Christine the Lioness (3118)
Christopher the Pyro (1985)
ProphetJoe the Irreverent (1216)
Trouble the Pirate (592)
Keith the Director (573)
Mara the Peacemaker (527)
eric the Lil' Devil (351)
AJ the Zen Master (305)
Ben the Kingpin (213)
Haas the Addict (187)
Christine 2 the Mercenary (131) Lei the Mercenary (124) Katie the Mercenary (115)
Ben2 the Soldier (56) Mara the Peacemaker said this
It’s just another version of the double-standard. Just think…there was a time that female schoolteachers couldn’t be married (though men could).
ProphetJoe the Irreverent chimed in with
“It’s almost as if society is saying– hey, sexy women, we want to see you naked and appreciate you as a sex object, but if you make the decision to do this yourself and be in charge of your own sexuality then we’ll view you as having less than stellar morals.”
That is exactly the case and I think it always has been…
You’re entitled to be a stripper, or a centerfold, or a any “piece of meat”. It’s not against the law. It does, however, go against many (and historically-speaking, against most) peoples’ moral compass as well as their guidelines for tastefulness and good decision making.
People view sex objects as just that — sex OBJECTS. They aren’t viewed as people, per se. Men see a pretty face, nice hair, big boobs, shapely ass and maybe even a crotch shot. For porn “actors”, you see MUCH more. 
My point is that I’ve never heard any guy watching a porn movie say “I bet she’s really smart”.
So you CAN be a nude model, or a porn star (which I would argue is just a difference in degrees), but is that what you want you’re wife or daughter to aspire to in life? Yes, there’s money to be made in the “sex” industry. It’s appeals to our base interests, but let’s remember the definition of base (according to the Free Dictionary):
base (bs) adj.
1a). Having or showing a contemptible, mean-spirited, or selfish lack of human decency.
1b). Devoid of high values or ethics: a base, degrading way of life.
1c). Inferior in value or quality.
2). Containing inferior substances: a base metal.
3). Archaic: Of low birth, rank, or position.
That doesn’t necessarily “make it right”, but the fact of the matter is that some people’s greatest ambition in life is to be a peace-maker or eradicate cancer, while others aspire to spread their legs for money. It doesn’t mean the latter is “bad”, but it does lead *me* to consider if they have really reached their full potential as a human being.
One last thing: the prison (or any other business or organization) *should* have the right to terminate her. She has the right to pose nude, but that may very well compromise the security of the prison as it changes the interactions between the prisoners and her (and other guards too). She obviously knew that or she wouldn’t have dyed her hair and used her maiden name. In a grander scheme of things, I think the organization must have the right to say, “we find your actions unbecoming and do not want you to represent our beliefs/image anymore”.
If you take it to the logical extreme — If she were a pastor and did a porno movie, should the church be able to fire her?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent stated
Let the flames begin… 
Christine the Lioness spake, and sayeth
Well the part you’re not addressing PJ… is this: you wouldn’t want your daughter to aspire to be a nude model, but would you have any problem with your son reading a Playboy? Probably not. Why is the interaction of going to a strip club acceptable and “moral” for men to take part in, but somehow the other gender’s role in that is not “moral?” I agree, it’s obviously not something all women would want to do for their own moral reasons… but I’m talking about society in general viewing an interaction and judging the female to be “immoral” and the male that’s paying for that interaction to be perfectly acceptable. You don’t see sort of a break down there? Or a double standard?
We can take things to an extreme like the pastor situation, but that’s comparing apples and oranges. A pastor– by profession– is a teacher of morality. I don’t know too many people seeking out prison guards to learn about morality. The organization would have to show that she somehow compromised the security she is supposed to provide at her prison job– which would be impossible to do by posing in a magazine. Those two things aren’t logically connected in any way. And if you’re saying it happened because the inmates now view her differently, then that’s ridiculous. You really think that none of the prisoners beforehand viewed a pretty female guard as a sex object? That idea of envisioning her naked didn’t even pop into their heads until she did Playboy??? Come on… let’s get real.
If anything, SHE had the right to pose and if the prison was worried about how the inmates would react, that issue shouldn’t have been allowed into the prison. They’re the ones with limited freedoms because they’re in prison, right?
But that point is moot because it’s impossible to establish that she did anything that affected her job performance in any way. And at what point does our job get to legislate morality?
For example, if Christopher were running that prison, he’d be fine with her posing. If I ran it, I’d be fine with it. Okay… so someone else running it, decides due to their own moral beliefs that it’s not moral. Sort of arbitrary huh?
If she didn’t do anything illegal, then she didn’t do anything that society deems inappropriate. That’s at least a standard that’s across the board. Would a prison fire a male prison guard for subscribing to Playboy? Probably not… so why is that behavior acceptable but posing in the very same magazine you deem acceptable to look at is somehow immoral? THe whole thing is either moral or not… you can’t hold women to a higher moral standard than men. That is, you can’t say it’s okay for men to view women as sex objects and then tell women it’s not okay to be viewed as a sex object.
Mara the Peacemaker spake, and sayeth
“It does, however, go against many (and historically-speaking, against most) peoples’ moral compass as well as their guidelines for tastefulness and good decision making.”
I don’t know. I think think this all goes to the Madonna/whore complex albeit in a slightly different form. It’s not really about whether a woman is entitled to be a sex object if she wants but rather how men and women are held to different standards when it comes to their sexuality. Women are judged much harsher than men when it comes to sex and sexuality. The beauty pageant queen who has photos of her boyfriend (note, BOYFRIEND as opposed to some random guy) biting her breast through her shirt suffers fallout while the male basketball player who has sex with women in every city and cheats on his wife barely gets noticed. And if he does, he’s defended. People aren’t going to stop paying tickets to come to the game or purchase the sneakers he endorses, etc.
I think what bothers me most about this whole ordeal is that her conduct is described as “unbecoming for a lady.” What does that mean? A woman can’t be a lady and enjoy sex or be sexy and playful? Or is it all right if she enjoys sex as long as she doesn’t indicate in any way that she has it?
Now I realize that the pageant has a right to project and control whatever image it wants and I definitely think you know as a pageant queen/contestant that there is a particular code of conduct that you may be required to follow. But I guess I have more of a problem with the image and what that image perpetuates. Which would probably explain why I never participated in things like that or became a debutante like my mother wanted, etc.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent chimed in with
Mara brings up the classic Madonna/Whore complex — I never said Madonna was a whore, but now that you mention it… 
I find the whole double-standard interesting and I’m in NO WAY trying to say it doesn’t exist. The whole world seems to think that “men are dogs” — we’re base creatures that can’t control our own sexual urges long enough to complete a thought, let alone a simple task. Women, on the other hand, are saintly goddesses. Virtuous creatures who create life, who nurture our children to aspiring heights, and who care for the needy and the downtrodden.
