Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |
the problem with consent
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 4:16PM - in reply to masculinist Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
When it comes to rape, women are currently considered to exist in a state of perpetual “yes!”. This is because “yes!” is consistent with global accords governing fair use of women. Victims of robbery or attempted murder don’t have to prove that they said no to being robbed or murdered; the presumption is that not even women would consent to being killed. But because penetration by males is what women are for, if we are raped we have to prove not just that we didn’t say yes, which is impossible to prove, but that we specifically and emphatically said no, which is also impossible to prove.

There are rules about what sort of woman can even attempt to make the “I said no” argument in court. Women who typically are not eligible to opt out of consent include: women who drink in bars, women who walk alone, women who walk at night, women who use drugs, women belonging to certain castes, women who dress a certain way, women who don’t dress a certain way, women who are married to men, women who have had multiple sex partners, women who may have said yes last month, women who may have said yes at the beginning but who, three minutes in, found it disagreeable and changed to “no,” women who didn’t fight back hard enough, women who didn’t tell anyone or report it right away, women whose physical similarity to pornulated women aroused the defendant, women whose behavior at the party aroused the defendant, teens with a “reputation,” and prostituted women.

Prostituted women are indistinguishable from sex itself. This is true to varying degrees of all women, but prostituted women particularly are imagined to manifest so cavalier an attitude toward being used at any and all times by any and all comers that it is considered impossible to rape them. Prostituted women can never say no to sex because they are sex.
Dumbo Alert Everyone
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 4:20PM - in reply to Kenyano Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Huh?????? She's retired you goofball and didn't win diddly squat in the Olympics. WTF are you talking about? Talented? She's 44 and done. Tiger is NOT done and Arnold can do movies as long as he wants. Some of you poster are really, really dumb.
Sprintgeezer
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 4:20PM - in reply to masculinist Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
masculinist--

1. I wasn't talking about "my prejudice" at all, which is something you failed to notice.

2. Nobody except you, including the OP, even mentioned the concept of "prejudice". In case you don't know, which it appears you don't, it is different than the concept of "judgment".

3. There is nothing "classic" about your statement, which is entirely inapposite because, once again, nobody was talking specifically about "prejudice".

4. The concept of hypocrisy necessarily invokes a logic of the structure you suggest is somehow bogus. Since the concept of hypocrisy is entirely valid and sustainable, it is instead your statement that is bogus...

...jerk.

How about something more simple for you, or more elegant if you prefer:

"It's like the pot calling the kettle black."
What are you trying to say?
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 4:21PM - in reply to the problem with consent Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

the problem with consent wrote:

When it comes to rape, women are currently considered to exist in a state of perpetual “yes!”. This is because “yes!” is consistent with global accords governing fair use of women. Victims of robbery or attempted murder don’t have to prove that they said no to being robbed or murdered; the presumption is that not even women would consent to being killed. But because penetration by males is what women are for, if we are raped we have to prove not just that we didn’t say yes, which is impossible to prove, but that we specifically and emphatically said no, which is also impossible to prove.

There are rules about what sort of woman can even attempt to make the “I said no” argument in court. Women who typically are not eligible to opt out of consent include: women who drink in bars, women who walk alone, women who walk at night, women who use drugs, women belonging to certain castes, women who dress a certain way, women who don’t dress a certain way, women who are married to men, women who have had multiple sex partners, women who may have said yes last month, women who may have said yes at the beginning but who, three minutes in, found it disagreeable and changed to “no,” women who didn’t fight back hard enough, women who didn’t tell anyone or report it right away, women whose physical similarity to pornulated women aroused the defendant, women whose behavior at the party aroused the defendant, teens with a “reputation,” and prostituted women.

Prostituted women are indistinguishable from sex itself. This is true to varying degrees of all women, but prostituted women particularly are imagined to manifest so cavalier an attitude toward being used at any and all times by any and all comers that it is considered impossible to rape them. Prostituted women can never say no to sex because they are sex.


