Joe Francis Is My Favorite Feminist

Actually, he's a creepy megalomaniacal scumbag, and my favorite feminists tend not to be. But the Vietnamese could use some of Francis' filmic vision:

An online sex video featuring a popular celebrity has riveted the nation for more than a week now, much as Hilton's clip seized the attention of Americans when it hit the Internet several years ago.

But unlike Hilton, the 19-year-old woman at the center of Vietnam's sex scandal won't be able to capitalize on her newfound notoriety.

Hoang Thuy Linh's show has been canceled and the actress has made a tearful farewell on national television.

"I made a mistake, a terrible mistake," said the doe-faced teen, who had cultivated a good-girl image. "I apologize to you, my parents, my teachers and my friends."

Her fall from grace has highlighted the generational fault-lines in Vietnam, a sexually conservative culture within which women have been taught for centuries to remain chaste until marriage and stay true to one man — no matter how many times he cheats on them...

"Kids today are crazy," said Nguyen Thi Khanh, 49, a Hanoi junior high school teacher. "They often exceed the limits of morality. They have sex and fall in love when they're much too young."

In the old days, Khanh said, a woman who had sex before marriage would be ostracized.

Those were the days! It's strange how few of the endless complaints about Hilton ("She doesn't do anything!") note that she is actively lowering the reputational cost of sexual experimentation for women. The very criticism of her illustrates how far we are from gender equity on this score; were she a man with the same penchant for erotic display, there would be no story to tell. If there's anything a preternaturally superficial socialite can do for civilization, it is to help create a cultural climate where her sexual expoits will be completely ignored. So thank a celebutante today.

Nick Gillespie explored the non-reaction to Hilton's sex video back in 2003.

Comments

stubby | October 30, 2007, 1:30pm | #

I prefer the term "celebutard."

Yes, I read Page Six.

Marcvs | October 30, 2007, 1:39pm | #

It's strange how few of the endless complaints about Hilton ("She doesn't do anything!") note that she is actively lowering the reputational cost of sexual experimentation for women.

I guess the difference between libertarianism and libertinism is that I don't find lowering the reputational cost of sexual experimentation an obvious good for men or for women.

Rhywun | October 30, 2007, 1:46pm | #

There's a difference between sexual experimentation and sexual experimentation on camera.

Hester Prynne | October 30, 2007, 1:47pm | #

she is actively lowering the reputational cost of sexual experimentation for women

Bitch. I *so* started this.

Abdul | October 30, 2007, 1:51pm | #

If there's anything a preternaturally superficial socialite can do for civilization, it is to help create a cultural climate where her sexual expoits will be completely ignored.

C'mon, Kerry. Libertarian journalists could be helping out on this score too. If anything, by having free and promiscuous sex you could help overcome the invidious stereotype that only empty-headed bimbos have sex at no cost to their reputation.

Marcvs | October 30, 2007, 1:52pm | #

There's a difference between sexual experimentation and sexual experimentation on camera.

Yes, but the former doesn't really have much of a "reputational cost", whereas the latter has a massive one.

Episiarch | October 30, 2007, 1:56pm | #

Lighten up, prudes. I can't think of anything better than lowering the reputational costs for young, hot chicks to have sex.

(ducks)

Stephen Goldberger | October 30, 2007, 1:58pm | #

There's a difference between sexual experimentation and sexual experimentation on camera.

Also the former doesn't have the social benefit of lowering the cost of sexual experimentation for other women. The idea is by making a public display of her sexual desires and not even batting an eye Paris Hilton can help women realize that it's ok to be horny. Something that many women have trouble dealing with.

| October 30, 2007, 1:59pm | #

The pseudo-economic point is good, but

were she a man with the same penchant for erotic display, there would be no story to tell

two things about this so-unequivocal-it's-science boilerplate crap.