Yet, at night, behind closed doors, men want their women to be sluttier, and nastier than, Linda Lovelace (Seka, Brianna Banks, name your own porn starlet du jour) and woman want to see us as some sort of knight in shining armor (metaphorically-speaking, of course).
Let me address some points Christine made. I’ll put her comments in italics:
“But that point is moot because it’s impossible to establish that she did anything that affected her job performance in any way.” Part of her job performance is to act as a figure of absolute and total authority inside that prison. Do you honestly think that the inmates see her in the same light they did before she showed them her tits and ass?
“And at what point does our job get to legislate morality?” Since I already gave the definition of base, let me add “morality” from the same source:
mo·ral·i·ty n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct (such as Christian morality)
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
Since the prison (or even my office) gets to decide the “standard of conduct”, I think we always have been legislating morality in the workplace.
“For example, if Christopher were running that prison, he’d be fine with her posing. If I ran it, I’d be fine with it. Okay… so someone else running it, decides due to their own moral beliefs that it’s not moral. Sort of arbitrary huh?” Yes, but that’s perfectly fine. The problem isn’t that everyone is different, Christine. It’s when everyone MUST conform to one set of standards that excludes all others — that’s the problem. You may very well allow it at your prison and I may not, but isn’t that fairer than saying “no one may pose” or “everyone must allow you to pose even if it is against your moral code”? Isn’t American big enough to allow both standards of conduct reasonably? If it’s not, I fear Christians and atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, won’t be able to co-exist…
“If she didn’t do anything illegal, then she didn’t do anything that society deems inappropriate. That’s at least a standard that’s across the board. Would a prison fire a male prison guard for subscribing to Playboy? Probably not… so why is that behavior acceptable but posing in the very same magazine you deem acceptable to look at is somehow immoral? THe whole thing is either moral or not… you can’t hold women to a higher moral standard than men. That is, you can’t say it’s okay for men to view women as sex objects and then tell women it’s not okay to be viewed as a sex object.” First of all, part of society do deem what she did as inappropriate, so that’s where the conflict comes into play. Secondly, illegal and immoral AREN’T the same thing… a nun can legally have an abortion, but something tells me the Church would deem that inappropriate and “fire” her. Lastly, in regard to the male guard reading Playboy, you’re using a false analogy, Christine. She wouldn’t have been fired for reading PLAYBOY, but I suspect a male guard WOULD be fired for appearing as a model in PLAYBOY or some “gay” magazine.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent stated
“And at what point does our job get to legislate morality?” was supposed to be in italics…
Mara the Peacemaker pontificated
“Lastly, in regard to the male guard reading Playboy, you’re using a false analogy, Christine. She wouldn’t have been fired for reading PLAYBOY, but I suspect a male guard WOULD be fired for appearing as a model in PLAYBOY or some “gay” magazine.”
What is the difference between consuming the dirty pictures in Playboy and posing for the pictures? I think that is what Christine is getting at… 
correct me if I’m wrong, Christine).
Mara the Peacemaker added
Okay, I have no idea why the crying face is in my last post. That wasn’t supposed to be there.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent stated
There is another aspect to this debate: Some of the older generations kept sexuality a very private affair. 50 years ago, I think you would have been hard pressed to find any picture of a female having her breasts bitten by her boyfriend. With modern cell phone photography, everyone under 35 seems to have that sort of picture now and it’s because it *had* a shock-value when it first came out. Now, if you don’t have it, you’re blase.
Even the sex industry has changed. The movie Deep Throat came out 30-40 years ago and was revolutionary because it focused on oral sex (although I don’t think they showed actual climax scenes — they used fireworks exploding in the sky to denote orgasms) yet you don’t *really* think blow jobs were invented after Woodstock, do you?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent quibbed this
“What is the difference between consuming the dirty pictures in Playboy and posing for the pictures? I think that is what Christine is getting at… correct me if I’m wrong, Christine. ”
Because a guard to consume porno at home all he/she wants without it objectifying him/her with the inmates and/or cheapening his/her role of authority. In other words, it’s private at home, but when you publish it, the whole world knows…
Dont’ cry, Mara
Christine the Lioness penned this
Yes, Mara, that is exactly what I’m getting at. PJ… you keep trying to suggest there is a difference between being a part of the creation of such a thing and being a part of the consumption. I don’t believe there is. If the “thing” (ie– Playboy) is deemed as “immoral” then it’s immoral to create it or consume it. The problem is… because of the Madonna/whore complex, we as a society CHOOSE to make it the woman posing that’s immoral and the man consuming that’s acceptable. And while I don’t know of any cases of such– I would predict that a man would not be fired from his job for posing in Playgirl simply because men are never put in a light of having to be “virtuous” in the first place. Men are always accepted as having complete control over their sexuality and therefore, their choices to do so, don’t seem to create judgment about their morality.
Now on to a couple other things you said, PJ…
1. You still haven’t explained to me HOW she compromised her authority at the prison. If we believe men are “base” animals so to speak– they obviously saw a sexy woman as a sex object before she posed. Does her posing in Playboy cause her to not have the gun she wears that reinforces her authority? No. Is her riot stick taken away? No. Everything that gave her authority prior to posing is still there. There was nothing to force the prisoners to respect her authority before other than the gun and stick she holds– and the rules that they’ll be severely punished for not respecting her authority. None of that has changed. If prisoners were ultra respectful of the prison guards naturally, they wouldn’t all need guns and riot sticks and tasers, would they?
2. While an organization can understandably say that they want their employees to maintain a certain standard… they do not get to control the employees’ life. For example, I worked at a YMCA for a while. The rule there was no smoking in your uniform because they wanted to present a healthy image and even out of the facility if people see you smoking with a YMCA uniform on, that looks bad. Could they say no smoking off duty? Of course not. People have a right to do what’s legal on their own time. If that were the case, people would still be able to fired for going home and being gay because much of society doesn’t believe that is moral. Well if you fire someone for going home and fucking another guy, you’re gonna get your ass sued. Because you have no right to dictate what people can do on their own time simply because you feel it’s immoral. To use your example about publishing it… a gay man doesn’t put his job at risk if he comes out of the closet and announces he’s gay and brings his boyfriend to business functions, etc. Again, that’s making it public and firing him for such would set the company up for a lawsuit.
Christine the Lioness commented
Oh one more thing… so it’s okay to engage in immoral activity at home as long as the “whole world” doesn’t know? I didn’t realize that things became “more moral” or more “becoming” if you keep them a secret. On the contrary, if you think you’re not doing something immoral (for example, you believe there’s nothing wrong with posing in Playboy), then you would have no reason to hide it. If you have a reason to hide it, then maybe you shouldn’t do it.
