Some young lazy slut?
really real
Rollin' and Tumblin' is sounding better to me today, though at first, I
thought the love & theft of this old blues song was too heavy on the
theft. The song seems like the lightweight throwaway blues songs that
appear on many Dylan albums, like Black Crow Blues or Meet Me in the
Morning. But I can't get my head around the line about the "lazy young
slut."
The word "slut" so reeks of sexism that I don't think it's a word that
should appear in an intelligent song. I know Dylan has always liked
flirting with forbidden words, like the way he uses "nigger" in
Hurricane. I also know there's a problem when people use words like
this, in character, for the sake of literature, as Lenny Bruce found out
when Thurgood Marshall did not appreciate Lenny's nigger routine.
So I can't accept the explanation that Dylan isn't using the word "slut"
directly, he's singing the role of someone who would use the word
"slut." The song is filled with hyperbolic sexism, but at least there's
humour in lines like, "This woman so crazy, I swear I ain't gonna touch
another one for years."
I suppose I could accept an argument that Dylan uses the word "slut' in
Rollin' and Tumblin' because he's showing how evil religion is. Thus his
preacher line, "Sooner or later, you too shall burn" can be seen in the
context that bible thumpers are all sexist maniacs. How else explain
that god is a man and that women always have a secondary role in the
society set up by religious men?
Still, I'd rather Dylan sing slutless lyrics and songs without religious
babble.
really real
>
> No, unfortunately this can be neither deconstructed to mean something
> else nor put into somebody else's mouth nor wished away. What you see
> is what you get. But your post well highlights the hypocrisy of
> contemporary "liberal" thought. (Liberal is, of course, in quotes
> because it isn't liberal at all--in reality it seeks to control and
> censor.)
Now, I'm liberal, but to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'll let people use words like kike or nigger or
slut or twatbrain
Then you must think I'm crazy
Runnnerr
What are your thoughts on "bubble-headed-bleach-blonde-bimbo"?
really real
>
> What are your thoughts on "bubble-headed-bleach-blonde-bimbo"?
>
well that's an alliteration so it's okay.
Bleaching one's hair blonde kind of invites criticism.
The issue of dumb natural blondes is a whole other story.
There are some physical things that are going to affect evolution.
To my eye, blonde hair is angelic. The Romans thought the same thing, as
they called that land of blonde haired beauties, angel land, or England.
If a gorgeous blonde comes into my life, I'm going to react to her
beauty, not her brains, even if she is as intelligent as Catherine Deneuve.
Thus, calling someone a "dumb blonde" is not in the same hateful league
as calling someone a twatbrain.
Runnnerr
What about "shit-for-brains" or "fuck-head"?
Jumbo
> No, unfortunately this can be neither deconstructed to mean something
> else nor put into somebody else's mouth nor wished away. What you see
> is what you get.
Definitely not. Or rather, what do we see? I think we're meant to not
sympathise with the narrator, at least for this line. He's a flawed
person. But then again, aren't we all? So maybe we can sympathise, but
we also think he could think about how he got his mind shaped.
>But your post well highlights the hypocrisy of
> contemporary "liberal" thought. (Liberal is, of course, in quotes
> because it isn't liberal at all--in reality it seeks to control and
> censor.)
I totally agree with you here. Really real is saying the word "slut"
should not be used in artistic work. That is prescriptive. Censorship
before the fact.
Jackson K. Eskew
>nonsense snipped<
Don't you get it yet? Bob Dylan is not one of you. He never has been.
He's been fighting the left's taking him hostage his entire career. His
view of women has always been rather traditional, entirely unencumbered
by today's totalitarian politically correct nonsense. As his last three
albums especially show, if anything, Dylan is a reactionary - as shown
in my recent post called Bob Dylan: Reactionary Extraordinaire. Here:
Pilgrim
Treadleson wrote:
> really real wrote:
> > Rollin' and Tumblin' is sounding better to me today, though at first, I
> > thought the love & theft of this old blues song was too heavy on the
> > theft. The song seems like the lightweight throwaway blues songs that
> > appear on many Dylan albums, like Black Crow Blues or Meet Me in the
> > Morning. But I can't get my head around the line about the "lazy young
> > slut."
> >
> > The word "slut" so reeks of sexism that I don't think it's a word that
> > should appear in an intelligent song. I know Dylan has always liked
> > flirting with forbidden words, like the way he uses "nigger" in
> > Hurricane. I also know there's a problem when people use words like
> > this, in character, for the sake of literature, as Lenny Bruce found out
> > when Thurgood Marshall did not appreciate Lenny's nigger routine.
> >
> > So I can't accept the explanation that Dylan isn't using the word "slut"
> > directly, he's singing the role of someone who would use the word
> > "slut." The song is filled with hyperbolic sexism, but at least there's
> > humour in lines like, "This woman so crazy, I swear I ain't gonna touch
> > another one for years."
>
> else nor put into somebody else's mouth nor wished away. What you see
> contemporary "liberal" thought. (Liberal is, of course, in quotes
> because it isn't liberal at all--in reality it seeks to control and
> censor.)
I think it highlights RR's age, more than anything.
The reclaiming of the word slut is all over the liberal blogosphere.
Sorry, man, but I really am liberal. No quotes needed. I even believe
in God and I'm an effen liberal. You can try to reverse reality as
much as possible, but you're still just a double talkin' slut.
http://amber.tangerinecs.com/viewentry.php?entry=1472
http://www.segnbora.com/whatis.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/9986/
Just for starters.
Bob's a slut, too. He like the womens. What makes a slut is a strong
libido, an itch you just can't scratch without someone helping you out.
It's been used to shame women for years so we conform to an ideal
that's non-threatening to men and more easily controllable.
It was the word "lazy" that really bugged me. How can a true slut be
lazy? There's just no way.
Bob's a third wave feminist.
I know, he's too old for that and he's really trying to shame some
woman who won't do what she's told, projecting his own overactive,
self-serving libido onto her because he still has fantasies of a
madonna/whore complex variety, but, you know, he might be ahead of his
time, which I doubt, but this was fun to write.
Jumbo
>
> Bob's a slut, too. He like the womens. What makes a slut is a strong
> libido, an itch you just can't scratch without someone helping you out.
> It's been used to shame women for years so we conform to an ideal
> that's non-threatening to men and more easily controllable.
>
> It was the word "lazy" that really bugged me. How can a true slut be
> lazy? There's just no way.
>
> Bob's a third wave feminist.
>
> I know, he's too old for that and he's really trying to shame some
> woman who won't do what she's told, projecting his own overactive,
> self-serving libido onto her because he still has fantasies of a
> madonna/whore complex variety, but, you know, he might be ahead of his
> time, which I doubt, but this was fun to write.
>
Bob this, Bob that.
It's a character.
Pilgrim
Duh.
Do I have to use emoticons?
I agree with your earlier post - we're not meant to sympathize with the
character, but I couldn't resist pulling in the leftist side of gen. x
here, due the really pathetic collection of rightist gen. x er's
posting.
It's a thing. I've been so serious all day.