First, Paris has a quality no man in the history of the world has ever had (and few women have, either): she looks better naked than clothed. So no man's "display" is as inherently interesting, and the number of critics an erotic display has seems to be a percentage-constant subset of the number of interested parties. See: female reaction to Tommy Lee's penis.

Secondly, you don't notice because you don't care (bit of gender-megalomania, perhaps), but men who are famed pussy-getters are inevitably rumored to be gay: Timberlake, Jeter, etc. They're also always the stars of the newest showbiz blog fad, Celebrity Herpes Flowcharts -- under which you'll find no comments from women saying "I'd still hit" about them, but you do find such about Paris and her celebutard co-herpetics.

And put down the fucking thesaurus. "Preternaturally" doesn't mean "very."

Chuck | October 30, 2007, 2:01pm | #

As long as there are men around, the sexual exploits of women, celebrity or otherwise, will not be ingored.

R C Dean | October 30, 2007, 2:18pm | #

I'm with Marcvs on this one.

I suspect folks with young daughters would also tend to agree.

JW | October 30, 2007, 2:24pm | #

Wow. What a supreme douche bag Joe Francis is. He compares himslef to Hefner? Hef at least has class, which is a distinct difference between the 2. Francis is little more than a redneck 14 year old in a man's body.

/kicks pebble wondering where these horny and willing girls were when he was but a teenage lad

ed | October 30, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Does anyone else here suddenly get narcoleptic, eyes rolling back in his head, exposing only the whites, while his tongue slides out of his mouth, dripping drool, Homer-like, any time the word "feminist" is mentioned?

JW | October 30, 2007, 2:29pm | #

R C -- I agree, but it's all relative. See above. If I were a teenage boy, Joe Francis would be a god.

Then again, teenage boys deserve no sympathy whatsoever about anything, up to and including being beaten daily doing forced labor on a work gang.

They get their porn for free. We had to work for ours, and work hard, way back when.

Episiarch | October 30, 2007, 2:38pm | #

They get their porn for free. We had to work for ours, and work hard, way back when.

It built character. I'm not bitter.

Jim Bob | October 30, 2007, 2:51pm | #

When I can be bothered to care enough about Paris Hilton to rag on her, it's because she's a moron, not because she allowed herself to be videotaped having dull passionless sex with an equally brainless dipshit.

Warren | October 30, 2007, 2:52pm | #

There's a difference between sexual experimentation and sexual experimentation on camera.

There's also a difference between women who have sex for their own satisfaction and stupid spoiled whores.

C'mon Kerry, start living up to your stated convictions. When will we be able to download "One Night In Howley"

Les | October 30, 2007, 3:04pm | #

...I don't find lowering the reputational cost of sexual experimentation an obvious good for men or for women.

This I don't understand. Are you suggesting that people who enjoy having sex should feel more societal shame? This implies that there's something wrong with having lots of sex, which (as long as it's safe and consensual) is baseless, it seems to me.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 3:09pm | #

There's also a difference between women who have sex for their own satisfaction and stupid spoiled whores.

This bears repeating.


Ok, I officially think I don't "get" feminism anymore. I don't see how any of this relates to "feminism" as I previously understood it. So Vietnam is yet another patriarchal, sexist society. So is the United States. Just because no one bats an eye at a spoiled whore exhibiting herself doesn't mean that women have earned any more respect for themselves in society. The culture is simply saturated with whores. That doesn't mean that women on any individual or collective level have earned respect or equality.

Mo | October 30, 2007, 3:10pm | #

The idea is by making a public display of her sexual desires and not even batting an eye Paris Hilton can help women realize that it's ok to be horny. Something that many women have trouble dealing with.

Actually, I found it did the opposite. Girls with brains and decency though, "Geez, I don't want people to think I'm a dumb whore like Paris Hilton."

Any girl I'm attracted to wants to be nothing* like Paris Hilton. But I would love for girls I'm attracted to to have her sex drive.