What country do you live in? Because your words do not ring at all true where I live.
Sprintgeezer
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 4:23PM - in reply to the problem with consent Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
problem--

Haven't read your post in a detailed way, but I like what I skimmed.

Look forward to reading it later and watching the retarded responses you will get.
yesstiles
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 5:36PM - in reply to Nothing Less than Evil Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Nothing Less than Evil wrote:

The best interpretation is that "without consequences" was exactly what the poster wanted to say.

The fallacy of your thinking is that actions have no consequences. There are many practical consequences to such actions, as well as long term results. There are health consequences for such an intimate act with strangers used to paying for such things with currency, as well as possible pregnancies, the common result throughout the history of the human species for such acts.

There are familial consequences. This is a woman with a husband and a daughter. How does this make their family better or stronger with these actions? To have to ask such questions is a damning indictment of the immoral code of the immoral code of conduct that you espouse.

More important are the consequences to your soul, which our secular society would call the individual's psyche. Choices, and actions, have consequences. The callous use of sex for the most transient pleasure or monetary compensation is unwise, unhealthful and ultimately likely not a positive influence on a person's character.

Yes, character. A word from the old America. An ability to make choices that will make you a better person and the society around you a more livable place.

Each person's character affects those around you, starting with your family. And then, on a greater scale, ultimately they affect to a smaller degree the whole society in which you live.

We used to understand this, especially those of us with daughters.


So refreshing to see someone posting here with a solid rock to stand on. Thank you!
theohiostate
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 5:58PM - in reply to yesstiles Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
If Suzy hadn't been "outed," would she still be doing the escort thing? Yes, and there wouldn't be any apologies.

What if she had been the faithful wife, and her husband was sleeping with multiple women in Vegas? Would he have had the kind of support we saw in the "Open Letter to SFH?"

No. Hell, no. Half of the posters would vilify him, and the other half would say he was crazy for what he was leaving at home.
one to few
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 6:06PM - in reply to theohiostate Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Just a thought.

All those things that guys fantasized doing with Suzy...turns out she wanted to have done to her.

Makes me wonder, many "enlightened are against the objectification of women. What happens when that woman wants to be objectified?
theohiostate
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 6:15PM - in reply to one to few Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
grievance misunderstanding no
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 8:01PM - in reply to Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I'd like to air a grievance with the dudely habit deliberately misunderstanding refusal. You know, when men suddenly experience an utterly confounding ambiguity in standard modes of refusal that, in all non-boink-related contexts, are completely transparent? This purposeful denial of women’s humanity, it’s pretty much the nub of patriarchal oppression.

I’d like to ask the reader to do a brief mental exercise. (If you’d rather not, just skip to the next paragraph.) I’d like you to remember the last time you found it difficult to give an explicit “no” to somebody in a non-sexual context. Maybe they asked you to do them a favour, or to join them for a drink. Did you speak up and say, outright, “No”? Did you apologise for your “no”? Did you qualify it and say, “Oh, I’m sorry, I can’t make it today“? If you gave an outright “no”, what privileged positions do you occupy in society, and how does your answer differ from the answers of people occupying more marginalised positions?

This form of refusal was analysed in 1999 by Kitzinger and Frith (K&F) in Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal. Despite the seeming ambiguity in question/refusal acts like, “We were wondering if you wanted to come over Saturday for dinner”, “Well, uhh, it’d be great but we promised Carol already”, they are widely understood by the participants as straightforward refusals.