Pilgrim
Now that I've had to explain it, I don't think I'm as funny as I used
to (insert anti-progress joke).
Barbara
"Pilgrim" <mcis...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1157659365.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I think you can be a slut and be lazy. If a slut is meant to be a
promiscuous person, he or she can be of that nature and be lazy too, why
not?
Are you thinking since they ae seeking sex that they are the opposite of
lazy and ambitious? But a slut to me isn't so much one seeking, which they
can be, but they are definitely real available and don't need to be
ambitious.
Yeah, I can see someone be a slut and just be hanging around, lazy like.
And I also don't care for that term, "lazy slut", but so what.
Barbara
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>
>To my eye, blonde hair is angelic. The Romans thought the same thing, as
>they called that land of blonde haired beauties, angel land, or England.
Oh, please. You just made that up... "angel land"... LOL!
Pilgrim
I've been reading a few blogs that are discussing the use of the word
and quite frequently when these (usually female people) remember the
term being used it was directed at people who were no more promiscuous
than other people. The difference was in that they didn't pretend that
they were 'pure' and it was often used as a way of putting someone in
her place regardless of any sexual activity and it's quite often used
as a class signifier, with lower class women and girls being more often
referred to as sluts. With that in mind, the 'laziness' that comes to
mind is really a female kind of laziness that doesn't try to hide the
fact that they are sexual as well as a way of reinforcing class
divisions, extending to women the idea that the lower classes are not
successful because they are more lazy than the upper classes. It's a
'control' word.
>
> Barbara
crazytimes
Pilgrim wrote:
> Bob's a third wave feminist.
>
> I know, he's too old for that and he's really trying to shame some
> woman who won't do what she's told, projecting his own overactive,
> self-serving libido onto her because he still has fantasies of a
> madonna/whore complex variety, but, you know, he might be ahead of his
> time, which I doubt, but this was fun to write.
The madonna/whore runs through much of Dylan's work... He wants a
woman he can worship, yet, at the same time, he also wants a cheap,
easily bought/duped woman he can have his way with... And finding both
those qualities in one individual is not an easy thing... nor
neccessarily preferable...
Re: Bob the feminist... I think he wouldn't mind seeing women throw
off the shackles of a male-dominated political and working world, just
for revolutions sake (hell, one would think they could probably start
off by voting as a bloc to put women in office if they really wanted to
band together), but if they don't take it upon themselves, I'm sure he
can live with that as well... It's not his fault, is it?...
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
As long as they can cook and sew, make flowers grow...
Pilgrim
> Pilgrim wrote:
>
> > Bob's a third wave feminist.
> >
> > I know, he's too old for that and he's really trying to shame some
> > woman who won't do what she's told, projecting his own overactive,
> > self-serving libido onto her because he still has fantasies of a
> > madonna/whore complex variety, but, you know, he might be ahead of his
> > time, which I doubt, but this was fun to write.
>
> The madonna/whore runs through much of Dylan's work... He wants a
> woman he can worship, yet, at the same time, he also wants a cheap,
> easily bought/duped woman he can have his way with... And finding both
> those qualities in one individual is not an easy thing... nor
> neccessarily preferable...
I doubt you could find a combination, because neither of those are
real, they're part of a fantasy. One's a slave stripped of her
humanity and the other's a goddess, also stripped of her humanity, but
yeah, I agree that the theme runs through much of his work. His
"chambermaid" comes to mind, who's not afraid to have him look at her
but she knows he's rather be with someone else and he really wants HER
but he's with several others, including the queen of spades, but I get
the impression that SHE should be ok with all of that because he really
does want HER. I somehow doubt that was very realistic thinking on his
part. I found it humorous that he referenced The White Goddess in his
book. It fits one half of his woman theme quite well. Graves himself
believed that women are men's muses and not creators themselves. Just
there to inspire, 2 - dimensional beings with moveable parts.
>
> Re: Bob the feminist... I think he wouldn't mind seeing women throw
> off the shackles of a male-dominated political and working world, just
> for revolutions sake (hell, one would think they could probably start
> off by voting as a bloc to put women in office if they really wanted to
> band together), but if they don't take it upon themselves, I'm sure he
> can live with that as well... It's not his fault, is it?...
Women have internalized a good deal of sexism themselves. It's
embedded in the culture and in how we're raised. I see it in myself
frequently, much to my dismay, when I second guess women more than I
would a man or don't take women or my own abilities as seriously as I
should. There have been some interesting first hand experiences of how
this works coming from transgendered people, with female to male people
stating that they are suddenly treated with more respect and their
ideas are taken more seriously when people perceive them as male. This
is something that will take a long time to change in our culture.
I still recall my mother telling me that good women don't really enjoy
sex. She had children really late and so did my grandmother, so we
skip a couple generations. I looked at her kinda funny when she said
that and she told me her mother had told her the same thing, she was
just passing it down! I suppose only the other kind of women enjoyed
it. (that was for the 'slut' theme of this thread).
It's not really any one individuals fault, but it's not too surprising
that men can more easily live with it, they're the priviliged group,
after all. As for women acting as a unified group, not gonna happen.
We're individuals, just like men.
really real
>
> What about "shit-for-brains" or "fuck-head"?
I've got no kicks against feces imagery
Unless you try to use it too darn much
Sexual intercourse imagery is a bit different though. It sort of implies
that sex is evil. You aren't religious, are you?
>
really real
>
> Oh, please. You just made that up... "angel land"... LOL!
Au contraire. Have you never heard of Angleterre>
>
Pilgrim
really real wrote:
> >
> > Oh, please. You just made that up... "angel land"... LOL!
>
>
> Au contraire. Have you never heard of Angleterre>
> >
That just means the French thought the English were very angular.
>From the Oxford English dictionary:
"Of personal appearance: having the joints and bony protuberances
prominent, through deficiency of roundness and plumpness in the fleshy
parts. Of action: Moving the limbs in angles, jerky, abrupt,
ungraceful, awkward."
Temporary Like Achilles
woman who didn't clean properly -- a slattern. The use of "lazy" is, to
that extent, redundant. However, "lazy" can also suggest "recumbent,"
which reinforces the sexual connotations of the line. As to whether or
not Dylan (or the singer) is a sexist pig, who knows? Sometimes a woman
*is* a slut, and sometimes a man is a rutting pig who likes 'em that
way ...
Temporary
Pilgrim
Treadleson wrote:
> Pilgrim wrote:
> > crazytimes wrote:
> > > Pilgrim wrote:
> >
>
> .....
> >
> > Women have internalized a good deal of sexism themselves. It's
> > embedded in the culture and in how we're raised.
>
> "sexism" which demands that they behave in a certain way.
I certainly didn't mean to imply that sexism hasn't negatively affected
men. I think it has.
> However, as
> Celia Farber wrote, it's more complex:
Do people actually pay attention to Farber?
"Intellectual dishonesty is the norm for Farber and other AIDS
denialists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celia_Farber
You can say the same for her understanding of American culture.
Thanks for the double talk, Tread, it was expected.
Pilgrim
True, and he is charmed by her, to the point that he can't think, it
seems.