* As far as the stupidity and lack of talent part goes.

dhex | October 30, 2007, 3:12pm | #

I guess the difference between libertarianism and libertinism is that I don't find lowering the reputational cost of sexual experimentation an obvious good for men or for women.

well, if nothing else it's a signal that people are no longer controlled by the need to be chaste for family reputational (and economic) concerns.

this is obviously a general benefit for women because it means they're less of a marriage good and more of an actor in the exchange.

Marcvs | October 30, 2007, 3:15pm | #

this is obviously a general benefit for women because it means they're less of a marriage good and more of an actor in the exchange.

Or it just becomes easier to use women and leave them with the consequences of the exchange.

Marcvs | October 30, 2007, 3:17pm | #

By the way, this was already tried. It was called "the 60's".

smacky | October 30, 2007, 3:26pm | #

And I think the problem in the U.S. society - as well as Vietnamese society - is the attitude of unconditional permissiveness towards males, and less about shaming females (well, ok, in Vietnam it's still about shaming females, too). So the U.S. has one up on Vietnam. But we still share the disproportionate permissive attitude towards male sexuality, and the only thing that will ever change that is individual women wising up to men who are players, whores, and cheaters. It's each woman's responsibility not to tolerate whorish behavior from the men they know, much less reward it (in the way that so many of those misguided skanks in Francis's Girls Gone Wild enterprise have).

Alternately, people can applaud whorish behavior from both genders, as Kerry seems to be advocating, but I don't think that really accomplishes much, other than it being a different outcome, but same sentiment (the goal being gender equality).

Les | October 30, 2007, 3:26pm | #

Or it just becomes easier to use women and leave them with the consequences of the exchange.

This is the argument that more freedom is bad because some dishonest people will abuse it. It also suggests that women are less capable of choosing sexual partners that are honest.

By the way, this was already tried. It was called "the 60's".

I think the 70's were even more promiscuous, God bless 'em. Besides that, what's your point?

Les | October 30, 2007, 3:32pm | #

Alternately, people can applaud whorish behavior from both genders, as Kerry seems to be advocating...

I don't think that promiscuity is equal to whorish, if that's what you're suggesting. And I don't think Kerry's suggesting we applaud promiscuity, but rather that we treat it with equal consideration (which, in my opinion should be a shrug of the shoulders and a "to each his own" attitude) regardless of gender.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 3:36pm | #

In short, I really don't think that feminism has much to do with personal sexual conduct or preferences, apart from being honest about it. I was always under the impression that feminism was about, you know, equality under the law, and equality where it really matters. Like in the wallet or pocketbook. You know, $. You know, being paid on merit and not according to what a gender-biased person thinks a woman is worth versus a man.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 3:38pm | #

And I don't think Kerry's suggesting we applaud promiscuity, but rather that we treat it with equal consideration (which, in my opinion should be a shrug of the shoulders and a "to each his own" attitude) regardless of gender.

Yeah, I totally agree. Treated with equal consideration, regardless of how you personally consider it. I know I myself do this. I was just saying, in a roundabout way, that I think other people fail to do this, and that it's a failing on an individual level, on a per person basis.

JW | October 30, 2007, 3:45pm | #

But we still share the disproportionate permissive attitude towards male sexuality, and the only thing that will ever change that is individual women wising up to men who are players, whores, and cheaters.

So, who's left? (I keed, I keed)

There really is only one good reason (over than STDs, or VD back in the day) to stigmatize promiscuous sex by women: having a lifetime of responsisbility with Jr after a few too many drinks one night (or living with an abortion).

Like it or not, the guy can walk away. The woman is stuck with the consequences, whatever they may be.

JW | October 30, 2007, 3:46pm | #

D'oh. over = other

Ken Shultz | October 30, 2007, 3:46pm | #

"Joe Francis Is My Favorite Feminist"

I've learned to stop trusting Howley's headlines, especially since that one claiming there was a study showing that what women really want is to make me a sandwich.