Christopher the Pyro remarked
“What is the difference between consuming the dirty pictures in Playboy and posing for the pictures? I think that is what Christine is getting at… correct me if I’m wrong, Christine).”
What is the difference between making a drug & selling it and the person using that drug. They are two different things and we make that distinction all the time in society. I personally think we should condone women being slutty. 
ProphetJoe the Irreverent penned this
“you keep trying to suggest there is a difference between being a part of the creation of such a thing and being a part of the consumption. I don’t believe there is.”
So, you actually see no difference between renting and watching a porn movie in the privacy of your own home versus actually starring in one and letting everyone see it?? Try running for office and see if the voters in your district agree with you on that concept! Or better yet, you and Chris (reportedly) have nude pictures of you. You posed for them, why don’t you publish them here — there’s no difference, by your standard, correct?
Here’s another scenario to consider, Christine (and I’m using you and Christopher as examples, not to insult or demean you, but because you and he often allude to your sex life in the comments on this site): Christopher greatly appreciates it when you are between his legs “pleasuring” him. In the privacy of your bedroom, he probably praises you for your skill and ability to make him happy in this regard. How will he react, however, if another man calls you a “cock-sucker” in public. While it’s factually true that you perform oral sex on the male anatomy, it IS (after all) a private affair and some things OUGHT to be private.
This isn’t a male/female double standard per se. It’s privacy issue, and in the case of the prison guard (btw, she undoubtedly does NOT wear a gun while in with the population — generally speaking, only tower guards [shooters] have firearms), it’s also a publicity issue. If there really is no difference between reading a PLAYBOY and posing for one, why do you suppose she felt the need to dye her hair and change her name??
[For the sake of clarity, I am playing the devil’s advocate role here — I don’t honestly care if you or the prison guard pose for Playboy, or if you are fired for doing so. Your right to pose has not been infringed, nor has your ability to make a living been infringed because you can always go elsewhere and get another job. In fact, my guess is that posing for Playboy pays much better than being a prison guard anyway — in fact, I bet Christopher is thinking about AND the prison guard naked together right now ]
ProphetJoe the Irreverent commented
typo — “in fact, I bet Christopher is thinking about you AND the prison guard naked together right now
Mara the Peacemaker hunt n' pecked this
“So, you actually see no difference between renting and watching a porn movie in the privacy of your own home versus actually starring in one and letting everyone see it?? ”
Whether the thing is consumed in private or public doesn’t change its intrinsic nature. If Playboy is immoral, then it’s immoral. Period. The person who consumes the material (even in the privacy of his/her home) is just as guilty as the person who posed in the material. The difference is that women are seen as immoral, slutty, etc for posing in it yet men who read the material are not. That’s a double standard.
“This isn’t a male/female double standard per se. It’s privacy issue, and in the case of the prison guard”
I don’t think it really is. Her employment as a prison guard does not cause the prison to endorse her personal decisions whatsoever. She isn’t representing the prison when she isn’t wearing her uniform. There is nothing about her job that requires her to be a “moral” person.
” If there really is no difference between reading a PLAYBOY and posing for one, why do you suppose she felt the need to dye her hair and change her name??”
Because she knows that there is a double standard?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent penned this
“Whether the thing is consumed in private or public doesn’t change its intrinsic nature. If Playboy is immoral, then it’s immoral. Period.”
That’s an interesting concept. I had always learned that pornography (and for the sake of simplicity, I’ll include Playboy here too) was OK to be viewed between 2 consenting adults, yet NOT OK to be included in grade school curriculum, or at the Catholic Church dinner.
If it has the “same intrinsic nature” (or value) how do you reconcile the difference of acceptability depending on the audience? It *is* a matter of privacy — the courts have ruled that a man and woman (2 consenting adults) can hump like little bunnies all they want to behind closed doors, but it is *still* against the law to do it on the public square (sorry, Christopher).
You both (Mara and Christine) have repeatedly been arguing that it is either immoral or it is moral — black and white, period. The canvass contains a myriad of grays — sometimes it is ACCEPTABLE (not necessarily moral, but acceptable) to do some things in private while it is not acceptable to do the same thing in public. Likewise, there are some things which can be done in a private employment setting (such as firing a Boy Scout leader for coming out of the closet) which cannot be done in public (such as firing a government employee for coming out of the closet) setting.
Besides, morality is NOT a constant. What you find morally acceptable and what Pat Robertson find morally acceptable are (probably) vastly different. What the courts (and society as a whole) get to decide is what is the acceptable social standard. That may be a degree of immorality, but it’s never going to meet everyone’s moral code.
‘topher: I really could have used a bunny emoticon for this diatribe
ProphetJoe the Irreverent stated
I know, after re-reading my last comment, I’m blurring the lines between morality and acceptable social standards… stick with my argument about privacy
ProphetJoe the Irreverent mentioned
How frickin’ appropriate, now I’m a Renegade!!
Woo-hoo!! 
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
“I know, after re-reading my last comment, I’m blurring the lines between morality and acceptable social standards… stick with my argument about privacy”
You are, so I’ll leave that alone.
“That’s an interesting concept. I had always learned that pornography (and for the sake of simplicity, I’ll include Playboy here too) was OK to be viewed between 2 consenting adults, yet NOT OK to be included in grade school curriculum, or at the Catholic Church dinner.”
Appropriateness for an audience and the intrinsic nature of something are totally different so I don’t get your analogy with the grade school children. If porn is immoral, then the fact that we allow adults to watch it in private does not change its morality. My complaint as well as Christine’s (from what I gathered) is that men and women are judged differently when it comes to sexuality. Men who go to strip clubs aren’t slutty but women who strip in the clubs are. Women who pose for Playboy are trashy but not the men who read Playboy. It’s not about privacy versus public because it all comes back to holding men to a different standard than women.
Privacy and morality are not the same thing. When women are judged for posing in Playboy, it isn’t privacy that is at issue, but her personal morals. This isn’t the first time a woman has lost her job for her sexuality and I don’t believe for a second that the prison was concerned about image, respect or any of those things. I also don’t believe for a second that if some dirty pictures of a male prison guard were exposed (whether they were published in a magazine or not), that guard would lose his job for “unbecoming conduct.”
Christine the Lioness stated
I was going to point out that morality and what is acceptable to do in public are different… but you beat me to the punch
To address Christopher’s comment first: So do you think there are a lot of drug addicts chastising drug sellers for selling drugs? Without the demand from the drug addict, there would be no need for the drug seller…
I just find it remarkable that you can engage in doing something and then call someone else immoral for engaging in it as well. You either find it morally acceptable or you don’t. THAT part IS black and white to a degree. It’s only gray if you want to make up a bunch of conditions that make some people who engage in it immoral so that others won’t be.