J Buck
match. I suspect that's why he used it.
J Buck
<really real wrote: Thus, calling someone a "dumb blonde" is not in the
same hateful league as calling someone a twatbrain>
<What about "shit-for-brains" or "fuck-head"?>
I'd never heard 'pork-fuck' til Nicholas Cage uttered it to his
ex-wife's boyfriend in 'The Weather Man'
J Buck
<What makes a slut is a strong libido, an itch you just can't scratch
without someone helping you out>
And by rights, it should be non-gender specific.
<It was the word "lazy" that really bugged me. How can a true slut be
lazy? There's just no way>
Lone, you've nailed it again. Two-shay :)
Pilgrim
Still, the words have their connotations and lazy slut doesn't really
mean reclining while unwashed, though I can see how the word got to
have sexual connotations. It's the 'sex is dirty' meme.
really real
>
> As his last three
> albums especially show, if anything, Dylan is a reactionary - as shown
> in my recent post called Bob Dylan: Reactionary Extraordinaire. Here:
>
Oh, don't you wish, Jackson, don't you wish.
There are some reactionary moments on TOOM but it's a stretch to call it
a reactionary album.
Love and Theft, on the other hand, is full of all kinds of progressive
imagery, taking on the evils of big business, and speaking up for the
unions.
J Buck
seems>
Sluts have that effect on some people, without a doubt.
Pilgrim
Treadleson wrote:
> Pilgrim wrote:
> > crazytimes wrote:
> > > Pilgrim wrote:
> >
>
> .....
> >
> > embedded in the culture and in how we're raised.
>
> Celia Farber wrote, it's more complex:
>
> pornographically inclined yet puritanical at the same time. The women
> wield their sexual power, but don't understand it; they imbue it with
> way too much drama, hostility and paranoia.
Which American women? How does she know if all these American women
fail to understand their 'sexual power'? Is this based on any kind of
study of American womens beliefs and attitudes, the clothes they wear?
Who are these women she's talking about? Is she talking about real
people here or people she's imagining are real because of the media or
are these Men's Rights talking points?
>
> The men, meanwhile, are severed from their feminine side, unable to
> express normal emotions; they interact with women like angry
> zoo-keepers.....
All American men are severed from their feminine side, unable to
express normal emotions? Is this based on a survey of men in America?
"Have you in the past year been able to express a feeling other that of
an angry zoo-keeper?"
> I doubt there is any culture on Earth where women are
> expected to be as impossibly, relentlessly sexy as they are here, and
> at the same time, so uptight and punitive.
It's intriguing that she mixes media up with everyday women concerned
over being harassed at work. Again, she seems to be blending several
women 'types' together.
> As a Swedish male friend
> recently remarked: 'Sexiness can itself become a kind of burqa, where
> the woman can't be seen.' "
I agree with this one.
>
> In other words, celebrating slutiness--which our mass culture
> does--while continually checking men with the threat of sex harrasment
> lawsuits is a very very mixed up sexual ethos.
Yes, she does seem to mix up the media with the lives of everyday
women. Unfortunately, some men and women do, too. This shouldn't be
construed to mean that all of us are blindly swept up in it's force,
unable to think for ourselves. The talking point for the Men's Rights
movement is very telling. The majority of sexual harassment suits are
about very real and serious situations that women find themselves in.
There are women who abuse the system and that's bad for both men and
women. The abuse should not be used as excuse to belittle the women's
movement. That's what intellectual dishonesty is.
> Incidentally, there is
> no "narrator" in this song. He sings as himself.
Amazing how you know this.
> The word everyone
> seems to miss here is "charmed."
This one I also agree with.
> The post modern era is over.
Yeah, the grand culture committee voted it away last week.
> What
> people say really IS what they mean.
And that of course means that everything in a Bob Dylan song is
literally about what's going on in his personal life. Splendid.
Jackson K. Eskew
Pilgrim wrote:
>drivel snipped<
Pilgrim, you're so fashionably emasculate. Excellent work.
badlands420
> The word "slut" so reeks of sexism that I don't think it's a word that
> should appear in an intelligent song. I know Dylan has always liked
> flirting with forbidden words, like the way he uses "nigger" in Hurricane.
"Nigger" was by no means a forbidden word in 1976.
Jackson K. Eskew
Treadleson wrote:
>Incidentally, there is
> no "narrator" in this song. He sings as himself. The word everyone
> seems to miss here is "charmed." The post modern era is over. What
> people say really IS what they mean.
This "incidentally" is significant. Have you noticed how one of the
most popular devices here for denying that Dylan is really religious,
for example, is the notion that the "I" and Dylan himself are
completely separate? Any author knows this is absurd and disingenuous.
Pilgrim
Treadleson wrote:
> > "Intellectual dishonesty is the norm for Farber and other AIDS
> > denialists."
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celia_Farber
>
> from Wikipedia. Ah...big drug company and AIDs activist orthodoxy.
This is going to get circular, I can see already, but I'm afraid it's
you who is being dishonest here.
I'll make it easy:
"The scientific accuracy and objectivity of her articles has been
widely disputed, as her main medical reference is the work of Peter
Duesberg. The Duesberg hypothesis, which holds that HIV is a harmless
"passenger" virus unrelated to AIDS except by association, is
considered pseudoscience by the mainstream medical community."
This not a 'big drug company conspiracy', it's the medical community.
Duesbergs peers. His theory is discredited.
"In response to Farber's argument that there is no direct link between
HIV and AIDS, the Treatment Action Campaign, a South African group
campaigning for greater access to HIV treatment, posted a 37-page
rebuttal. The rebuttal was written by eight prominent AIDS researchers
and reported over 50 errors in Farber's article, ranging from
misleading implications and false statements to implications of
sinister motives without evidence."
This is also not a 'big drug company conspiracy'. This was written by
AID's researchers. That you've construed access to medical care that is
sorely needed in South Africa where this epidemic rages out of control
is really very sad.
This is the Treatment Action Campaign:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_Action_Campaign
I'll let people figure out for themselves if they represent 'big drug
companies'.
>
> >
> > You can say the same for her understanding of American culture.
> >
> ....
> > Thanks for the double talk, Tread, it was expected.
>
> LOL. The band keeps playing on, I see.
Pilgrim
Oh thats great, Jackson, I'm emasculate. Does that mean I'm femme?
I'm kind of soft butch, but never mind. You're probably homophobic.
Pilgrim
No one's denying that Dylan's religious. We're just not clear about
which religion.
What I'm concerned about is the army of orphans he's apparently
recruiting because people these days say exactly what they mean.
J Buck
wrote: <"Nigger" was by no means a forbidden word in 1976>
I've read some really bizarre statements on Usenet over the years, but
that's right up near the top. Got a cite for that?
Jackson K. Eskew
Pilgrim wrote:
> Oh thats great, Jackson, I'm emasculate. Does that mean I'm femme?
> I'm kind of soft butch, but never mind. You're probably homophobic.
That's just beautiful. I just told my friend here that it's only a
matter of time before you vomit the word "homophobic." Thanks. LOL!!