...which turned out to be nothing but a red herring, damn it.

Taktix® | October 30, 2007, 3:49pm | #

There really is only one good reason (over than STDs, or VD back in the day) to stigmatize promiscuous sex by women: having a lifetime of responsisbility with Jr after a few too many drinks one night (or living with an abortion).

A: Having a few too many drinks is not an excuse. You choose to go drinking, and are therefore responsible for you actions, and...

B: There are a myriad of safe sex methods, including the pill, plastic IUD's (far safer that the previous copper ones), diaphragms, etc.

We are lucky to have the technology to have more freedom than even our own bodies intended.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 3:58pm | #

Yeah, not to mention Plan B. That in itself should all but stop medically unnecessary abortions.

Taktix® | October 30, 2007, 4:05pm | #

smacky,

Yes, Plan B should. However, if you live in a shit-ass state like PA, where the time it takes to get Plan B is greater than it's effective window, its benefits can be mitigated.

(From personal experience, but luckily, it still worked. Whew...)

Les | October 30, 2007, 4:06pm | #

There really is only one good reason (over than STDs, or VD back in the day) to stigmatize promiscuous sex by women: having a lifetime of responsisbility with Jr after a few too many drinks one night (or living with an abortion).

Promiscuous sex is fine in and of itself and should not be stigmatized, unless it's practiced dishonestly or irresponsibly. Not getting pregnant is no great challenge.

JW | October 30, 2007, 4:06pm | #

Having a few too many drinks is not an excuse. You choose to go drinking, and are therefore responsible for you actions, and...

Not saying it is an excuse. Just noting that it's a real world consequence. One with heavy social reach. It's an especially heavy consequence for teenage girls, most who seem to lack common sense any more.

Stigmas exist for a reason. Should libertarians be advocating the repeal of drug laws yet not expect the overuse of drugs to not be a social stigma?

B: There are a myriad of safe sex methods, including the pill, plastic IUD's (far safer that the previous copper ones), diaphragms, etc.

No technology is failure proof.

JW | October 30, 2007, 4:09pm | #

Not getting pregnant is no great challenge.

You'd think. Looks like a few thousand girls didn't get the memo.

Whisper "I love you" to a teenage girl and watch the gates open.

Boys are just stupid in general. Girls make stupidity an art.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 4:10pm | #

However, if you live in a shit-ass state like PA, where the time it takes to get Plan B is greater than it's effective window, its benefits can be mitigated.

(From personal experience, but luckily, it still worked. Whew...)


Plan B has been available OTC a year or two now.

VM | October 30, 2007, 4:14pm | #

Plan B info.

Karen | October 30, 2007, 4:15pm | #

What smacky said. All of 'em.

Seriously, there is nothing novel in an exceptionally stupid woman making her living by selling sex. You know what would be a real breakthrough? When a young woman who is known for her intelligence and who is, say, past 30, can have a sex tape in her past and no one suggests she's destroyed her career prospects. (See the mess last year when the Feministing writer got slapped around in the blogosphere for wearing a sweater that made her breasts discernible in a photograph with President Clinton.)

Les | October 30, 2007, 4:16pm | #

It's an especially heavy consequence for teenage girls, most who seem to lack common sense any more.

Well, teen pregnancy rates are at an all time low and continue to drop, so I don't know about your generalization. I think steady streams of information keep those sluts from being mamas too soon!

Should libertarians be advocating the repeal of drug laws yet not expect the overuse of drugs to not be a social stigma?

The overuse of drugs is inherently unsafe. Promiscuous sex is not. Of course, the more sex you have, the more likely you are to have an accident of some kind, but the same can be said for driving.

prolefeed | October 30, 2007, 4:19pm | #

Promiscuous sex is fine in and of itself and should not be stigmatized, unless it's practiced dishonestly or irresponsibly.