K&F conclude by saying that, “For men to claim [in a sexual context] that they do not ‘understand’ such refusals to be refusals (because, for example, they do not include the word ‘no’) is to lay claim to an astounding and implausible ignorance of normative conversational patterns

Especially intriguing is the notion that the unequivocal “no” is the exclusive purview of privilege.
Larry Dickman
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 8:15PM - in reply to grievance misunderstanding no Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
grievance misunderstanding no likes to hear itself talk, no?
yakety yak
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 8:30PM - in reply to grievance misunderstanding no Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

grievance misunderstanding no wrote:

I'd like to air a grievance with the dudely habit deliberately misunderstanding refusal. You know, when men suddenly experience an utterly confounding ambiguity in standard modes of refusal that, in all non-boink-related contexts, are completely transparent? This purposeful denial of women’s humanity, it’s pretty much the nub of patriarchal oppression.



Perhaps next you would tackle the chickly habit of misrepresenting assent. You know, in a sexual context when she wants to get busy, but is unwilling to say yes because that might be seen as too eager and easy, or because she doesn't want to accept responsibility for her actions -- unlike SFH, who has.
Sliced Keylime Pie
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 9:32PM - in reply to Dumbo Alert Everyone Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
TRUE. She only did well against other Americans and never medaled once after making it to the big dance 3 times.

Falling on purpose after she looked over to her right and saw that she would not be at least 3rd, disgraceful. She admitted it years later, but that was to make news...get herself back in the public eye, just like being an escort!

As was said, LMN will be calling and you WILL see a story about it within a year as they make those movies fast!

She is NOT as good looking as some of you think if you look at the pictures more closely. Her legs were aged to hell as were other parts. $600 an hour? Not from this cowboy!
Financial Reality
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 9:56PM - in reply to Sliced Keylime Pie Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Me too. $600? Sorry, she ain't worth it fellas, not even close. As was said, look closer at the pictures. Anorexic and not nearly as hot as you think and I've seen hot!
Canada1981
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 10:29PM - in reply to Larry Dickman Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
No. He or she likes to cut and paste material written by others.
Carrotcuffing for fun & profit
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/23/2012 11:50PM - in reply to Wow! Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Wow! wrote:

I got nothing. Just wow.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/suzy-favor-hamilton-136952


I'm betting The Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association is not going to like this news!
Former Elite From Your Era
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/24/2012 7:30AM - in reply to one to few Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

one to few wrote:

Just a thought.

All those things that guys fantasized doing with Suzy...turns out she wanted to have done to her.

Makes me wonder, many "enlightened are against the objectification of women. What happens when that woman wants to be objectified?



You have to take it further - in the context of two people wanting to be objectified by one another you have mutual consent.

The issue of "the objectification of women" has more to to with how women are treated solely as sex or beauty objects and not as humans beings able to perform in non sex/beauty ways. You know, the new hottie at the office you can't get anything done because the dudes are always hovering around her trying to strike a bond...while she is focused on work.

Women can make money from their looks and their bodies....in many accepted ways. Men, far few. Women can sell themselves based on their looks. Men, less so.
Former Elite From Your Era
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/24/2012 7:38AM - in reply to Financial Reality Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

Financial Reality wrote:

Me too. $600? Sorry, she ain't worth it fellas, not even close. As was said, look closer at the pictures. Anorexic and not nearly as hot as you think and I've seen hot!



I don't know where this 600. thing is coming from, the cached website says $1,000.

Additionally, I bet that the technique of upsell applies in this biz. Call for an hour, and be told only 2 hour slots are available etc.
wild bill
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/24/2012 8:08AM - in reply to Former Elite From Your Era Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Lets be honest here all women are whores and Suzie is just acting out a bit. I'd do her for $600 and not a penny more.
tradeshow rubbers for 200 Alex
RE: Suzy Favor-Hamilton: Vegas Escort 12/24/2012 11:13AM - in reply to Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Advertised at 35 to 40yo so I'd think her tricks are in the AARP set age range. Being unaware of current market prices I have no idea if a grand is good money for 45 year old talent or if she is priced to do volume like a EarlyBird special. I do know a then 28ish year old was asking and had no problem getting 3,000 overnight back in the mid 1980s. But she was legit beauty and a working model with a number of covers.
Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 |