I recommend that you immediately read Industrial Society and Its Future
by Theodore Kaczynski, paying particular attention to the short
sections entitled "The Psychology of Modern Leftism," "Feelings of
Inferiority," and "Oversocialization." It will be like horrifically
staring into a mirror. If you can, be careful to separate the text from
the man - as your ilk likes to do with Dylan's lyrics. Here:
Pilgrim
Jackson K. Eskew wrote:
> Pilgrim wrote:
>
> > Oh thats great, Jackson, I'm emasculate. Does that mean I'm femme?
> > I'm kind of soft butch, but never mind. You're probably homophobic.
>
> That's just beautiful. I just told my friend here that it's only a
> matter of time before you vomit the word "homophobic." Thanks. LOL!!
Well, I am a lesbian and it was my pleasure to vomit on you. I wish I
could do it again.
>
> I recommend that you immediately read Industrial Society and Its Future
> by Theodore Kaczynski, paying particular attention to the short
> sections entitled "The Psychology of Modern Leftism," "Feelings of
> Inferiority," and "Oversocialization." It will be like horrifically
> staring into a mirror. If you can, be careful to separate the text from
> the man - as your ilk likes to do with Dylan's lyrics. Here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9tbga
Thanks, I'll just curl up in bed with that one.
Pilgrim
I'm sorry, Jackson, but I didn't feel like I was horrifically staring
into a mirror. I don't hate America, Western Civilization, white males
and rationality. I certainly don't call my pets my 'animal
companions'. I find homosexuals quite attractive, and not repellent at
all, especially if they're cute and female. I consider some but not
all 'primitive' cultures to be inferior to Western Civilization and I
recognize the intense violence of some of them. I certainly don't hate
America because it's strong and successful, I actually wish it was
stronger AND more successful. We're making fools of ourselves
internationally, and we're falling way behind in science.
This is totally not about me:
"Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus
on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone,
throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing
anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to
immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment"
I'm not really sure were he's coming from with that. My own work is
based, to a large extent, on early American craft and I use many
biblical references. Odd how I'm a big Dylan fan, eh? I'm really at
odds with the state of comtemporary art.
I'm really spending way to much time with this, but I'm hoping you get
the picture with what I've written so far.
Delia was right. You're a dork. There's just way to get beyond that
now. It's objective fact.
badlands420
> I've read some really bizarre statements on Usenet over the years, but
> that's right up near the top. Got a cite for that?
Yeah, being alive at the time. It was no big deal to hear the words nigger,
spook, spade, jigaboo, darkie, spearchucker, or porch monkey any night of
the week on prime-time network TV.
Ever watch All in the Family, Good Times, or the Jeffersons?
badlands420
> There are some reactionary moments on TOOM but it's a stretch to call it
> a reactionary album.
It's also a stretch for any political or religious faction to claim Dylan as
their own, as it's always been.
badlands420
> Yeah, being alive at the time. It was no big deal to hear the words
> nigger,
> spook, spade, jigaboo, darkie, spearchucker, or porch monkey any night of
> the week on prime-time network TV.
>
> Ever watch All in the Family, Good Times, or the Jeffersons?
PS- I remember (because I'll never forget) being at the grocery store with
my mom in 1982 and watching her purchase a bag of nuts labeled "Nigger
Toes."
really real
>
> It's also a stretch for any political or religious faction to claim Dylan as
> their own, as it's always been.
Dylan was a progressive for his first four albums.
>
>
really real
> It was no big deal to hear the words nigger,
> spook, spade, jigaboo, darkie, spearchucker, or porch monkey any night of
> the week on prime-time network TV.
>
> Ever watch All in the Family, Good Times, or the Jeffersons?
Yeah, but you're twisting this the way the teacher in Blackboard Jungle
got called racist, when he gave a lesson in racism which used words like
those.
>
>
badlands420
> Yeah, but you're twisting this the way the teacher in Blackboard Jungle
> got called racist, when he gave a lesson in racism which used words like
> those.
Oh, cut the straw man bullshit for once. I didn't say anything was racist or
not racist and you fuckin' well know it. I said nigger was not a forbidden
word in 1976; nothing more.
PS- I'm changing your name. You will henceforth be known as Conan the
Extrapolator.
J Buck
spade, jigaboo, darkie, spearchucker, or porch monkey any night of the
week on prime-time network TV>
Because these phrases were on prime tv it was 'no big deal'?
really real
>
> Oh, cut the straw man bullshit for once. I didn't say anything was racist or
> not racist and you fuckin' well know it. I said nigger was not a forbidden
> word in 1976; nothing more.
>
That's a racist statement, saying nigger was not a forbidden word in 1976.
Nigger was a forbidden word, and that's why you heard the word being
spoken of, progressively, on those tv shows.
Martin Grossman
Rachel
i wrote "mens' " in my other post, and then had doubts, and wanted to
call my mother in New York, but it was too late, so I called my father,
and I really didn't want to trust him, but I had no choice, and he said
it was "men's."
so was i right, then? "mens'?"
Treadleson wrote:
> Pilgrim wrote:
> > Treadleson wrote:
> > > Pilgrim wrote:
> > > > crazytimes wrote:
> > > > > Pilgrim wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > .....
> > > >
> > > > Women have internalized a good deal of sexism themselves. It's
> > > > embedded in the culture and in how we're raised.
> > >
> > > I think that's one sided, as though men haven't also internalized
> > > "sexism" which demands that they behave in a certain way. However, as
> > > Celia Farber wrote, it's more complex:
> ...
>
> > > "Americans have very bizarre perceptions when it comes to sex,
> > > pornographically inclined yet puritanical at the same time. The women
> > > wield their sexual power, but don't understand it; they imbue it with
> > > way too much drama, hostility and paranoia.
> ...
> > Which American women? How does she know if all these American women
> > fail to understand their 'sexual power'? Is this based on any kind of
> > study of American womens beliefs and attitudes, the clothes they wear?
> > Who are these women she's talking about? Is she talking about real
> > people here or people she's imagining are real because of the media or
> > are these Men's Rights talking points?
>
> You can't be serious. Personally, I don't watch much "media," never
> saw more than a minute of Sex In the City, and on and on. I just don't
> have the time. Study as in university study? I don't know. Lots of
> people have written on it. Camille Paglia, Naomi Wolfe are the star
> writers. I see this in my daily life--constantly--work, parties,
> restaurants. I could give you many many examples. The same as I could
> give you many examples of sex harrasment lite in the work place. But I
> wasn't nearly as struck by this statement as the later one.
> >
> ...
> > > The men, meanwhile, are severed from their feminine side, unable to
> > > express normal emotions; they interact with women like angry
> > > zoo-keepers.....
> ...
> > All American men are severed from their feminine side, unable to
> > express normal emotions?
>
> Not all.
>
> > Is this based on a survey of men in America?
> > "Have you in the past year been able to express a feeling other that of
> > an angry zoo-keeper?"
>
> I'm too busy staying out of the way of other mens' road rage, but in
> the past 14 months I've only smiled once and I didn't do it
> consciously.
