Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Samantha Bee calling Ivanka Trump a C**t

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by bespangled View Post
    Boreanaz was sued by an aspiring actress who'd had a small role in Bones. She claimed he had given her a ride home - stopped in the park, promised he could get her great roles, then pulled out his joy stick. When she refused to give him a bj, he whacked off in front of her, then dropped her off and left. This is the women he said was blackmailing him - and he characterized this as a consensual event. He had been accused of this more than once by other women. Given that Boreanaz is known for taking great pride in his manly equipment, gotta say I can see it happening. It's well documented that he was known for dropping his pants and exposing his junk on set to see if he could get other actors to break concentration.

    Having to work with a lead actor who is constantly flashing his genitals is a pretty good definition of working in a hostile workplace. Having that same actor promise fame and fortune in return for oral sex shows a lack of character that I find reprehensible. Dismissing this as a naughty boy phase is flagrantly apologist. It plays perfectly into the narrative of abusers outgrowing abuse.

    Joss Whedon and Kai were separated in 2012, and divorced in 2016. In 2017 she accused him of being unfaithful, including emotional (meaning close consensual non sexual relationships) and sexual affairs with other women. Since then - despite the #metoo movement that has brought down many abusive men in all aspects of film and television - not one woman has come forward to complain that she felt pressured to have sex. No one has complained about any sort of casting couch situation, and no one has complained about feeling used and discarded. I'm not saying Joss was faithful to his marriage vows, but absent a complaint by any victim I have to say that any relationships were mutual and consensual.

    I have to add that Kai Cole posted her missive 5 years after she and her husband had separated, and a year after their divorce - though she knew about it earlier. Despite the fact that their children were 14 and 12 years old she decided to go internationally public in order to ruin his reputation - and I can't imagine the repercussions those kids have and will continue to deal with. When one parent waits five years to go off the rails, they also have an agenda that should be examined. In Kai's case, she wanted full custody of both children. As a teacher I have seen how this sort of ugly fighting creates permanent scars in kids. So while I don't approve of Whedon's affairs ( no problem with his close friendships with women - emotional affairs?), I gotta say Kai's self centered narcissism is equally troubling. Good parents work together to protect their children from harm. Kai betrayed her kids just as surely as Joss betrayed his wedding vows.

    I couldn't agree more with you about all you said. And if DB did the things you said he did, he's an A*** and I have no respect for him. I stand corrected!

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally posted by HowiMetdaSlayer View Post
    Pretty much agree with the sentiment of what Miss B said, but she certainly could've found a better way of saying it.
    You mean Samantha Bee, the original topic of this thread? Yes, you can speak truth in such a way that you hurt your own argument and even your entire side. Sucks.

    Comment


    • #32
      I find it fascinating that we've had to invent new moral language to describe what is wrong with infidelity, since while we've abandoned as western civilization the notion that there is a moral norm that favors sexual propriety of any kind, let alone monogamy or marriage, we are much more keenly invested in all possible extensions of the notion of sexual consent even outside where it might be intuitive. No, it's non-consensual sex when a husband uses his workplace as an opportunity to cheat on his wife, it's just a cheating SOB being a cheating SOB. Those are sufficient conceptual terms on which to condemn it.
      sigpic
      Banner by LRae12

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by KingofCretins View Post
        I find it fascinating that we've had to invent new moral language to describe what is wrong with infidelity, since while we've abandoned as western civilization the notion that there is a moral norm that favors sexual propriety of any kind, let alone monogamy or marriage, we are much more keenly invested in all possible extensions of the notion of sexual consent even outside where it might be intuitive. No, it's non-consensual sex when a husband uses his workplace as an opportunity to cheat on his wife, it's just a cheating SOB being a cheating SOB. Those are sufficient conceptual terms on which to condemn it.
        Oh, I have no problem calling it wrong, immoral, destructive and idiotic. What I was trying to get at, with less than perfect terminology, is that in addition to being a cheating bastard, the cheating spouse can also murder his/her spouse with his behavior. And I do mean MURDER not, just 'kill' or infect, b/c if you deliberately and with forethought cheat, you are deliberately and recklessly endangering them. If I fire off a weapon indiscriminately, the state can charge me with murder. So why not if I fire off my genitalia? When I say it's non-consensual for the other person, I mean, they have no control over being infected. The world got a whole lot more dangerous after HIV became widespread and anyone who cheats potentially puts his/her partner at risk of death. Before it was 'just' immoral and destructive. Now it's also in my opinion, reckless endangerment. Depraved indifference to life... all those things that usually mean you should go to jail.