Sorry, not buying that. I certainly wouldn't marry a woman with that cavalier attitude toward virtue. I'd kind of like to know that my children are MY children, not get STDs, etc. But, I'll oppose any attempt by nanny-statists to interfere with your ability to sleep with sluts. :0

JW | October 30, 2007, 4:20pm | #

Promiscuous sex is fine in and of itself and should not be stigmatized, unless it's practiced dishonestly or irresponsibly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating against promiscuous sex, god knows I've had enough in my life, but to argue that it is consequence-free, even under the best of circumstances, is reality challenged.

The overuse of drugs is inherently unsafe. Promiscuous sex is not.

Look no further than the gay community and the effects of HIV to see one possible consequence.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 4:26pm | #

The overuse of drugs is inherently unsafe. Promiscuous sex is not.

Yeah, this is a straight up falsity. There is plenty of risk associated with promiscuous sex. Unless you don't consider gonorrhea, syphilis, or chlamydia -- among other nasty diseases -- to be safe or unrisky. Not to mention socially stigmatizing (regardless of gender).

JW | October 30, 2007, 4:27pm | #

Well, teen pregnancy rates are at an all time low and continue to drop, so I don't know about your generalization.

I haven't looked at the rates in a while and that they're droopping is obviously a good thing. Still not zero. That is a

We all pretty much know of the sexual stigma in the 50's; compare the 2 era's out-of-wedlock rates. Teenagers were just as horny, but they knew the consequences were heavy duty, society-wise.

And what prolefeed said.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 4:33pm | #

Sorry, not buying that. I certainly wouldn't marry a woman with that cavalier attitude toward virtue. I'd kind of like to know that my children are MY children, not get STDs, etc. But, I'll oppose any attempt by nanny-statists to interfere with your ability to sleep with sluts. :0


prolefeed (and JW),

But what about you? Do you feel like it's your right to sleep with whomever you deign desirable? Just curious to see how you feel when the same standards are applied to you or friends of your gender. As men, do you hold yourselves to the same standards? If so, congratulations, you passed the consistency test.

Les | October 30, 2007, 4:35pm | #

There is plenty of risk associated with promiscuous sex. Unless you don't consider gonorrhea, syphilis, or chlamydia -- among other nasty diseases -- to be safe or unrisky.

Both you and JW have failed to notice that I wrote "inherently" and "in and of itself."

Unprotected promiscuous sex is dangerous. Protected promiscuous sex is not. In order for promiscuous sex to be truly dangerous, it must be irresponsible. The same cannot be said for driving a car or riding a motorcycle. There is risk with responsible promiscuous sex, but not any more (and probably a good deal less) than you take getting into your car every day.

smacky | October 30, 2007, 4:39pm | #

Unprotected promiscuous sex is dangerous. Protected promiscuous sex is not. In order for promiscuous sex to be truly dangerous, it must be irresponsible.

That's not true at all. If you are sleeping with someone who has a nasty communicable disease, there is a risk that you will catch it whether you are protected or not. Period. Protection only helps to prevent it, but it is no guarantee against anything. If you really believe that's true, would you knowingly sleep with someone who has syphilis?

There is risk with responsible promiscuous sex, but not any more (and probably a good deal less) than you take getting into your car every day.

Ok, show me research directly comparing the two rates of risk, and then I'll believe you.

JW | October 30, 2007, 4:46pm | #

But what about you? Do you feel like it's your right to sleep with whomever you deign desirable? Just curious to see how you feel when the same standards are applied to you or friends of your gender. As men, do you hold yourselves to the same standards? If so, congratulations, you passed the consistency test.

Now? You bet; I'm Dad. But my perspective is very different now. I want my kids to be deathly afraid of sleeping around. If a stigma will do that, fine by me. God knows nothing I say will get through their thick, hormone soaked heads.