With regard to Playboy… I don’t think the women who do it are immoral. I wouldn’t do it simply because I know what kind of fallout comes from doing it and would like to avoid having to deal with that. That doesn’t mean that it’s RIGHT that anyone should have to deal with it. I don’t think the girl was surprised she got fired– but she still feels she was wrongfully terminated and I have to agree.
With regards to the naked pix Christopher has of me… okay, he and I take those sometimes because we’re having fun, we’re involved in a sexual relationship together, and we’re consenting adults. There’s nothing immoral about that. So if Christopher’s camera got stolen and someone else got ahold of those pictures of me and put them on the internet, am I suddenly immoral for having let him take them to begin with? I don’t see how that changes anything. I realize there’s a difference between having them posted accidentally and intentionally modeling in something that I know will be published, but the point is… SHE didn’t feel modeling in Playboy was immoral. And yes, people have different views of morality. But you can’t really call someone immoral when you’re one of the people supporting doing it.
Christine the Lioness uttered
By the way, Mara… you and I posted at the same time so I hadn’t seen your response. I agree with you completely and you articulated it much better than I just did.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent hunt n' pecked this
I never said posing for Playboy was immoral. I said it was unacceptable within the conditions of her prison employment. I think Christopher would be the first to agree that (in the modern era anyway) perception is everything. We market sports cars using sexy women for one reason only — it implies to the audience “if you buy this car, chicks will find you sexy” Conversely, we sell trucks using manly men to imply “if you buy this truck, you’ll be a tough stud too”. Perception is everything, and it’s usually about sex.
The Miss Universe pageant is marketing its winner as a young, smart, sexy, but chaste woman. I think the pageant directors feel nude pictures are derogatory to that image — hence the “conduct unbecoming” concept. It’s not unbecoming for your average college coed to act that way, but that’s not what they’re marketing, is it?
In the same manner, the prison wants a tough, no-nonsense, authoritative perception for its guards. That’s the perception. Cops are prison guards are taught how to handle people. As you would expect, that training includes how to physically control (or subdue) another person while cuffing them, but it also includes perceptions such as how to use their body language, how to give verbal commands and how to project power and authority. When they’re on the street, the need to be the one in control at ALL TIMES. I’m sure the same is true for prison guards. It is a perception. Posing nude in Playboy sends an entirely different “image”. To a guy, that picture is saying “I’m horny and I want you to F*** me right now, big boy” (at least, that’s what my center-fold says to me
That is a problem for the prison administrators…
Christine: I particularly like this comment you made: “THAT part IS black and white to a degree. ” That’s cute!
ProphetJoe the Irreverent hunt n' pecked this
Another typo — Cops AND prison guards…
Christine the Lioness scribbled
Well again… pageant officials want a woman who is sexy and chaste? Parade around for the world in a bikini showing off your body, but don’t actually have fun with sex in your own bedroom? That image contains an inherent contradiction– which is the point I keep trying to make.
Also… if being in Playboy comprises the conduct expected of a prison guard, then really… what profession CAN a woman have that doesn’t “compromise” the expected conduct? Female cops HAVE posed nude in Playboy. And again– I’m not sure what “different” image is portrayed by her posing nude. Was she not attractive before? She was. Is her training any different than it was before? No. Do you think the prisoners thought she was hot before she ever posed and envisioned her naked? Probably. Yes, everyone will have their own perceptions. But perceptions AREN’T everything. And we can’t control the perceptions other people have.
Maybe my statement about being black and white to a degree wasn’t very clear… since it seems to be an oxymoron. But what I was saying is something is either moral or isn’t– within an individual’s own perception of it. Not black and white for an entire society.
Christopher the Pyro up'n wrote this
Hmm…
I think we should all just agree that women are sex objects… (and what is wrong with that exactly?) I personally don’t think men think less of a woman because she posed in Playboy.. (possibly they didn’t think very high of them in the first place?). Christine and I talked about this a little last night and I felt that most of the prejudices I’ve developed against women have been imposed by women… so the things I think about girls are from my experiences with women.. and that I also have a built in urge to view a hot girl as a sex object regardless of what she does with her life. Trust me, that sexy teacher I had in high school was just as appealing as Pam Anderson, so I really don’t think this immorality comes from men.. I think it is mostly women who think less of women who pose in Playboy..
Society decides what is immoral I suppose and like it or not that does affect everything else and I don’t really think this is a double standard. The reality is if it was suddenly legal to smoke pot that wouldn’t change the fact that a lot of people have a problem with it and keep business owners from hiring pot heads.
Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this
I think Christopher might be missing the point… the pot analogy sort of proves that.. maybe…
although I understand why it’s hard for men to see a double standard unless it’s directly unfair to them.
BTW… I highly doubt that there’s an entire prison in Pennsylvania that is totally being run by women… that’s still a male dominated industry.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent thought this
Christine said: “BTW… I highly doubt that there’s an entire prison in Pennsylvania that is totally being run by women… that’s still a male dominated industry.”
Huh? Did I miss a comment?
Btw, I’m out of the office for training today and tomorrow, so comments will be light, if at all. I’m also changing jobs in the next couple of weeks, so… who knows.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent up'n wrote this
Geez, I’m here tonight (at work, the home PC is in the hospital ) and no one’s around… hell, no one even commented after I did early this morning *slackers!*
Mike the Groupie penned this
It’s not a double standard. She is representing the Miss America Pagent for their particular state. Not the Miss Stripper pagent. The pagent has a long history and an image they want to protect. Now ‘image’ may be a new word for girls who think that bodyshots at the local watering hole or pictures of the local guys biting their tits to be put on myspace are the pinnacle of ‘class’, but for something like a pagent (and the state competitions) that have an 80+ year history, they arent going to tarnish the reputation of that long standing competition because miss Tramp Stamp ‘08 doesnt have a problem with showing her new vaginal piercing at the local TGI Fridays after a couple shots of Quervo. Maybe she should look into being a hawaiian tropic girl instead
ProphetJoe the Irreverent thought this
Welcome, Mike, you bring a refreshingly sound argument to the table!!
– mainly because you’re echoing my sentiments
Christine the Lioness penned this
Tarnish the reputation of that long standing competition? Honey… parading women around in bikinis to be judged on their body is hardly the epitome of class either… I’m not sure what reputation Miss America pageant judges think the competition has, but trust me on this when I say there are a lot of women out there (and men as well) who would agree that the pageant itself is pretty exploitational. Maybe the folks at Miss America should get off their high horse and see their little program for what it really is… they’re certainly not the end all be all.