        But if you want me to get moralistic in here, I can do! I'm pentecostal! I am open minded and want other people to live their lives how they wish, and I believe my morality stops at the tips of my own fingers, so what other people do is on them... if said 'other people' don't like to use 'western norms' or whatever the heck we want to call them right at the moment, that's their prerogative. If they and their partners agree to something unconventional, that is between them. But cheating -- where one partner does NOT agree... It's still wrong and will always be wrong.

        I pretty much have no use for cheats. And I have no trouble saying cheating is just plain... immoral.

        Comment


        • #34
          ^ Uuum...you know how there are these things called condoms that a lot of people use during sex?

          Call me crazy, but,say if a person is cheating on their significant other with just one partner over a longer period of time , that's a pretty low probability of contracting HIV to begin with - even without the fact that a lot of people tend to use condoms.

          If you're going to ignore the existence of condoms - there is a greater statistical probability in contracting HIV and transmitting it if you have a higher number of shorter relationships but you never cheat, than if you're having regular sex with just two people over a longer period of time but you're cheating on one with the other. And still, we don't expect people to immediately report their entire sexual history, or at least the recent one, to every potential new sexual partner - under the accusation that they're otherwise trying to "murder" them - do we? At least I hope we don't...

          This argument that it's specifically cheating that somehow carries a higher HIV risk defies logic, I'm afraid. Viruses don't care about morality.
          You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

          Comment


          • #35
            I must admit, being from Australia, it's mildly amusing that calling someone a c**t causes such a hoopla in the US when that word is such an everyday part of our vocabulary over here and, much like Ireland, is actually most often used as a term of endearment. However, in this case it obviously wasn't intended to be a term of endearment and, honestly, considering Ivanka Trump is part of a vile racist pos family/administration (is there even any difference between them at this point?) that she in no way has distanced herself from and actually immersed herself in, calling her a c**t doesn't even begin to cover it. As far as I'm concerned, she got off easy. She's a lot, lot worse.

            Trump's a vile racist scumbag. Ivanka is a vile racist scumbag. Calling them "c**nts" doesn't even do justice to what that family really are. And I find it laughable that they of all people try and stir up this sentiment that Samantha Bee somehow crossed a line when ever since they were on the campaign trail they've bullied, harassed and insulted people on social media/TV (and long before that to) and apparently are more concerned about things said about them then what's being said about others by, oh, say, celebs like Roseanne, who Trump was very happy to endorse, when she makes disgusting racist comments on Twitter. Did I miss their tweet condemning her for referring to a black woman as an ape? Yeah, didn't think so.
            Last edited by vampmogs; 04-06-18, 11:51 AM.
            "The earth is doomed!" - Banner by Nina

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by vampmogs View Post
              I must admit, being from Australia, it's mildly amusing that calling someone a c**t causes such a hoopla in the US when that word is such an everyday part of our vocabulary over here and, much like Ireland, is actually most often used as a term of endearment. However, in this case it obviously wasn't intended to be a term of endearment and, honestly, considering Ivanka Trump is part of a vile racist pos family/administration (is there even any difference between them at this point?) that she in no way has distanced herself from and actually immersed herself in, calling her a c**t doesn't even begin to cover it. As far as I'm concerned, she got off easy. She's a lot, lot worse.

              Trump's a vile racist scumbag. Ivanka is a vile racist scumbag. Calling them "c**nts" doesn't even do justice to what that family really are. And I find it laughable that they of all people try and stir up this sentiment that Samantha Bee somehow crossed a line when ever since they were on the campaign trail they've bullied, harassed and insulted people on social media/TV (and long before that to) and apparently are more concerned about things said about them then what's being said about others by, oh, say, celebs like Roseanne, who Trump was very happy to endorse, when she makes disgusting racist comments on Twitter. Did I miss their tweet condemning her for referring to a black woman as an ape? Yeah, didn't think so.
              It is ironic. The thing is the word isn't used here that much and PUBLIC language is more circumspect than in your country from the sound of it, so S Bee callin' a spade a spade means she is using language no one else uses in polite company (except "shock jocks" and a woman has never gotten away with that. Rosanne is the person who probably came closest, and you know how that ended!) Point is that Bee gave the enemy rope to hang her with. Not that Bee was incorrect.
              Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 05-06-18, 02:37 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post
                Point is that Bee gave the enemy rope to hang her with. Not that Bee was incorrect.
                This is true but people need to stop letting it happen. It's beyond hypocritical for any Trump supporter to criticise Samantha Bee for her use of this language whilst supporting a guy who is not only on record of saying horrible and offensive things about people regularly, and for years, but who has said blatantly racist things as well. They have no leg to stand on and people need to stop even entertaining it.