Of course, I speak from experience too. I knocked up my 16-year old girlfreind as a teenager. 3 years of sex ed in school. I knew all the risks. I knew what would happen without contreception. So did she. We did it without a condom anyway. Why? We're young, nothing like that will *ever* happen to us. We also were idiots.

JW | October 30, 2007, 4:54pm | #

Both you and JW have failed to notice that I wrote "inherently" and "in and of itself."

No, I noticed that. I also noticed that you are writing about some theortical world in a vacuum. I'd wager a guess that all the abortions that still take place aren't for sport.

Do you use a dental dam for cunnilingus? Do you wear a condom for fellatio? (I'm assuming you're a dude and you roll that way). Do you make your sex partners prove they aren't carriers of any STD?

At what point is sleeping around with multiple sex partners "safe?"

Les | October 30, 2007, 4:57pm | #

If you are sleeping with someone who has a nasty communicable disease, there is a risk that you will catch it whether you are protected or not. Period.

I didn't say it was risk-free. I said it wasn't "dangerous," which, upon reflection, isn't a very clear word to use, because it's so subjective.

Of course, if you're sleeping with someone who has a nasty communicable disease, then either you or your partner isn't being responsible, so you're not having responsible sex.

If you really believe that's true, would you knowingly sleep with someone who has syphilis?

No, but I might let them give me a hand-job, in which case I'd be having safe, responsible sex with a syphilitic.

Ok, show me research directly comparing the two rates of risk, and then I'll believe you.

Yes, I'll have to look that up (and I promise not to throw the comparison around until I do). Though I do believe, with absolutely no evidence (!), that it's safer to give hand-jobs to a thousand strangers than it is to ride a motorcycle at rush hour.

I should note I'd rather do the latter.

SM | October 30, 2007, 5:00pm | #

Regarding the lack of gender equity - is there a male equivalent of Hilton who has made a carrer out of cavorting and wassailing sans knickers ? I can't think of anybody like that. Mick Jagger and Leonardo DiCaprio (assuming they are party people) already had careers before anybody even noticed them. And they kept their pants on in public. So if there is gender iniquity here its going the other way.

Episiarch | October 30, 2007, 5:00pm | #

At what point is sleeping around with multiple sex partners "safe?"

Simply put:

If you bang a slut, wear a condom, even if you fuck her in the ass.

If you bang a respectable chick who cares about her health, you can take more risks, but pull out just in case.

I think that covers it. Oh, if you have a lesion on your dick wear a condom, and if the chick has sores in her her mouth don't fuck her and don't let her blow you.

Was that helpful?

Keith | October 30, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Promiscuity should be the object of moral scorn and disdain unless I get to be involved.

Les | October 30, 2007, 5:05pm | #

Do you use a dental dam for cunnilingus? Do you wear a condom for fellatio? (I'm assuming you're a dude and you roll that way). Do you make your sex partners prove they aren't carriers of any STD?

At what point is sleeping around with multiple sex partners "safe?"

That's a good question. I'm married, btw, so my rolling days are done.

Maybe a more important question is, what is "safe?" What is "responsible," when it comes to sex? There are many, many swingers all over the world in open, long-term relationships (not me, though!), who determine for themselves what they feel is "safe" and "responsible" when they're swinging. No doubt some of them experience unwanted side-effects from their swinging, and no doubt some of them don't.

How should we judge these people? Are they not experiencing enough of a "reputational cost" for what they do with their bodies in private?

It's an emotional issue first and foremost, I think. Sometimes we try to justify our own tastes and preferences with attempts to objectively judge the private actions of others, and I think that's a mistake.

gaijin | October 30, 2007, 5:10pm | #

Smacky wrote:

You know, being paid on merit and not according to what a gender-biased person thinks a woman is worth versus a man.

So, everyone who wants to be a male stripper should make what female strippers make? How's that market work?

JW | October 30, 2007, 5:12pm | #

Of course, if you're sleeping with someone who has a nasty communicable disease, then either you or your partner isn't being responsible, so you're not having responsible sex.