>
> >
> > > I doubt there is any culture on Earth where women are
> > > expected to be as impossibly, relentlessly sexy as they are here, and
> > > at the same time, so uptight and punitive.
> >
> > It's intriguing that she mixes media up with everyday women concerned
> > over being harassed at work. Again, she seems to be blending several
> > women 'types' together.
> >
> > > As a Swedish male friend
> > > recently remarked: 'Sexiness can itself become a kind of burqa, where
> > > the woman can't be seen.' "
>
> > I agree with this one.
>
> If you agree with this one, then you agree with the one before since
> it's a summation of the previous one. This is the point that
> interested me most and which is absolutely right on target.
>
> >
> > >
> > > In other words, celebrating slutiness--which our mass culture
> > > does--while continually checking men with the threat of sex harrasment
> > > lawsuits is a very very mixed up sexual ethos.
>
>
> > Yes, she does seem to mix up the media with the lives of everyday
> > women. Unfortunately, some men and women do, too. This shouldn't be
> > construed to mean that all of us are blindly swept up in it's force,
> > unable to think for ourselves. The talking point for the Men's Rights
> > movement is very telling.
>
> Men's rights movement? You're missing the point here. For one thing,
> as far as I know, the men's rights movement is concerned with issues
> like child support, divorce and child custody. This is not what she
> discusses here. The media celebrates slutiness, obviously, but it is
> inhaled and reproduced by ordinary people. Or that's what I see every
> time I walk into an office, party, etc. Or a store. It is
> inescapable. I don't mean every single last person. Meanwhile, the
> Damocles sword of sex harrassment suits hangs over most workplaces. If
> you don't think it's incredibly neurotic to have an office full of
> spike heels and short skirts and low cut tops while the threat of sex
> harrassment lawsuits hangs in the air, I don't know what to tell you.
> But that indeed IS life in the big city.
>
> >The majority of sexual harassment suits are
> > about very real and serious situations that women find themselves in.
> > There are women who abuse the system and that's bad for both men and
> > women. The abuse should not be used as excuse to belittle the women's
> > movement. That's what intellectual dishonesty is.
>
> You're pretty worked up about this. Nobody's trying to belittle the
> women's movement. Or take issue with the seriousness of many lawsuits.
> If women abuse the system, or conversely, if men in these environments
> completely ignore women for fear that the most harmless flirtation or
> gesture of friendliness is going to cost him his job, that's a pretty
> confused sexual ethos. That's the point.
>
> >
> > > Incidentally, there is
> > > no "narrator" in this song. He sings as himself.
>
>
> > Amazing how you know this.
>
> Not too amazing considering how the song is done.
>
>
> >
> > > The word everyone
> > > seems to miss here is "charmed."
> >
> > This one I also agree with.
> >
> > > The post modern era is over.
>
>
> > Yeah, the grand culture committee voted it away last week.
>
> Whew. And not a moment too soon.
>
> > > What
> > > people say really IS what they mean.
>
>
> > And that of course means that everything in a Bob Dylan song is
> > literally about what's going on in his personal life. Splendid.
>
> You mean that he was really charmed by a lazy (as opposed to
> hard-working) slut? Well, I don't think he was singing about St.
> Herman. But according to your definition, it's not really him talking
> about Alicia Keyes either. That's somebody else talking. Give me a
> break.
Rachel
David O'Brien
disapeared, much like the word "yuppie". Why? Because we've learned that a
promiscious female is simply a woman making the enlightened decision to have
lots of sex, which is fine and dandy.
Course, since we're all either liberals or conservatives nowadays, we can't
have any objective discussion on whether there's any such thing as a valid
use of the word "slut", so why bother bringing it up?
For instance, if I were to say that some people think that promisciouty and
a generaly hedonistic lifestyle are not okay at all, then I'm either an old
fogey, a repressive conservative, a reactionary or a sexist.
Or to put it in the fashionable "use Dylan song lyric as entire reply"
method:
"Lies that life is black and white spoke through my skull I screamed"
But by all means let's get bogged down in name calling so we don't have to
have an actual philisophical and objective discussion, lord knows 40 years
of Bob freeing our minds has sure helped anything. All it's done is turn
everyone into liberals, rather than the true expression of liberalism - free
thinking. With the heighest goal being objectivity above all else...
Dave O Tas
Jackson K. Eskew
Treadleson wrote:
> And what's with Wikipedia suddenly becoming the oracle for all things
> true?
An excellent question. I've noticed an increasing reliance on Wikipedia
throughout usenet. This is consistent with today's radical
egalitarianism, as Wikipedia is quite literally thoroughly demotic.
It's not surprising that it's also riddled with error. It does have
some good articles though.
M. Rick
babble.
Through the miracle of digital technology, I can replace all religious
babble with non-religious drivel. Alternatively, I can turn every "mystery
man" into Jesus. Whether you prefer a round young virgin or an Old
Testament slut, your wishes are easily fulfilled. No need for twisted
interpretations and tortured misreadings, when you can customize Modern
Times to your liking. This should go a long way in satisfying the wants and
desires of the Dylan faithful.
Mr Jinx
really real wrote:
> Rollin' and Tumblin' is sounding better to me today, though at first, I
> thought the love & theft of this old blues song was too heavy on the
> theft. The song seems like the lightweight throwaway blues songs that
> appear on many Dylan albums, like Black Crow Blues or Meet Me in the
> Morning. But I can't get my head around the line about the "lazy young
> slut."
>
> The word "slut" so reeks of sexism that I don't think it's a word that
> should appear in an intelligent song. I know Dylan has always liked
> flirting with forbidden words, like the way he uses "nigger" in
> Hurricane. I also know there's a problem when people use words like
> this, in character, for the sake of literature, as Lenny Bruce found out
> when Thurgood Marshall did not appreciate Lenny's nigger routine.
>
> So I can't accept the explanation that Dylan isn't using the word "slut"
> directly, he's singing the role of someone who would use the word
> "slut." The song is filled with hyperbolic sexism, but at least there's
> humour in lines like, "This woman so crazy, I swear I ain't gonna touch
> another one for years."
>
> I suppose I could accept an argument that Dylan uses the word "slut' in
> Rollin' and Tumblin' because he's showing how evil religion is. Thus his
> preacher line, "Sooner or later, you too shall burn" can be seen in the
> context that bible thumpers are all sexist maniacs. How else explain
> that god is a man and that women always have a secondary role in the
> society set up by religious men?
>
> Still, I'd rather Dylan sing slutless lyrics and songs without religious
> babble.
I like the slut references and the religious ones. The Bible has many
sluts.
Mr Jinx
M. Rick
"Slut" is still popular today. Maureen Dowd recently wrote an amusing
column on it (before Modern Times was released).
Older blues expresses the same idea in slightly different language. In a
contemporary rap song, "young lazy slut" wouldn't be considered vulgar or
controversial.
badlands420
> That's a racist statement, saying nigger was not a forbidden word in 1976.
It must really suck to be such an intellectually stunted race baiter so
utterly lacking the capacity to carry on a reasonable and logical exchange.
