of masculinity to provide for your child, hence the horrific statistics on non-payment of child support. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...I would be fascinated to see a study that surveyed the nation and came up with what sexual standards exist in what part of the country.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'm not sure of what you're saying, ssasse.
I'll give it another go. Like you, I am chosing my words carefully, but that may make it more difficult to read them clearly.
quote:
quote:I'm still a bit discomforted by the (perceived, by me, and possibly in error) implication that just because societies in general share an unease or distaste that is reflected in the language, this must reflect some underlying truth about how it must be.
It seems like you're classifying society's standards for sexual behavior with society's standards for "quality of life." The implication seems to be that just as society is severely wrong in judging some lives to be not worth living, it is just as wrong for judging some sexual behaviors to be inappropriate.
I don't believe in calling people names at all, and I think that's been made clear. A person is made of many things and is primarily a human being, and pejorative terms ignore all of that and reduce an individual to a single (negative) characteristic. That's wack.
A restatement of my contention, more baldly: I don't think that just because it seems common for societies to share a certain belief, it therefore follows that there is good reason for societies to have such a belief.
And now for more nuance: it seemed to me that there was an undercurrent to the thread of a positing that because societies seem to share a certain assumption, then this sharing of assumption might indicate some weight to the idea that this is a good thing.
The reference to language was just a furtherance of the (already brought up) notion that the language used by a society seems to reflect what it values. That is, I did not mean to ascribe to you any belief whatsoever about particular words -- rather, I was musing on the implications of and possible counterexamples to some musings about language and culture that were already generally on the table.
I hope that makes more sense. I certainly don't mean to imply -- ever -- that I think you are comfortable with calling* anyone derogatory names!
quote:I do think that it's okay for a society to have some standards for and limits on the sexual behavior of its members. And actually, I don't think there is disagreement on that. It seems like the disagreement is on where the line may lie.
Again, what I was responding to was quite circumscribed: the idea that was on the table (as perceived by me) that just because it seems common for societies to share a certain belief, it therefore follows that there is good reason for societies to have such a belief. To the extent that you (or anyone else!) is not interested in asserting or discussing that particular issue, you should feel perfectly free to ignore my ramblings here entirely.
---- *Edited to change: "callking" (?) to "calling"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay. It may not necessarily follow that it is good, but I think does mean looking at it. I don't think something should be dismissed without a second look.
In other words, there is probably a reason - multiple reasons - for it.They may not be good reasons, but I think we are better served by looking at ALL the reasons and not rejecting the standard because some of the reasons are not good.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think it's less the part of the country than the communities that people belong to, or whether people belong to any community in the first place. And by community, I speak of family, too.
Posted by ssasse (Member # 9516) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Okay. It may not necessarily follow that it is good, but I think does mean looking at it. I don't think something should be dismissed without a second look.
In other words, there is probably a reason - multiple reasons - for it.They may not be good reasons, but I think we are better served by looking at ALL the reasons and not rejecting the standard because some of the reasons are not good.
Certainly we agree, then! I think induction is a great way of generating potentially useful hypotheses. That's not a brush-off, by the way -- I think science has not fully appreciated how important the generation and selection of hypotheses is.
One cannot just examine every possibility. There are a virtually infinite number, so it is criticial to have some reliable-ish means of sorting out which ones are most relevant and potentially interesting.
---
Edited to add: by ranting on about "science," I didn't mean to imply that the moral aspect should be trumped by some sort of scientific study. Whether or not such standards are good ones to uphold is of course not just a matter of science! (Far from it, actually, as we all know how embarrassing it is to try to make an "ought" out of an "is.") But I was merely going off on the science aspect of it, as that is there too (as it is for any claims of fact about the world), since it is one of my pet peeves.
*shakes fist
[ August 16, 2006, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: ssasse ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I think it's less the part of the country than the communities that people belong to, or whether people belong to any community in the first place. And by community, I speak of family, too.
Yep. Right here in one town I can identify subgroups of people who disaprove of the idea of sex outside of marriage (or even long-term dating that doesn't lead to marriage) and other groups where it's cool to have the names of your out-of-wedlock kids (but not their mother/s) tatooed on your arm.
What's interesting is settings where those groups overlap/interact.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Have some pride!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)