"Women get to wear as revealing clothes as they want to-but men are never, ever supposed to notice."

Shit, I'm gay and *I* noticed them! Everyone was looking at her boobs.

Shit, I'm gay and *I* noticed them! Everyone was looking at her boobs.

---------

Wasn't that the point? J Lo's point? The point of her dress? To make people notice? Does anybody think J Lo, or any actress, chooses her awards dress randomly? Of course not. Nothing wrong with that, either. But to criticize a guy for noticing, or admitting he noticed, is the height of idiocy and hypocrisy.

God I fucking love JLo

First she's fucking demanding and desperate, forcing her assistants to non-sexually cuddle and sleep with her at night when she doesn't have a boyfriend around. She's a giant snob, never letting hair stylists look her in the eyes. Every person that has met her on the red carpet says she's a bitch. She is also the only woman that told P.Diddy to fuck off because he was cheating on her. Everybody hated her on Living Color. She's a cheater. Her younger boyfriend is a big giant transsexual chaser who has been photographed coming out of gay bars and she is still keeping him around.

But you know what? All those qualities make her a certifiable Hollywood Diva. Hence why homos are so obsessed with her.

I gotta admit I love her too. She's vampiric age wise. In 5 years this bitch is gonna turn 50. Look at her! Her plastic surgery is flawless. Tacky taste in clothing though but that's expected.

@ Ppen

+1

I'm less concerned about feminism and Mars/Venus stuff than I am that this was an actual spontaneous moment of wit on live television, a thing on the verge of being extinct.

Wit, unlike humor, is supposed to have an edge (as opposed to satire, which is supposed to be a sharp edge. Florence King speculated that Americans hate wit because it's both aggressive, a masculine trait, and waspish, a feminine trait, and they don't know how to deal with it.

Too bad. Off-the-cuff wit should be encouraged, not stifled.

It's a corollary to the unspoken post-modern feminist maxim: "Women are supposed to have lots of sex, but they aren't allowed to enjoy any of it."

To Cousin Dave:

Who, exactly, has implied anything like that - aside from those old-timers who use terms like "wifely duty," if you know what I mean? Not exactly feminists.

Besides, maybe a lot of young women DO enjoy the idea of a lot of sex, but not within the context of the "hookup" culture, and don't know how to tell that to society? So they end up saying yes and no at the same time, if not with those exact words.

I'm guessing there are plenty of young women who would probably speak out against the hookup culture if they only had a few more non-Puritan, anti-hookup examples to guide them. (I'm very glad to be a Gen Xer - I suspect most of them didn't really go for that in the 1980s, and not just because of AIDS hysteria.)

I don't know about romance novels that take place in the 21st century, but, IMO, any romance WRITTEN before 1990 or so usually features a heroine who, if not a virgin, has had only one previous sex partner. Maybe the message is that "sleeping around," even if it's just one new man every year, is only going to lead to a scarred or callous heart. (Many would say the same about dating instead of courting - even sexless dating. But, of course, many women in their 20s don't even know if they really want to marry some day, so they can't be expected to court instead of date.)

Lenona, allow me to elaborate: Look at the way that PM feminists want sex (at least hetero sex) to be performed. Consider the article Amy posted today about the campus sex codes, where there is a piece of paper to be signed at each change of position. With so many rules and so much legalese, who can possibly enjoy that, other than an apparatachik?

It's an axiom of PM feminism that it is impossible for a woman to enjoy PIV sex with a man. Hetero sex, under their philsophy, falls into one of thre categories: (1) purely narcissistic ("here I am, satisfy me"!), (2) to get pregnant, or (3) to do harm, either by breaking hearts or by using sex to accumulate evidence for rape/abuse charges.

I suspect that's quite exaggerated. Time will tell.

Katie Roiphe wrote, in 1991 (three years before writing "The Morning After: Fear, Sex and Feminism"):

"But they don't stop to consider the fundamentally sexist images lurking beneath their rhetoric. The term 'date rape' itself hints at its conservative bent. More than just a polemic against rape, it reveals a desire for dates.

"Although not an explicit part of their movement, these feminists are responding, in this time of sexual suspicion, to the need for a more rigid courtship structure. The message represents, in part, a nostalgia for 1950's-style dating. For Johnny picking Susie up for a movie and a Coke."

Miss Manners quoted that second paragraph (minus the first nine words) in "Miss Manners Rescues Civilization," page 182.

I'm sure MM, as well as I, wondered a lot as to why Roiphe would consider old-fashioned dating to be automatically sexist, silly or unfair to either side - it certainly doesn't have to be.

Again, I'd like to know who, besides Roiphe, feels that way. BTW, from what I can see, the hookup society, with or without rules, exists only for its own sake - not because either side necessarily enjoys it. (Of course, the other problem is that every generation feels duty-bound to rebel more than the previous generation. Heaven forbid otherwise.)

Or, to spell it out a bit more: If you're going to accuse any group of pushing teen girls to have casual sex and then calling them sluts for enjoying it, wouldn't the biggest group likely be teen boys and girls?

I.e., it's not fair to point to teens as ADULT representatives of any political group. If you can call teens truly political at all. After all, even that perennial group of 15- to 17-year-olds who complain angrily that they can't vote suddenly develop very short memories once they're over 20; how many such adults do you see campaigning for the voting rights of their younger siblings and younger former schoolmates?

Also, in case anyone doesn't realize this, the ADULTS who push women to have casual sex (as opposed to premarital sex) are not necessarily the same people who shame them for enjoying it. Any adult male who does both is clearly a hypocrite, and any adult who supports casual sex in the first place is, IMO, immature.

What's disgusting, too, is when conservatives insist on blurring the line between premarital and casual sex and shaming only women for either one - or failing to remember that being on the Pill usually translates as being in a long-term relationship.