You used to annoy me, but now I just pity you.
badlands420
> Because these phrases were on prime tv it was 'no big deal'?
Did I stutter?
badlands420
> It must really suck to be such an intellectually stunted race baiter so
> utterly lacking the capacity to carry on a reasonable and logical
> exchange.
>
> You used to annoy me, but now I just pity you.
PS- I also find it highly ironic and hugely funny that you just tried to
label me a racist while at the same time arguing that "nigger" can be used
as a progressive term.
I have met few people more adept than you at talking out both sides of their
ass. Please keep replying, you racist fuckhole.
Pilgrim
Treadleson wrote:
OK, I'll put on my pundit hat and pretend I'm an expert at
deconstructing neo-cons.
> Pilgrim wrote:
> However, as
> > > Celia Farber wrote, it's more complex:
> ...
>
> > > "Americans have very bizarre perceptions when it comes to sex,
> > > pornographically inclined yet puritanical at the same time. The women
> > > wield their sexual power, but don't understand it; they imbue it with
> > > way too much drama, hostility and paranoia.
> ...
> > Which American women? How does she know if all these American women
> > fail to understand their 'sexual power'? Is this based on any kind of
> > study of American womens beliefs and attitudes, the clothes they wear?
> > Who are these women she's talking about? Is she talking about real
> > people here or people she's imagining are real because of the media or
> > are these Men's Rights talking points?
>
> You can't be serious. Personally, I don't watch much "media," never
> saw more than a minute of Sex In the City, and on and on. I just don't
> have the time. Study as in university study? I don't know. Lots of
> people have written on it. Camille Paglia, Naomi Wolfe are the star
> writers. I see this in my daily life--constantly--work, parties,
> restaurants. I could give you many many examples. The same as I could
> give you many examples of sex harrasment lite in the work place. But I
> wasn't nearly as struck by this statement as the later one.
First, Camille Paglia loves to make a fetish of sexual darkness that
she imagines inhabits the female of the species and I have to say, she
fits much of Farber straw woman of America to a tee, wielding her
supposed sexual power like a club. In short, she's a dominatrix
fetishist, which is fine, but I disagree with the wisdom of her
attempts to project her kinks onto women in general. From a dominatrix
fetishist point of view, she kicks ass, as well she should. I also
can't take seriously her attempt to promote Madonna as the future of
feminism and Madonna doesn't her seriously either, not that that's a
sticking point for me, because I'm not that impressed with Madonna.
For the purposes of my time, unless you send me a check to make up for
it, I'm not going to dwell on Wolfe, who I have less respect for, as an
intellectual.
So, let's have an anecdotal argument. I work at a University and don't
see many women unconsciously wielding immense sexual power like clumsy
hacks who become paranoid when noticed. Some are quite sexy and for
various reasons, not all having to do with tits and ass and some
aren't. It varies. I see a few undergraduate students doing this,
while others wield it consciously, gracefully, or scarily, and others
focus more on their brains, less on their hormones. It's difficult to
stereotype. I'm not aware of any sexual harassment at the work place
here, though I have experienced it in quite frequently in an earlier
job in construction. It was not trivial and in one incident, I
fortunately escaped being raped and this contractor was not hired
again. I also experienced a marked level of not being taken seriously
as a woman and several times had to bring in my boss to say exactly
what I had just said, so that my workers would do what they were hired
to do. I suspect that my environment(s) (have been) is different from
yours and I'm not going to speculate on what yours happens to be.
So much for anecdotal, which is what lead me to question Farbers
statements. When you begin a sentence with "Americans have very
bizarre perceptions when it comes to sex, pornographically inclined yet
puritanical at the same time." One assumes that American women are the
subject. As an American woman, I do not relate and therefore feel that
she has created a straw America woman. I did not take the statements
following that seriously enough to go into great detail. Farber
apparently lives in a cartoon universe that is inhabited by
stereotypically conflicted women who are unconscious of their immense
sexual prowess and afraid of it's affects and straw American men who
are one dimensional beings that have no real emotions and behave as
though the straw American women are wild animals that need to be caged.
I have wisely not subscribed to this cable channel. I'm certain that
there are indeed some women and some men who may nearly resemble the
characters in Farbers universe, but they do not represent all of
American women and American men and as I have my straw pundit hat on, I
feel secure in saying that an abstract third of American people are
much more intelligent and emotionally healthy then these characters, an
equally abstract third of Americans are somewhat more intelligent than
emotionally healthy than these characters and a final abstract third of
Americans still believe that the Bush administration is doing a fine
job.
>
> > Is this based on a survey of men in America?
> > "Have you in the past year been able to express a feeling other that of
> > an angry zoo-keeper?"
>
> I'm too busy staying out of the way of other mens' road rage, but in
> the past 14 months I've only smiled once and I didn't do it
> consciously.
Hunh.
>
> >
> > > I doubt there is any culture on Earth where women are
> > > expected to be as impossibly, relentlessly sexy as they are here, and
> > > at the same time, so uptight and punitive.
> >
> > It's intriguing that she mixes media up with everyday women concerned
> > over being harassed at work. Again, she seems to be blending several
> > women 'types' together.
> >
> > > As a Swedish male friend
> > > recently remarked: 'Sexiness can itself become a kind of burqa, where
> > > the woman can't be seen.' "
>
> > I agree with this one.
>
> If you agree with this one, then you agree with the one before since
> it's a summation of the previous one. This is the point that
> interested me most and which is absolutely right on target.
I view this as a description of objectification of women that does not
reflect on the actual 'sexiness' of the woman in question. In other
words, the existence of the burqa in this case, is the result of the
viewer and not the viewed.
>
> >
> > >
> > > In other words, celebrating slutiness--which our mass culture
> > > does--while continually checking men with the threat of sex harrasment
> > > lawsuits is a very very mixed up sexual ethos.
>
>
> > Yes, she does seem to mix up the media with the lives of everyday
> > women. Unfortunately, some men and women do, too. This shouldn't be
> > construed to mean that all of us are blindly swept up in it's force,
> > unable to think for ourselves. The talking point for the Men's Rights
> > movement is very telling.
>
> Men's rights movement? You're missing the point here. For one thing,
> as far as I know, the men's rights movement is concerned with issues
> like child support, divorce and child custody.
It's also concerned with the phantom of false rape and sexual
harassment charges, which constitute a minority of these cases.
> This is not what she
> discusses here. The media celebrates slutiness, obviously, but it is
> inhaled and reproduced by ordinary people. Or that's what I see every
> time I walk into an office, party, etc. Or a store. It is
> inescapable. I don't mean every single last person. Meanwhile, the
> Damocles sword of sex harrassment suits hangs over most workplaces. If
> you don't think it's incredibly neurotic to have an office full of
> spike heels and short skirts and low cut tops while the threat of sex
> harrassment lawsuits hangs in the air, I don't know what to tell you.
> But that indeed IS life in the big city.
Corporate environments I'm aware of here have dress codes, so my world
is a bit different, though if a man cannot see a woman as a coworker
that should be respected and if neither employees recognize that sex is
something that should be kept out of the workplace, than I'd say that
there is a cultural problem within the company and that should be
addressed.