Mara the Peacemaker penned this
OMG, come on, the fact that the Miss America pageant has an 80+ history doesn’t change the fact that it plays on and exploits the double standard around female sexuality. And the competition itself is a bundle of contradictions. Look at the bikini contest…the fact that the pageant parades scantily clad women across the stage showing all of their assets on NATIONAL television but would object to a contestant posing in pictures dressed in sexy lingerie is probably the most apparent contradiction among several. The woman who walks across the stage in a bikini isn’t a tramp but the girl who has a picture of her BOYFRIEND playfully biting her nipple through a t-shirt IS?
ProphetJoe the Irreverent said this
Mara said: “The woman who walks across the stage in a bikini isn’t a tramp but the girl who has a picture of her BOYFRIEND playfully biting her nipple through a t-shirt IS”
Whew — I’m glad we agree now
Mike the Groupie mentioned
Oh I fully agree that the pagent is exploitational. I’m not saying that it isn’t, so put away the feminazi unforms. However, just because YOU don’t like something like the pagent, and we both agree that it is exploitational doesnt change the fact that this entity is 80+ years old and has a respected reputation with quite a few people. I’m sure the pagent generates quite a bit of money for many people and there are still little girls who grow up every single day that dream of wearing a tiara on their heads and to be crowned Miss somethingorother.
They (the pagent) have sponsors that pay a LOT of money, no tolling how much of a percentage the pagent gets of Miss America making personal appearances, endorsements and such. They don’t want anything to possibly run off what is no doubt a position that is somewhat shakey, considering attitudes just like displayed by some of the females who responded. It used to be something that a lot of girls/women not only aspired to do, but emmulated. Then they stopped shaving their armpits and listening to kate bush.
The Pagent isnt as popular as it used to be, they dont want any kind of bad publicity at all, and want to put forth the image of being only about fine upstanding young women, educated, physically fit, with the ability to tastefully show she has no tanlines and a butt you can bounce a quarter off of…in heels gotta like that part.
My point is regardless of your feelings on the pagent, they have an image they have cultivated for 8 decades and they aren’t going to mess with their bread and butter over anything that even remotely looks scandalous, and thats a broad spectrum with the tight assed crowd that would be involved with something like a beauty pagent.
Christine the Lioness scribbled
That’s not the point. Of course they don’t want anything interfering with the money they can make by parading girls around on the stage and giving one a tiara and bouquet of roses. But their sense that somehow it’s okay to do that and at the same time see a 21-year-old girl having fun with her boyfriend in a way that’s sexual in nature can only happen because of this antequated double standard that somehow it is okay to show bikini clad women to the world as long as it’s a part of a “pageant” where they can be judged, but it’s not okay to just choose to do what normal, sexually healthy adults do for fun. I’m not saying they don’t have a right to axe people out if they think it will tarnish the pageant, but my guess is they’ve taken a lot more heat for exploiting women in the past ten years than allowing this girl to stay in the pageant would ever bring on them. The kind of people who would find this girl’s behavior unbecoming, are the same people who think it’s okay to parade girls around in bikinis.
Mike the Groupie said this
No, that is EXACTLY the point. The pagent didnt get its reputation by featuring barsluts. Nothing wrong with a good barslut mind you, but when you have a competition that features things directed not only towards looks, but to breeding, and talent, you kind of get the idea that this competition (atleast in the minds of the pagent officials) is about projecting an image of what they see as a ‘model’ female. In shape, educated and not what they consider promiscuous. I dont believe that a girl getting her tit bit by her boyfriend is in any way promiscuous, though its no my pagent. They can run it any way they like and if they dont want pictures of one of their contestants circulating of a man biting her breast in a public place, it is their right to do whatever they see fit.
Something tells me that when she was taking all her finishing classes, somewhere in the back of her mind she probably knew that the pagent would frown on this or the pictures the boyfriend have of her strapped down with shaved gerbils taped to her thighs.
And really, the only thing ‘antiquated’ is the concept of modesty, its obviously lost on today’s females who seem to just die for a chance to flash some tit or get a picture of them groping their drunk girlfriend in a packed bar , and then for the life of them can’t figure out why a worldwide organization, such as the pagent, that promotes a completely different lifestyle.
An officer in the military gets the same deal. If a navy officer for instance is caught drunk while in dress, he gets in trouble. This is the same organization that is practically know for its alcohol intake, giving someone else crap about how much beer they drank. Its like your mom used to tell you, ‘do what i say, not what I do’.
It’s their rules, dont like it? dont watch or participate.
“And really, the only thing ‘antiquated’ is the concept of modesty, its obviously lost on today’s females who seem to just die for a chance to flash some tit or get a picture of them groping their drunk girlfriend in a packed bar , and then for the life of them can’t figure out why a worldwide organization, such as the pagent, that promotes a completely different lifestyle.”
There is nothing modest about a swimsuit competition so I hope you don’t think that the Miss America pageant somehow promotes modesty. It doesn’t. It’s a fucking beauty contest whose highlight is women walking across the stage in what might as well be their underwear on national television. I think that’s the point Christine is trying to make. No one said the pageant couldn’t have its own rules. It can. But it’s hypocritical for a pageant to have something like the swimsuit competition and then say women can’t be sexual outside of the pageant. There’s no getting around the utterly ridiculous hypocrisy in that.
Just because it’s their show and their pageant doesn’t make it any less hypocritical or ridiculous.
Mara the Peacemaker up'n wrote this
The last message was mine
Mike the Groupie stated
And so which do you think is less modest. Walking across a stage in a tasteful swimsuit, or bent over a barstool while your equally polluted girlfriends smack your bare ass as the cameras roll. The girls in the miss america pagents probably spend more time, and money on that little bit of cloth and that whole 10 minutes they will be on stage than half the women that are going out this morning. Just because they show a little more skin doesnt make it a travesty against all woman kind
ProphetJoe the Irreverent chimed in with
Mara said: “No one said the pageant couldn’t have its own rules. It can. But it’s hypocritical for a pageant to have something like the swimsuit competition and then say women can’t be sexual outside of the pageant.”
As the father, I see it differently. I would never push my daughter to enter a pageant, but I think the pageant IS trying to show class, beauty and skill. In that regard, I think they ARE trying to show a sexy, but chaste female form. I would not be embarrassed for my daughter to enter a beauty pageant, but I probably WOULD be embarrassed to have her pose nude in Playboy or see a picture of her BF biting her boob in a bar or having her flash her tits on some “Girls Gone Wild” video.