                But as usual, we know who the real "snowflakes" are. The same people who tell minorities and persecuted people to "get over it", "take a joke" and "stop being offended by everything" are always the thin-skinned morons who can't handle it back.
                "The earth is doomed!" - Banner by Nina

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by vampmogs View Post
                  This is true but people need to stop letting it happen. It's beyond hypocritical for any Trump supporter to criticise Samantha Bee for her use of this language whilst supporting a guy who is not only on record of saying horrible and offensive things about people regularly, and for years, but who has said blatantly racist things as well. They have no leg to stand on and people need to stop even entertaining it.

                  But as usual, we know who the real "snowflakes" are. The same people who tell minorities and persecuted people to "get over it", "take a joke" and "stop being offended by everything" are always the thin-skinned morons who can't handle it back.
                  It works both ways though. "Feckless ****" is a meme now. Only couple days ago I heard "where is Samantha Bee when you really need her" form you-tuber with right political agenda(diversity and comics) Then he used "feckless ..." to describe comic character. And it wouldn't be limited to comic characters of course. The gate has been opened. If one is fine with using this against one woman he has no arguments against using it to describe any other. At least not arguments that wouldn't be easily thrown away as hypocrisy.
                  Last edited by Alce; 04-06-18, 04:19 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    My issue is with the C word. I really wish we were more like Australia, where the word doesn't seem to be so abusive.

                    Samantha Bee considers herself a feminist, and yet the worse word she could think to call someone is a derogatory word for female genitalia. I so wish she'd called Ivanka a feckless dickhead or a puss filled penis or a shit stain on humanity . . . any one of those epitaphs, gross though they may be, would be better.

                    I've heard people say that it's the same as the 'n' word - any black person can use it against any other black person and it's okay. But is it really? Surely women should be showing some sort of solidarity on this issue.

                    I don't know, I know my argument is muddled. I just wish women would just reclaim 'c***' and make it a wonderful warm word that bonds us together as women. On the day Sally Field tweeted 'I like Samantha Bee a lot, but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a ****. ****s are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest' - just wish we all felt like that

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
                      ^ Uuum...you know how there are these things called condoms that a lot of people use during sex?

                      Call me crazy, but,say if a person is cheating on their significant other with just one partner over a longer period of time , that's a pretty low probability of contracting HIV to begin with - even without the fact that a lot of people tend to use condoms.

                      If you're going to ignore the existence of condoms - there is a greater statistical probability in contracting HIV and transmitting it if you have a higher number of shorter relationships but you never cheat, than if you're having regular sex with just two people over a longer period of time but you're cheating on one with the other. And still, we don't expect people to immediately report their entire sexual history, or at least the recent one, to every potential new sexual partner - under the accusation that they're otherwise trying to "murder" them - do we? At least I hope we don't...

                      This argument that it's specifically cheating that somehow carries a higher HIV risk defies logic, I'm afraid. Viruses don't care about morality.
                      Well, as someone with medical training, I know people can get HIV from one experience. Truth is, people ALWAYS get a disease from one experience... You just don't know which one! Also, people who are inclined to cheat on their partners, particularly those with power, tend to sleep around a lot. They are god's gift. They get 'friendly' with anyone who will have them. Once a man gets away with cheating with one nice young thing, he has incentive to try again and again.

                      Unlike an OPEN relationship, where both parties know the risks and will both take active precautions b/c it is an honest relationship, when one party cheats, he/she brings back anything he is exposed to... AND he will not suddenly offer to use condoms... b/c that would mean admitting he's screwing around.

                      People with power (men in general) often don't want to wear condoms, b/c they're the big dogs on the block and pleasure for them comes before safety for anyone else. I was alive in the 80s and early 90s when a lot of celebrities died of HIV. they weren't all gay either. I don't believe that as many now are as careless as they were, but people still do stupid stuff. And men, since they don't get pregnant, often still think that 'birth control' is a woman's problem... so, i assume that anyone who is cheating is playing Russian roulette with his family, and I would encourage any one sleeping with a cheat (whether or not they are the spouse) to assume that person to be infected with something. Because there's only one way to guarantee not get a disease... celibacy. Sleeping with a committed, faithful partner, can be just as good, but if you are stepping out... you are risking yourself each time. AND YOUR SPOUSE.

                      Oh, and condoms don't PREVENT disease. They just make it less likely. Ask women who have gotten pregnant (while properly using condoms) how well they work. There are lots of those, btw. Many people going to the maternity ward or the abortionist b/c a condom broke, came off or stuff 'escaped' after the event.