>
> >The majority of sexual harassment suits are
> > about very real and serious situations that women find themselves in.
> > There are women who abuse the system and that's bad for both men and
> > women. The abuse should not be used as excuse to belittle the women's
> > movement. That's what intellectual dishonesty is.
>
> You're pretty worked up about this.
Not really.
> Nobody's trying to belittle the
> women's movement.
I see it differently, but thanks for playing.
> Or take issue with the seriousness of many lawsuits.
> If women abuse the system, or conversely, if men in these environments
> completely ignore women for fear that the most harmless flirtation or
> gesture of friendliness is going to cost him his job, that's a pretty
> confused sexual ethos. That's the point.
In my world, this is a straw argument. Again, if there is too much
sexuality in the work place it is a cultural issue in that environment.
<snip>
really real
>
> PS- I also find it highly ironic and hugely funny that you just tried to
> label me a racist while at the same time arguing that "nigger" can be used
> as a progressive term.
>
People who say that nigger was an acceptable term back in the 70s are
making a racist statement.
Oh oh, I just said the word, "nigger."
Pity me, please pity me.
Mr Jinx
There seem so few women making the "enlightened decision to have lots
of sex" these days. Lord knows I'd applaud them (liberally) if only
they would.
Mr Jinx
Pilgrim
Rachel wrote:
> is that correct, "mens'?"
>
> i wrote "mens' " in my other post, and then had doubts, and wanted to
> call my mother in New York, but it was too late, so I called my father,
> and I really didn't want to trust him, but I had no choice, and he said
> it was "men's."
>
> so was i right, then? "mens'?"
>
It's probably men's, but I'm kind of dysfunctional with apostrophe
usage so it's kind of a hit or miss thing with me. I don't worry about
it so much. If I grow up to be a writer, I'll have to rely on someone
else to correct me.
Pilgrim
Treadleson wrote:
> Pilgrim wrote:
> > Treadleson wrote:
> > > > denialists."
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celia_Farber
> > >
> > > Intellectual dishonesty is a good description of this quote you use
> > > from Wikipedia. Ah...big drug company and AIDs activist orthodoxy.
> >
> > This is going to get circular, I can see already, but I'm afraid it's
> > you who is being dishonest here.
> ....
> > I'll make it easy:
> ...
> > "The scientific accuracy and objectivity of her articles has been
> > widely disputed, as her main medical reference is the work of Peter
> > Duesberg. The Duesberg hypothesis, which holds that HIV is a harmless
> > "passenger" virus unrelated to AIDS except by association, is
> > considered pseudoscience by the mainstream medical community."
>
> What do you expect them to say? She is out there discrediting them.
> They're supposed to agree? This mighty medical and AIDs community you
> speak of were the same people who put the entire country into a fevered
> panic over the completely false assertion that normal hetrosexual sex
> between healthy people could easily lead either one to contract the
> AIDs virus.
Wow, I had no idea that people misconstrued things so well. I've never
heard or seen an AID's activist say or write that two people, of any
kind, can have sex and become HIV positive if neither of them are HIV
positive. On the other hand, I have read anti-gay activists say that
two HIV negative men can have teh gay sex and become HIV positive
because they are having teh gay sex.
The entire country went into a fevered panic? We are incredibly
stupid, aren't we. It's no wonder the French don't like us.
gabriel
J Buck wrote:
> mcis...@umich.edu (Pilgrim) wrote:
> <What makes a slut is a strong libido, an itch you just can't scratch
> without someone helping you out>
>
> And by rights, it should be non-gender specific.
Is there anything in the song which makes it gender-specific?
Rachel
". That men is plural, and so it's apostrophe s. I *have* to say this.
I swear to G-d it's true. FIRST I wrote insinctively "men's" then I
heard the word in my head like "mens' " and then I totally wasn't sure,
but i STARTED with men's. i really did.
anyway, no need to get my knickers all in a twist about this.
bob, i want to be with you, but i don't know how. :(
it's so unfair. :(
Pilgrim
Rachel wrote:
> Well, the word of God is in. Mom says there is no such word as "mens'
> ". That men is plural, and so it's apostrophe s. I *have* to say this.
> I swear to G-d it's true. FIRST I wrote insinctively "men's" then I
> heard the word in my head like "mens' " and then I totally wasn't sure,
> but i STARTED with men's. i really did.
>
> anyway, no need to get my knickers all in a twist about this.
>
> bob, i want to be with you, but i don't know how. :(
>
> it's so unfair. :(
It sounds like your mom is very good with words!
badlands420
> People who say that nigger was an acceptable term back in the 70s are
> making a racist statement.
Once AGAIN, you display a chromosomal inability to respond to what a person
actually said.
I must've missed the post where I said it was an acceptable term. I said it
was not a forbidden word, because it wasn't. If, in your world, "acceptable"
and "not forbidden" are interchangeable, then remind me not to send my kids
to Canadian public schools.
Your incessant non sequiturs and ad hominems betray you as the
intellectually dishonest coward you so clearly are. You have done nothing to
refute my intial statement, nor have you made the slightest attempt to do
so. You're so in love with hearing yourself type that you've forgotten how
to read.
Okay, now it's your turn to think of another way to call me a racist. Please
hurry. The anticipation is killing me.
Rachel
after I would read a book, kind of accusingly, "Did you look up *every
WORD*?" and I'd lie and go, "Yes!" anyway, last time she was here, she
was reading a book, (I just called her to get all the info), Decameron,
by Boccacio, and I was intruiged by the title, and I asked her, "What
does Decameron mean?" and she answered, nicely, sweetly, "I don't
really know. I'm not sure," and because of the way she used to treat
me, I absolutely COULDN NOT RESIST, and raised my voice accusingly at
her and responded, SHOCKED, "YOU'RE READING THE BOOK AND YOU DON'T EVEN
KNOW WHAT THE TITLE MEANS???!!!!!!!????????"
(later she came to me here in the closet with the book in her hand and
told me she looked it up and was telling me. 10 days. I knew it had
something to do with ten, or so I thought.)
Rachel
Jumbo
kind of long, how did it get so long? Now I've been drinking wine and
all I can think is I love you all. Pilgrim, treadleson, rachel, mr j,
badlands, all right even you jackson, in your twisted little suit. And
anyone I've drunkenly missed out even though I've just read the
bleeding thing.
The best point is it's not gender specific.
I was thinking this today in the backyard while I was having a fag (I
mean cigarettte, a lazy cigarette, by no means old), I thought: shit, i
was sexist like the rest of them I meant the ones up to when I posted).
There's no reason slut's a woman. (Now I know you all worked this out
before me, I can't help it if I'm slow). But Bob hasn't gender-bendered
his lyrics since Blonde on Blonde, has he?
Treadleson, come on, it is a narrator. Even the Alicia Keyes lines. You
can't ever say you know for sure.
I like Paglia because she makes Spenser sexy, but pilgrim's right,
she's egocentric and tries to come on universal.