YOU may think it’s hypocritical, but I think it is entirely natural for a father to feel that way. Now THAT’S the real beauty of America — we can disagree on this particular subject and you’re free to call it unacceptable and I’m free to call it acceptable. We’re each allowed our own opinion…
*** Mike and I just happen to be right this time ***
Mara the Peacemaker scribbled
Well first of all, it depends on what you mean by tasteful. Some of those suits are sexier and reveal just as much or more than lingerie models (some of which the pageant would certainly object). Secondly, the young woman whose boyfriend was biting her nipple through her shirt is no less modest than walking across a stage in two pieces of string in which the entire world pretty much knows what you look like naked so let’s no kid ourselves. And that young woman wasn’t showing anything to speak of. She was completely covered. So it’s not about modesty.
“Just because they show a little more skin doesnt make it a travesty against all woman kind”
No one said it does. I personally don’t have a problem with a woman who bares a little (or a lot of) skin. I don’t have a problem with women who pose in Playboy or for Victoria’s Secret. All I’m saying is that it’s a double-standard and completely hypocritical for the Miss America pageant to act holier than thou by calling women out who embrace their sexuality when the pageant itself exploits female sexuality. This is why I don’t participate in pageants or debutante balls or any of that stuff. That doesn’t mean that I can’t have an opinion about it. My opinion is the reason I don’t participate or don’t watch it.
Mara the Peacemaker commented
“As the father, I see it differently. I would never push my daughter to enter a pageant, but I think the pageant IS trying to show class, beauty and skill. In that regard, I think they ARE trying to show a sexy, but chaste female form.”
It doesn’t matter what the pageant is trying to do or that you as a father see a distinction. It’s hypocritical. What is sexy and chaste about a woman walking across the stage on national television in something that covers sometimes less than her underwear? Does the fact that the parading takes place in a Miss America pageant somehow suddenly make it acceptable? Everyone still knows what your daughter looks like naked. There is very little left to the imagination in that scenario. But she’s classy because it’s a pageant.
You want women to be sexy but then you don’t. Women are sexy and chaste when they walk across the stage practically naked but they aren’t if a picture surfaces of their boyfriend biting her nipple through her shirt (and did we forget that she was fully clothed)? That’s ridiculous. The pageant exploits female sexuality and then calls women out for being sexual (and not even necessarily in an overt manner). Ridiculous.
Mike the Groupie stated
And whoever told women that ’sexy’ equals having some guy bite your tit in public, or having your girlfriend suck jello shots out of your navel.
Christine the Lioness said this
I don’t think you’re really listening to what Mara is saying. No one told women that ’sexy’ equals having your boyfriend pretend to bite your tit in public. But no one should have to tell women what’s sexy and what isn’t. That’s between them and their boyfriends. THAT is the whole problem. Society trying to tell women what is or isn’t sexy, what is or isn’t chaste, etc.
PJ… you may find it fine for your daughter to stand in front of the country and have people judge her body as she stands there in a swimsuit and think it’s fine, but again, you yourself are a product of the society that accepts this type of double standard. Women can be beautiful without standing on a stage in a swimsuit having people score them on how good they look. I, for one, have done pageants in my lifetime and now as an adult, would never want my daughter to aspire to that. I’d want to teach my daughter (if I had one) that it doesn’t matter if everyone else thinks she sexy and she doesn’t need a group of strangers scoring her on a card to feel sexy. Her sexuality is between her and whatever man she chooses to share it with and she should always feel like she’s in control of herself without relying on a tiara and sash to prove she’s adequate.
To respond to Mike… apparently her boyfriend thought it was sexy to pretend to bite her nipple. So why are you suggesting she’s the one that’s not classy. He’s obviously the one who decided to do it… I don’t see pictures of her pretending to bite her boyfriend’s dick. But I’m guessing if she did, it would also make her somehow unclassy. Hence this double standard, that it’s fine for men, but women are inferior if they allow it. Most guys I know wouldn’t find it fun to be with a woman who was constantly so uptight she wouldn’t let him do anything fun in a sexual way because she feared being thrown out of a pageant. Seriously, the first time she pushed him away and said “Don’t… I don’t want any unclassy photos taken of me because I hope to be Miss America,” most guys would probably walk away and find some other girl they can have fun with.
Mike the Groupie up'n wrote this
I personally am not suggesting that her boyfriend biting her tit is not sexy. It doesn’t bother me one way or the other. I have been known to bite a tit or two in public myself.
However, the tits that i have nibbled on did not sit on the chest of a woman that belonged to an organization that was litterally banking on an image, that they produced of her, as a fine upstanding, and on some levels, chaste female.
These women DO have the choice to decide what’s sexy for them, just as the pagent has the right to decide what is not in their best interest. When you start playing in the sandbox of an organization such as the pagent, you play by their rules. It doesn’t matter if you agree with their rules, or if you like their rules, if you want to play, be on TV, wear the crown, all that, THEIR rules apparently dont get along with the image she displayed in these photos, just like they didnt get along with many other women who have been in playboy, or had questionable photos show up.
This is the part you guys aren’t getting. This is like having your long term boyfriend stay over at your mom’s house. If mom says no sex, or you sleep in seperate rooms..its her house…therefore if you want to sleep there, you will follow her rules.
Mike the Groupie hunt n' pecked this
..ps. If this were some kind of a guy’s organization where they were picking, for whatever reason, a guy that was supposed to be a spokesperson, and their ‘face’, do you really think the rules would be any different?
Take for instance Imus up in new york. He called black female basketball players ‘nappy headed hoe’s’. A term they have probably used themselves to describe themselves. A term I hear slung around even my office by african american females. Nothing illegal about the term, and considering the climate of Imus’s program, where he pretty much rips everyone equally, arguably a racial reference considering the context and the medium. Yet when he started getting his ass torn up in the media, what was one of the first things that happened…NBC the company that banked on his image, just like the pagent banks on these females, didnt want their image associated with anything that could possibly be construde as racist, because it looks bad on them. These are the same people that kept him on the payroll BECAUSE he was shocking all those years, it was that very same behavior that was why they liked for him. But they didnt want to be associated with anything racial…so what happened?…he got the boot. Not playing in the sandbox by their rules.
This is no different.
Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this
“..ps. If this were some kind of a guy’s organization where they were picking, for whatever reason, a guy that was supposed to be a spokesperson, and their ‘face’, do you really think the rules would be any different?”
Yes, I do. That is the point. The NBA doesn’t kick guys off the team because they father children by different women all across the country - which in my opinion, when you’re married, is much worse than screwing around with your boyfriend and taking drunk pictures.
When it comes to men, people don’t use their sexual morality/immorality to judge whether or not they should continue to do whatever they’re doing (playing basketball, etc.), but with women (like in the case of the prison guard), they do. In short, whatever men want to do sexually is accepted and doesn’t seem to “count,” with women it does. Hence, double standard.