Man, are you dancing around the truth.

If one party in a 2 (or more, let's be fair to the swingers) is infected with some nasty, but doesn't tell the other, aren't you, the soon-to-be-infected, still being "responsible?" Don't you need to be fully informed to be "irresponsible?"

You act like there is some magic fully-informed decision making fairy out there keeping horny buggers safe from the slutty, disease-ridden ones.

Mo | October 30, 2007, 5:16pm | #

Oh, if you have a lesion on your dick wear a condom, and if the chick has sores in her her mouth don't fuck her and don't let her blow you.


You do know you can catch the herp without any visible open sores.

Episiarch | October 30, 2007, 5:21pm | #

You do know you can catch the herp without any visible open sores.

You do know that I was being graphic and crude for humor's sake.

JW | October 30, 2007, 5:24pm | #

That's a good question. I'm married, btw, so my rolling days are done.

Yeah, me too. :::sigh:::

How should we judge these people? Are they not experiencing enough of a "reputational cost" for what they do with their bodies in private?

Let's note again that I, personally, am not judging these people. Not to go all hippy, but if it feels good, do it. Doesn't bother me one way or the other.

All I have been saying all along is that stigmas usually exist for good reasons. Not all of them make sense, but most are geared toward making people productive members of society, which is cool with me.

I don't wnat to have to deal with some dumb-ass sponging off my tax dollars because they can't keep it together long enough to not get knocked up *again* or get addicted to smack and not be able to keep a steady job. Not my problem, but they'll make it mine.

Promiscuous sex is inherently risky behavior. Pregnancy and STDs are the 2 most likely outcomes. Fucking your boss in the office will probably lead to another.

Screw anyone you want, any way you want. Just don't try and pretend that there is no downside.

Ken Shultz | October 30, 2007, 5:28pm | #

"I certainly wouldn't marry a woman with that cavalier attitude toward virtue. I'd kind of like to know that my children are MY children, not get STDs, etc. But, I'll oppose any attempt by nanny-statists to interfere with your ability to sleep with sluts. :0

Even the virtuous women I've known, didn't always tell me everything.

Rhywun | October 30, 2007, 5:36pm | #

The idea is by making a public display of her sexual desires and not even batting an eye Paris Hilton can help women realize that it's ok to be horny.

The message that actually gets sent is that it's OK to be horny in public. Again, big difference.

Ken Shultz | October 30, 2007, 5:50pm | #

"The message that actually gets sent is that it's OK to be horny in public. Again, big difference."

What's the difference?

It's okay to do whatever you want so long as no one finds out?

SIV | October 30, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Good luck with that "gender equity" thing.
The magazine is called REASON not FEMTOPIA.

R C Dean | October 30, 2007, 6:05pm | #

"The message that actually gets sent is that it's OK to be horny in public. Again, big difference."

What's the difference?

It's okay to do whatever you want so long as no one finds out?

One of the foundations of any decent and free society has to be that there is a public sphere and a private sphere. If you're not willing to maintain this distinction, then everything is part of the public sphere and subject to social control.

Ken Shultz | October 30, 2007, 6:19pm | #

"One of the foundations of any decent and free society has to be that there is a public sphere and a private sphere. If you're not willing to maintain this distinction, then everything is part of the public sphere and subject to social control."

Are we talking about filming hardcore pornography on the shoulder of the freeway during rush hour? ...or are we talking about "Paris Hilton making a public display" of her sexuality "and not even batting an eye"?

...because we can't have women realizing that it's okay to horny?!

Ken Shultz | October 30, 2007, 7:18pm | #

Paris has to be stopped or women will start realizing that it's okay to be horny, and then the whole fabric of society will disintegrate into a cesspool of venereal disease and babies?!

Are you guys serious?!

Ken Shultz | October 30, 2007, 8:04pm | #

Oh, we got trouble!
Right here in River City!
With a Capital "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for Paris!

