No reason you shouldn't. I've not seen or heard of anybody (except maybe the shysters) who think these women are innocent or virtuous. They were after his money before and they're after it now.
Doesn't mean we can't enjoy watching the show.
Looks like Stormi D gets
- Thread starter 37Hoosier
- Start date
Doesn't mean we can't enjoy watching the show.
The game following it should be between two Jesuit schools too. Xavier looked good all season, only to crap down their leg last week.
Now it looks like Chris Mack might go to Louisville
Its also partly cultural too. Why do people go on Oprah or even Jerry Springer and pour their hearts out? It's an American thing. How would American talk shows survive then?
Take the breast implant as an example. Here in Singapore, women who have had them wouldn't tell you that they did. But in Thailand or Korea, the women would flaunt it as a sign of wealth.
Different cultures have different ways of expressing themselves or some not so much.
She said she is reformed and would not have the affair today. (Maybe she has been speaking with Van Pastor?)
Why do you have sex? (other than to procreate)
She's living the life. She plays around. She's a porn star. SHe's a porn producer. She obviously doesn't mind sharing her body with lots of guys. She gets to have fun with an ultra-rich sugar daddy who promises her an apartment on top of who knows what else. She gets a chance for a free $130,000. Sugar daddy improbably becomes POTUS. She realizes she gave away her story for peanuts on the million dollar. She talks to a lawyer who can talk a good line and convince her he can help her make a killing. She starts the process. It blows up and she becomes a media star, which, at her age, is attractive because of her declining attractiveness as a porn star (she needs new income channels). She likes the media attention. She continues to take it day by day, trusting her lawyer to guide her through this all. Then you ask your question, which is about like asking her why she's having sex, right before she has orgasm.
I doesnt if he runs into too many porn stars or Playmates in his neck of the woods. It may take a while for him to come back to you.
Oh, the conflict -- someone who is virtually familiar with, a fantasy woman and his Christian morals...
McDougle interview. Maybe this will disabuse you of some of your prejudice toward certain women.
Last edited:
Because I was looking for others’ input on something I thought was odd and thought others might have useful opinions. Because I think much of the #metoo movement is a positive and needed push and because I hold This American Life in esteem, but thought this particular story in large part didn’t advance that cause. Because I thought it was confusing that the bulk of the story was the experience of a years-long romantic, live-in (or close to it) relationship that is wholly removed from the #metoo movement as I understand it. Because I thought Don from Alternet was rightfully ousted from his job, but didn’t understand how that related to a long-term consensual relationship outside work or why his ouster would justify a paramour airing intimate and irrelevant (to the #metoo storyline) details of that personal relationship. Because I think it’s confusing when people insist on “sharing their truth” when that truth is essentially a willful act of impropriety that caused pain and likely causes more pain by its airing. Because it wasn’t just “Deanna” that made the call, but also the editor/producer that deemed it highly relevant. Because that seems like a deep seated mindset I have trouble understanding. Because I thought some folks here might have input or thoughts other than stupid emojis.Interesting . . . maybe you can help here . . . why did you link it? Hmmmmm?
Yes. One thought is that each person is a real, living, tangible individual, with their own changing feelings and changing situation. Easily seen from the McDougal interview is that she was young, impressionable and got seriously taken advantage of by duplicitous, philandering Trump. That aspect of her story is as old as the hills, but once she's in the middle of it, she has to live it. She has real feelings, many ambivalent. She believes Donald loved her. She knows the manipulators lied to her. She doesn't want to believe Donald also did, but she's bound to have her doubts now. Meanwhile, the story is out there, despite her signing a contract to keep it private, wanting to keep it private, because she was ashamed of being an adulteress. But now that it's out there, she wants to be able to have some control over the narrative. These are very, very human stories. Except not to you, an outsider. Imagine she's your daughter. See if that changes your view of it.
In the post you quoted, I wasn't talking about McDougal.
In any event, I don't agree with your take on McDougal.
Right, but you're generalizing to the #MeToo movement and talking about Trump and all three of the women now in the news are related to that context. We know more about McDougall from this interview, so that's some grist for the mill.
You don't agree that each person is an individual with his or her own life, or what?
In any case, after posting, the possibility occurred to me that you weren't looking for an alternative point of view so much as some corroboration of your cynical take. I suppose you might get that, but that presumes your take has anything to do with reality, doesn't it?
Well, I've had a chance to listen to the story, and read the transcript. You're right . . . it's not something to be "gotten", in my opinion. It's something that is to be recognized and to a degree accepted . . . until it's just unacceptable, and that's something for which there is no bright line until someone in a relationship defines one.
One real benefit of the story, in my view, is the insight that Onnesha gained when she learned about The Hypnotizer. I think that men have generally been hard-wired to react to women's bodies in the same way that those observing The Hypnotizer did . . . and Onnesha's insight into that potential was a powerful element in her personal development and personal power. Sure, men are fully capable of treating women as sex objects, and on one level do so whenever they get the opportunity to do so particularly when they sense that a woman is vulnerable. On that level, it's how men are made. And on the other hand, when operating on that same level women all too often are OK enough with trading on that vulnerability . . . "sure, fly me out to Big Sur."
The other real benefit to the story is Vivian's ultimate reaction: 99.9 percent sure that they'd get through this, while at the same time being concerned about whether any of their "exclusive" intimacies - music, for example - were shared outside of their relationship. Vivian saw her man the way she wanted to, in a way that was "coherent", that "made sense" . . . but in terms of what she wanted and who she wanted them to be, not for who and what he was as he was. She was, in a perhaps more nuanced way, more than happy to objectify him in her own way. We'll see if she can make the shift . . . .
I've read supposedly serious psychology articles that said women give sex to get intimacy, and that men give intimacy to get sex. I've also read other supposedly serious psychology articles that women trade sex for access to men's assets, and men trade access to their assets for sex. In their own way each sex (and I use that term advisedly, instead of gender) objectifies the other in ways that benefit each of them . . . until it doesn't. I think the This American Life story you linked bears out these insights as accurate but in unsettling ways.
I've also read supposedly serious psychology articles that say if either a man or a woman knew what they were getting into - objectively - when entering into a romantic relationship then they'd each turn and run as fast and as far as they could in the other direction. Romance - the curves and "vulnerabilities" of a woman matched with the muscularity and "strength" of a man - is the way that evolution has constructed human beings to trick them into arrangements that assure the continuity of the species generally and their respective genetic legacies specifically.
One more thought: This past Tuesday we had an initial discussion in our theology reading group on Feminist Theology, and the opening comment came from a 70+ year old divinity school graduate who lived her adult life as a pastor's wife. She said that feminism and feminist theology has a great potential to benefit men because the ultimate result of women being complete human beings is freeing men from being the sole/primary provider for their wives and children in ways that will allow men to become complete human beings as well . . . and she said that this aspect of feminism and feminist theology has yet to be realized in any meaningful way.
So the This American Life story is one that nobody's going to "get" on a rational level, but it's all too familiar, perhaps to many, perhaps even most, folks including those who read this board. People settle for less because, well, it's the easiest thing to do*.
*paraphrasing Stephen Stills here
Last edited:
Similar threads