Christine the Lioness thought this
Regarding the Imus thing… pointing out another double standard (whites saying “nappy ho” when black rappers do it constantly so it’s a racial double standard instead of gender) doesn’t make other double standards acceptable. That’s the lamest argument I’ve heard.
Mara the Peacemaker remarked
“This is the part you guys aren’t getting.”
We get it fine. That doesn’t change the fact that the rules are ludicrous and the pageant is hypocritical.
Mara the Peacemaker mentioned
Not to mention the fact that part of what makes this so ludicrous is that New Jersey was being sexy and fun with her boyfriend (with her clothes on) and not some random guy she picked up in a bar. North Carolina had topless pictures taken of her by her boyfriend. Not some random guy. The pageant exploits their sexuality and then punishes them for being sexual with their significant others.
Mike the Groupie thought this
‘Yes, I do. That is the point. The NBA doesn’t kick guys off the team because they father children by different women all across the country’
No, the NBA forces grown men of millionaire status to conform to their (the nba’s) idea of a dresscode. Why? Because the NBA didnt want the image of being the home to ghetto street thugs.
And you can’t have it both ways girls, you cant have a pagent that basically promotes the sexuality of a woman, and then at the same time say that your sexuality shouldn’t have anything to do with the way you are judged. Ugly girls don’t win pagents like this for a reason.
It doesnt matter who took the pictures or where they were took. What matters is THAT they were taken. Again, because this isn’t sinking in: It doesnt matter what YOUR thoughts are on how these women act. You arent signing their paychecks. And if you were, and it was YOUR money, your business, your livelihood that depended on a certain image that was to be portrayed by the women who of their own will submitted to your contest, your rules so that they could profit and do well because of your competition, then you wouldnt give a crap what THEY thought was cute either. Because if what THEY thought was fair really mattered to anyone, they would be the ones in the boardrooms, talking to the sponsors and getting the fat checks instead of being selected by having the firmness of their asses graded on international TV.
Mara the Peacemaker scribbled
“And you can’t have it both ways girls, you cant have a pagent that basically promotes the sexuality of a woman, and then at the same time say that your sexuality shouldn’t have anything to do with the way you are judged.”
That isn’t what we’re saying. Our complaint hasn’t been that women are judged for their sexuality per se, but that men and women are held to a different standard when it comes to sexuality. Women are deemed sluts yet men are not for the exact same conduct. That is a double standard. And the pageant perpetuates that double standard and is incredibly hypocritical. It is hypocritical for a pageant to promote and exploit female sexuality and then punish those very same women for BEING sexual.
And with whom the pictures is relevant. A young woman having sexy fun with her boyfriend/a man with whom she is in a committed relationship isn’t a slut and isn’t trashy which leads me to the core issue Christine had brought up in the beginning of this post: what are the women really being punished for? For being sexual. She didn’t go out and get wild with a bunch of random guys in a bar, she had fun with her boyfriend. Miss North Carolina didn’t pose in Playboy, she took sexy pictures with her boyfriend. Both of these women are punished for being SEXUAL by a pageant that exploits female sexuality.
“Again, because this isn’t sinking in: It doesnt matter what YOUR thoughts are on how these women act.”
Obviously it does or we wouldn’t be posting on this topic. We are allowed to have opinions about the conduct of the pageant, its exploitation and subsequent hypocritical conduct toward these women. In my opinion, they are a bunch of hypocrites. Nothing else you’ve said negates that.
Mara the Peacemaker pontificated
“No, the NBA forces grown men of millionaire status to conform to their (the nba’s) idea of a dresscode. Why? Because the NBA didnt want the image of being the home to ghetto street thugs.”\
That wasn’t her point. Her point was that men are not held to the same sexual standards as women. No one is going to get kicked off of the basketball team for having an adulterous affair or making a sex tape with his wife. But a female will lose her job for the same conduct.
Christine the Lioness commented
Exactly. Let’s stay on topic — which is the perception of male sexuality vs. female sexuality. Every time you bring up some other double standard or some other NBA rule that doesn’t involve sexual conduct, you’re just trying to cloud the issue.
No one is saying that the pageant can’t do what it wants. I was using that as an example of how men and women are viewed differently for their sexuality. In an earlier comment, Mara brought up that in the past female schoolteachers weren’t allowed to be married, but men were. That’s an example of a skewed perception that no longer exists. It doesn’t mean that when it did, it wasn’t a double standard based on societal views. It was. And someday, I think the Miss America pageant will also be viewed that way.
It’s fine for people to revere the female form, and those women who compete are beautiful. The problem comes in when we go beyond appreciation of them to judging them based on their decisions about their own sexual conduct when men are not subjected to the same critique.
Mike the Groupie mentioned
In this case, men and women aren’t being held to the same sexual standard because this isnt a pagent about sexual standards as much as it is about image, and not about the image of men. You ladies are looking for an issue here that doesnt exist, atleast not in the context you would like it to. You’re raising the attack flag because to you, this is an issue purely of double standard.
In reality, its an issue of standards. Not double standards, just standards. The standards of a corporate entity and the standard it expects their representative to keep. If this were the Mr America pagent, and the image they were trying to portray of the winner was one of being an educated, morally spic and span male, and pictures popped up his girl biting his crotch at a bar, I’d wager the reaction would be no different, it doesnt set the proper tone for the image, thats all.
But if you want to keep telling yourself its all because she’s a girl and the big bad boys of the world keep picking on the wittle helpless girls and thats why she got booted (or threatened anyway), not because she’s looks to be about 2 shots away from a girls gone wild video, and the pagent isn’t girls gone wild…knock yourself out
Mara the Peacemaker stated
What she said
Mara the Peacemaker said this
“In this case, men and women aren’t being held to the same sexual standard because this isnt a pagent about sexual standards as much as it is about image, and not about the image of men”
Oh, please, the pageant is as much about sex as it is about anything else…the sexual standards define the image, therefore, the pageant is, in large degree, about sexual standards.
“You’re raising the attack flag because to you, this is an issue purely of double standard. ”
Because it is. The fact that women can’t be sexual without being trashy is, in fact, a double standard which the pageant plays on in an obvious way. The pageant didn’t create the double standard but it perpetuates it in the way it judges women for their sexual behavior.
“In reality, its an issue of standards. Not double standards, just standards.”
No, it’s an issue of double standards. Men are not held to the same standard and if men were to have a competition, they wouldn’t because in our society, we don’t care if men sleep around or take body shots off of their girlfriends. We don’t care if men go to strip clubs but the women who strip in them are sluts. Hell, we don’t care if MEN strip in clubs. The double standard regarding male and female sexuality in our society is blatantly obvious.