                      This is kenya but the problem is the same:
                      https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/evew...an-prostitutes

                      Women at home are not gonna ask a husband of 10 years to wear a condom. After he gets used to his 'girl friend' he's gonna stop using condoms, but gf is not his wife, why shouldn't SHE cheat on him, even if he is 'only' cheating 'with her'? After all, she is 'single'. Then he goes home to his innocent, unsuspecting wife... and no condoms.

                      People who cheat, cheat. Cheats aren't nice, careful people who have 'one faithful lover' on the side. Cheats are people who break rules... the most important rule of trust on the person who trusts them the most. Why should that wife NOT expect her cheat to be careless and reckless? Cheating is inherently a reckless, unloving act. One that puts you and your partner at risk.

                      Interestingly, if you carry infectious matter on your body directly home, you could conceivably infect your spouse, while not getting the disease... why? b/c vaginal tissue is more porous and more receptive to disease cells than penile tissue. So you could possibly sleep with your infected gf, go home and immediately sleep with your wife, and infect her... and remain negative. not as likely as you infecting her from your own disease, but still another nasty possibility. If you are having sex with prostitutes in your car or in alleys, washing up is not gonna happen...

                      Actually germs do care about morality... people who have lots of sex with lots of people tend to get tears in their junk... and those breaks in tissue expose the partner to their bloodstream directly, not just to their sexual fluids. Those microscopic tears in vaginal tissue or anal tissue may not even hurt. If you get a blow job, then finish up in the prostitute's vagina, your penile tissue may have teeth scrapes... and then you are swimming in her juices and tiny bits of her blood from those many tiny tears in her tissue.

                      Fidelity is protective against disease. A B C

                      Abstinence
                      Be faithful
                      use a Condom.

                      Notice the order.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstin...,_use_a_condom
                      Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 05-06-18, 05:38 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        ^ Uuum, sorry, but germs really don't care. And it makes zero sense that you could supposedly get "tears in your junk" (?) from having lots of sex with lots of people any more than you'd get them by having lots of sex with just one person for years, ot even your entire life. It's still the same amount of sex.
                        Or, you could be just going down on people a lot or j***ing them off..and there - no possibility whatsoever of getting any tears in your junk!

                        If you're cheating, you may be cheating with just one person over a long period of time, and using protection -- since people aren't dumb these days and know about STDs. Say you are married for 20 years to the same person and you have a secret lover all that time. That's two sex partners - and assume neither your spouse nor lover are sleeping with anyone else - that's very low riskm Someone else during the same period is married twice and has two other serious relationships, none of them shorther than 3 years. That's still twice as many sexual partners. So isn't that person twice as likely to get HIV than person A?

                        Also, why are you constantly talking about powerful men or just men in general? Women cheat, too. People who aren't especially powerful or rich cheat, too. And prostitutes most likely think about protection during sex, more than most people do, as it's a crucial part of their job.

                        Also, if your spouse is infected, you can get infected in spite of being "moral" and just having sex in marriage...because germs don't care about morality.

                        The only thing that rings true is that the most secure way to not contract HIV (if you're not using drugs intravenously) is to not have sex at all (except for masturbation). So..yay?

                        ...Unless you get a blood infusion of infected blood in the hospital, as it happened to Arthur Ashe.
                        You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          If you get tears in your bits from faithful sex there is no chance of transmission. Partners are also more likely to prep long term partners (foreplay) and thus cause less damage. Prostitutes have more sex and get more vaginal tears because it isnt loving, prepared sex. So they become infected easily. The more partners you have in a day the more little tears and abrasions will happen. It does not take much. Johns don't do foreplay. Sorry. Sex work and by extension those who are exposed to them, means more danger of infections. Cheaters sleep with a whole random collection of people. It is called high risk behavior for a reason. Germs have no emotions, but germs do have better access to people who practice risky and unsafe sex. Don't believe me, read the many years of epidemiolgical proof, pre and post HIV.

                          The more sex partners you have, the more exposure to STDs you will have.

                          ABC -- that is the risk order. A is zero (but not practical if you are human), B is zero ONLY if both are faithful. C protects against some, not all STDs, and does even that imperfectly. Condoms save many lives but even perfect use does not equal perfect protection.

                          https://www.self.com/story/these-are...rotect-against

                          Oral sex can result in abrasions to the penis, allowing for exchange of blood. Rough oral sex can and does cause tears to the performers' mouths, though it is not a typical source of HIV, it can result in HPV, herpes and syphillis transmission, among others. Throat cancers are more common in those who recieve oral sex, due to HPV.