Rachel, of course it's men's. You knew that all along.
Just Walkin'
He's saying that while young suburban white girls want to be "hot" and
go for the gutter look and lifestyle modeled by their celebrity idols,
young black girls are getting up out of the ghetto, learning the
classics and making something of themselves.
He's also saying that it's not how young or how many, but how pleased
you leave them that counts. And who out there is worth pleasing?
Sounds like Bob has developed a strong case of self-respect to go with
all that talent, wealth and power...
Jackson K. Eskew
Jumbo wrote:
> The best point is it's not gender specific.
Pure nonsense. The word "slut" refers to a profligate woman, and has
for many centuries. Even this silly dictionary gets it:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slut&x=0&y=0
See what the dictatorship of relativism has wrought? With the
evisceration of the very idea of truth, you've come to believe that you
can redefine words at your leisure. The word "marriage" is another
excellent example.
Jumbo
> Jumbo wrote:
>
> > The best point is it's not gender specific.
>
> Pure nonsense. The word "slut" refers to a profligate woman, and has
> for many centuries. Even this silly dictionary gets it:
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slut&x=0&y=0
>
> See what the dictatorship of relativism has wrought? With the
> evisceration of the very idea of truth, you've come to believe that you
> can redefine words at your leisure.
Oh, you bitch.
bobette
Have you not got any original thoughts??
Delia
Ah, Jacksy, you have no idea how far back this sinister conspiracy of
egalitarian relativism stretches.
Take the fairy tale, Cinderella. In its German form the name is
Aschenputtel, which translates as "Cinder-slut," the derisive term by
which the wicked stepsisters referred to the girl. but who knows?
Maybe she really was a slut and the stepsisters just got a bad press.
That's how it goes with relativism. In the German version the
stepsisters mutilate their feet to get them to fit the slipper and then
get their eyes pecked out by birds that are allied with Aschenputtel
after she takes up with the Prince and presumably changes her name to
hide her proclivities. You know how these lazy sluts are.
I blame the Brothers Grimm. They were probably Freemasons, too. Just
about everybody who was anybody back then was. Have you looked into
the role of the Masons in the rise of relativism and the Decline of the
West? Or the Illuminati?
Delia
Rachel
Delia wrote:
snip
>
> Take the fairy tale, Cinderella. In its German form the name is
> Aschenputtel, which translates as "Cinder-slut," the derisive term by
> which the wicked stepsisters referred to the girl. but who knows?
> Maybe she really was a slut and the stepsisters just got a bad press.
> That's how it goes with relativism. In the German version the
> stepsisters mutilate their feet to get them to fit the slipper and then
> get their eyes pecked out by birds that are allied with Aschenputtel
> after she takes up with the Prince and presumably changes her name to
> hide her proclivities. You know how these lazy sluts are.
OMG, that's INCREDIBLE.
(I know, I'm a sicko)
Jackson K. Eskew
bobette wrote:
> Have you not got any original thoughts??
Once again we see the wreckage that the dictatorship of relativism has
wrought: You're primarily concerned with what is new, what is original,
not with what is true. Do you see how the dictatorship of relativism is
essentially consumerist?
Jackson K. Eskew
Delia wrote:
> Ah, Jacksy, you have no idea how far back this sinister conspiracy of
> egalitarian relativism stretches.
>
> Take the fairy tale, Cinderella. In its German form the name is
> Aschenputtel, which translates as "Cinder-slut," the derisive term by
> which the wicked stepsisters referred to the girl. but who knows?
> Maybe she really was a slut and the stepsisters just got a bad press.
> That's how it goes with relativism. In the German version the
> stepsisters mutilate their feet to get them to fit the slipper and then
> get their eyes pecked out by birds that are allied with Aschenputtel
> after she takes up with the Prince and presumably changes her name to
> hide her proclivities. You know how these lazy sluts are.
>
> I blame the Brothers Grimm. They were probably Freemasons, too. Just
> about everybody who was anybody back then was. Have you looked into
> the role of the Masons in the rise of relativism and the Decline of the
> West? Or the Illuminati?
>
> Delia
Delia the blind tramp vomits again. Wonderful! See my review on
amazon.com on a fairy tales book for the truth on this topic.
Delia
Nope. Ya gotta post it here. I'm not giving you anymore hits on your
Amazon page.
Delia
bobette
I am primarily concerned with thinking things through for myself..
Jackson K. Eskew
> Nope. Ya gotta post it here. I'm not giving you anymore hits on your
> Amazon page.
>
> Delia
Then go shave your ass!
badlands420
> You're being a real asshole with this silly nitpicking.
It's not forbidden for you to go to the grocery store wearing nothing but
frilly women's underwear, but I don't think the other customers find it
acceptable.
badlands420
> I like the slut references and the religious ones. The Bible has many
> sluts.
I don't care for the slut line, myself. It just sounds rather contrived, and
it seems to me beneath Dylan to use such a vulgar pejorative when there are
much more interesting ways of calling someone a slut.
really real
>
> It's not forbidden for you to go to the grocery store wearing nothing but
> frilly women's underwear, but I don't think the other customers find it
> acceptable.
>
My grocery store would surely forbid such unacceptable clothing. The
would make a rule: No shirts, no shoes, no outer garments, no service.
Why don't you concentrate on figuring out real issues? The issue in this
thread is whether Dylan should have used the word "slut." If this issue
is beyond your depth, then move on.
really real
>
>
> Nope. Ya gotta post it here. I'm not giving you anymore hits on your
> Amazon page.
Delia, get a grip. Why would we want any more troll postings in rmd?
Join the veil of silence against the new troll.
badlands420
> An excellent question. I've noticed an increasing reliance on Wikipedia
> throughout usenet. This is consistent with today's radical
> egalitarianism, as Wikipedia is quite literally thoroughly demotic.
1. You've got an -ism for every occasion, don't ya. You're like a goddamn
philosophical Swiss army knife.
2. You're not allowed to use the word "demotic" in every single post. Please
turn the page on your word-a-day calendar.
badlands420
> Are you telling us that you are not homophobic?
I'm homophobic, but only against gay Canadians. They're all a bunch of
eh-holes.
Delia
Oh, goodness, gracious. I've made Jackson lose his temper. Now, Jacks,
it's time to step away from the computer, tell yourself "I don't really
know any of these people," and find something else to do for a while
until you feel better. Sure, you could read Marcus Aurelius or
somebody else that makes you feel superior to everyone else in the
world, but that will just aggravate the problem. Why don't you take
off that suit and put on something comfortable and then rent a funny
video? Fawlty Towers might be a good start. You could take it in half
hour segments so it's not too overwhelming at first. There's nothing
wrong with having a sense of humor. I understand from someone who once
met her that Mother Theresa had a fine one, and we all know about Bob's
love for corny jokes and bad puns.
Delia
You're right, of course. I've got to get my impulses under control.
He just makes such an excellent straight man it's been hard to resist.
I'll promise to try harder.
badlands420
>It's no wonder the French don't like us.
Maybe should start wearing berets and change our flag to a white cross on a
white background. Then France would think we were the shit.