Mike the Groupie penned this
We don’t care because like women revel in repeating ‘men are dogs’ Women want to constantly berrate men when they can. Look at your average everyday commercial on television. There isn’t a commerical on tv where a man and a woman are interacting on any level, that the man isnt some bumbling fool who can only make it through the day with the help of the super smart woman that is there with him. If it weren’t for her, he would surely die. Well if you want to hold yourselves above everyone else, then that isnt a part time job.
And regardless of what you may think, this isnt an issue of double standards, jsut standards.
Tell ya what, try this experiment. When you go to work tomorrow, find a guy, and you two grope each other in the middle of the office. You’ll notice that as you are packing up your desk, he’s packing up his too. Because those arent the standards of the workplace (unless your place has 2 for 1 drafts and is coated in neon, and your co-workers wear clear heels). That isnt a double standard either.
This girl is basically an employee of the pagent, they have a certain standard, she didnt meet it, sucks to be her. Its just that simple.
Mara the Peacemaker thought this
“We don’t care because like women revel in repeating ‘men are dogs’ Women want to constantly berrate men when they can. Look at your average everyday commercial on television. There isn’t a commerical on tv where a man and a woman are interacting on any level, that the man isnt some bumbling fool who can only make it through the day with the help of the super smart woman that is there with him. If it weren’t for her, he would surely die. Well if you want to hold yourselves above everyone else, then that isnt a part time job.”
And this is relevant because…?
“Tell ya what, try this experiment. When you go to work tomorrow, find a guy, and you two grope each other in the middle of the office. ”
Sexual harassment laws are not what Christine and I have been talking about and your analogy isn’t remotely relevant for the most obvious reason, that we’re discussing conduct OUTSIDE of the workplace.
“And regardless of what you may think, this isnt an issue of double standards, jsut standards.”
That obviously isn’t the case. See previous posts.
This girl is basically an employee of the pagent, they have a certain standard”
No one said the pageant couldn’t have a standard. We’ve just said that it’s hypocritical. And it is.
Christine the Lioness hunt n' pecked this
Mike, you are the king of clouding issues, my dear. I can’t believe you have trouble seeing that this is a double standard. And you have yet to say anything to convince me that it’s not — your take is simply that standards exist and are acceptable by whomever creates them. You avoid actually proving that there’s NO double standard by bringing in irrelevant topics that have nothing to do with the crux of the issue.
Okay… let me try a new approach. There is clearly a double standard for gays in our society. Lesbians are much more accepted because men enjoy seeing two girls fuck each other. Neither men nor women (straight) enjoy seeing two men going at it, so while lesbians are considered by many to be erotic, gay men are often looked down upon and called “fags.” THAT is a double standard based on the sexuality of men and women in our culture. I realize it’s difficult for some people to relate to things (or understand things) that don’t particularly affect them, but if you stand back and do an actual comparison of society’s overall view on certain things– you can’t help but see a double standard exists. There are tons of double standards that apply differently to men and women every single day. One that gets half the men on this blog up in arms is the double standard that women are typically the ones who get custody of kids during a divorce and the man has to pay child support. Now why is it so hard to see that’s a double standard but you’ll sit here until you’re blue in the face trying to convince us there are no double standards for women when it comes to sexuality?
It’s ludicrous.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent commented
Christine said: “It’s ludicrous” I love his raps songs!!
Perhaps it *is* a generational thing (I don’t know Mike’s age, but I know Christine is a youngster and I’m guessing Mara is, given her law student status)
Back in 70’s (I believe) there were a lot of court cases about pornography and sexual conduct. It used to be that adultery was against the law. If you cheated on your spouse, you could be fined or (in theory) go to jail. It was certainly a strike against you in a divorce proceeding.
There were also cases about oral sex (fellatio), anal sex (sodomy), and porno movies which were on the books as well. There was this whole “I don’t know how to define obscene material, but I know it when I see it” sentiment. The SCOTUS decided that the government didn’t really have any business interferring on what happened behind closed doors between 2 consenting adults.
Now, there certianly IS a double standard about a woman’s sexuality. Frat boys (historically) want to f*** the sluttiest whores available and will frankly discuss those women in that sort of language. BUT, let one of the brothers pin (go steady with) the same slut and she miraculously becomes as pure as the driven snow… very strange indeed. It seems that the average male expects (or desires) his mate to be smart, angelic, maternal, and slightly puritan on the public fornt, but horny and as uninhibeted as Jenna Jamison in the privacy of the bedroom.
What you don’t ackownledge is that woman want a James Dean “bad boy” rebel type for a boyfriend, but a rock solid, Ward Cleaver as a husband — go figure.
Christine the Lioness added
At least you freaking see the double standard, PJ… that’s more than some guys can. I’m not saying there aren’t double standards for men… but again, even the James Dean/Ward Cleaver analogy (which I don’t actually agree with) has nothing to do with sexuality– which is why I didn’t acknowledge it. That particular example has more to do with an ability to fulfill two different needs that many women have– a desire to “tame” a bad boy and her desire to feel secure with a man who can provide her and possibly her kids with a stable environment and safety as well as being trustworthy. That’s not a double standard per se.
Mara the Peacemaker uttered
FORMER law student, PJ
Christopher the Pyro commented
I see no double standard here.. I see a standard set by an organization for a competition. Frankly this is no different than not hiring someone because they seem like they might be a stoner, like it or not we are judged based on our perceived characteristics and if this organization decides that they want their girls to be wholesome without a ounce of trashiness… what is there to say? I mean these women were well aware that they were entering a competition where the actions in the pictures would be frowned upon. Is that fair.. ya I think it is.. they chose to enter the competition and nobody was pretending that being wholesome isn’t subjective and the competitors wouldn’t be the mercy of the organizers.
Christine the Lioness uttered
Jesus Christ. No one is denying that. Read the goddam thread.
ProphetJoe the Irreverent hunt n' pecked this
Mara said: “FORMER law student” Did that change recently?? I thought you said that just this past Spring semester…
Christine said: “I’m not saying there aren’t double standards for men… but again, even the James Dean/Ward Cleaver analogy (which I don’t actually agree with) has nothing to do with sexuality– which is why I didn’t acknowledge it. That particular example has more to do with an ability to fulfill two different needs that many women have– a desire to “tame” a bad boy and her desire to feel secure with a man who can provide her and possibly her kids with a stable environment and safety as well as being trustworthy. ”
I’m not so sure I agree that these “needs” have nothing to do with sexuality…
Mara the Peacemaker commented
I was a law student spring semester. I graduated in May.
Christopher the Pyro said this
Simmer down woman.. some of us are to busy working to support their expensive girlfriend to read this “god-damn thread”!
Christine the Lioness asserted
Okay… don’t worry ’bout reading the thread then. 
Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.