                          If you are cheating with a long term partner, you usually will abandon safe sex after a while. Men hate condoms.

                          There is no guarantee your mistress is faithful or wasn't infected before you started having sex.

                          ALL cheating is riskier than fidelity. Especially since one spouse does not know. No husband will suddenly start using condoms at home. His wife would ask questions.

                          Men tend to have more power in relationships and cheat at higher rates. Yes, anyone can cheat. Prostitutes use unsafe sex because they are often desperate and clients sometimes demand it.

                          Serial daters are more likely to practice safe sex because they know it is riskier than monogamyn
                          Last edited by DeepBlueJoy; 05-06-18, 10:04 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DeepBlueJoy View Post
                            If you get tears in your bits from faithful sex there is no chance of transmission.
                            If your partner is inflected (which may happen through sex or other ways), then there is a chance of transmission through 'faithful sex'.

                            Partners are also more likely to prep long term partners (foreplay) and thus cause less damage.
                            You have a very idealized view of marriages and long-term relationships, don't you?

                            Prostitutes have more sex and get more vaginal tears because it isnt loving, prepared sex.
                            Neither is sex in many marriages.

                            Johns don't do foreplay. Sorry.
                            I don't have first hand experience, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that different johns like different things.

                            There is no guarantee your mistress is faithful or wasn't infected before you started having sex.
                            There's also no guarantee your wife is faithful or wasn't infected before you started having sex.
                            There's also no guarantee that your husband is faithful or wasn't inflected before you started having sex.
                            There's no guarantee that your boyfriend or girlfriend is faithful or wasn't infected before you started having sex.

                            (And there are also polygamous marriages, BTW. )

                            Cheaters sleep with a whole random collection of people.
                            Or they just sleep with one other person and have a long-term relationship with them.


                            Prostitutes use unsafe sex because they are often desperate and clients sometimes demand it.
                            That, I assume, depends on what type (i.e. status/price) of prostitutes we're talking about. Not all prostitutes are 'desperate'.

                            Seriously, what's up with all these stereotypes you keep stating as general facts? All marriages are caring, non-abusive, marital sex is tender and loving and full of foreplay and all the nice things. Except when someone cheats. (And cheaters are immediately connoted as male and described as male in every sentence you write, even after you admit - after I pointed it out - that women cheat, too.) All people who cheat on their spouses cheat with a whole bunch of other people. It's impossible to be unfaithful in any other way. Cheaters don't use protection, just because. Cheaters also go to prostitutes. All prostitutes are desperate and have to do whatever their johns want, and all johns hate foreplay and hate condoms. All men hate condoms. Etc. etc.

                            Really?
                            You keep waiting for the dust to settle and then you realize it; the dust is your life going on. If happy comes along - that weird unbearable delight that's actual happy - I think you have to grab it while you can. You take what you can get, 'cause it's here, and then...gone.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Wow this thread has seriously gone off the rails, eh.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TimeTravellingBunny View Post
                                If your partner is inflected (which may happen through sex or other ways), then there is a chance of transmission through 'faithful sex'.


                                You have a very idealized view of marriages and long-term relationships, don't you?


                                Neither is sex in many marriages.


                                I don't have first hand experience, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that different johns like different things.


                                There's also no guarantee your wife is faithful or wasn't infected before you started having sex.
                                There's also no guarantee that your husband is faithful or wasn't inflected before you started having sex.
                                There's no guarantee that your boyfriend or girlfriend is faithful or wasn't infected before you started having sex.

                                (And there are also polygamous marriages, BTW. )


                                Or they just sleep with one other person and have a long-term relationship with them.



                                That, I assume, depends on what type (i.e. status/price) of prostitutes we're talking about. Not all prostitutes are 'desperate'.

                                Seriously, what's up with all these stereotypes you keep stating as general facts? All marriages are caring, non-abusive, marital sex is tender and loving and full of foreplay and all the nice things. Except when someone cheats. (And cheaters are immediately connoted as male and described as male in every sentence you write, even after you admit - after I pointed it out - that women cheat, too.) All people who cheat on their spouses cheat with a whole bunch of other people. It's impossible to be unfaithful in any other way. Cheaters don't use protection, just because. Cheaters also go to prostitutes. All prostitutes are desperate and have to do whatever their johns want, and all johns hate foreplay and hate condoms. All men hate condoms. Etc. etc.

                                Really?
                                I am done. I disagree with you because i have studied epidemiology, not because of any ideology. You are welcome to idealize unsafe sex. I took time to cite material and fact checked all i posted. It is not based on opinion. More that my opinion is based in what i have studied. Peace out.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X