Mr. Steven Crane | October 30, 2007, 11:40pm | #

sigh.

smacky | October 31, 2007, 2:20am | #

Of course, if you're sleeping with someone who has a nasty communicable disease, then either you or your partner isn't being responsible, so you're not having responsible sex.

Yeah, Les, you definitely don't know what you're talking about, for the reasons JW stated. And if we're doing definitions here, I think "promiscuous" sex usually means people who barely know each other, not people who take a long time to share intimate personal details with each other in an honest dialogue. That's not really how most people would define promiscuous sex.


Ken,

Who's calling for Paris Hilton's censorship here? I haven't heard anybody making that argument. The fact is that US society is saturated with whores. Take it or leave it, but that's the truth, all moral judgments withheld.


Good luck with that "gender equity" thing.
The magazine is called REASON not FEMTOPIA.

SIV,

What kind of attitude is that? Would you say something similar to black people discussing ideas about civil rights? Or are women reserved as a special kind of punching bag in your world? Or is it way past my bedtime and I'm taking your snarkiness too seriously? Anyway, you should pay your joke writers more money. Or else fire them.


So, everyone who wants to be a male stripper should make what female strippers make? How's that market work?

Um, no. Strippers, beyond their base wage (if they get one), make all of their money in tips. That's a direct consumer/supplier transaction and isn't what I'm talking about. Obviously, I'm talking about jobs with regular pay.

Les | October 31, 2007, 2:54am | #

If one party in a 2 (or more, let's be fair to the swingers) is infected with some nasty, but doesn't tell the other, aren't you, the soon-to-be-infected, still being "responsible?"

Okay, let me put it this way (because I'm failing miserably at sounding reasonable). The more responsible you are, the less at risk you are. We can agree on that, I hope.

A lot of fun things are risky, some more than others. Some people engage in risky behaviors responsibly and others less-so (the former tend to be healthy and the latter less-so). I just don't think that shame is a reasonable (of effective) way to convince others not to do risky things, because it's subjective and (in the case of sex) hypocritical and frequently supernatural in origin.

Les | October 31, 2007, 3:02am | #

And if we're doing definitions here, I think "promiscuous" sex usually means people who barely know each other, not people who take a long time to share intimate personal details with each other in an honest dialogue. That's not really how most people would define promiscuous sex.

Ah, see, I was going by the dictionary definition which, according to Merriam-Webster is (in regards to sex):

not restricted to one sexual partner

which, I still assert, is not inherently dangerous. The devil is in the details. I know it can be confusing in a disagreement when one person is going by the definition they "think" "most people" use and the other person is using the actual definition.

R C Dean | October 31, 2007, 10:20am | #

Are we talking about filming hardcore pornography on the shoulder of the freeway during rush hour? ...or are we talking about "Paris Hilton making a public display" of her sexuality "and not even batting an eye"?

I have no idea what "making a public display of her sexuality" means, so its kind of hard for me to respond.

Seriously, once civil society breaks down to the point where the only arbiter of behavior is the state, well, the only arbiter of behavior is the state, which is Not a Good Thing.

This is where libertarians diverge from libertines. Libertarians believe in a robust civil society that imposes (voluntary) standards on public behavior, with some recognition that the alternative is a State imposing involuntary standards on public behavior. Libertines don't understand that the alternative to a robust civil society is the state, and are always shocked when, after tearing down civil standards, they turn around and find a flatfoot with a nightstick.

Marcvs | October 31, 2007, 11:58am | #

What R C Dean said.

smacky | October 31, 2007, 12:08pm | #

Well put, R C Dean.

Adam Weishaupt | November 1, 2007, 1:16pm | #

Hester Prynn that's the funniest thing I've read all day, maybe all week. I just came here by accident- I didn't think intelligent people read Reason Magazine, I suppose you're probably not a regular reader either.