Alyson Hannigan Playboy Q&A
David L. Pinkus
jealous of Alexis Denisof...
http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
kenm47
> For all who may be interested... and if you ARE interested you will be very
> jealous of Alexis Denisof...
>
> http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private? I'm no
prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
Ken
BTR1701
ken...@ix.netcom.com (kenm47) wrote:
If you feel that for some strange reason knowing stuff like this will
have a negative impact on your perceptions of an actress's performance,
then perhaps you should avoid reading Playboy interviews with the title
Dirty Dozen.
Randy Burgess
it's pretty clear she isn't gay.
She could be bi - but it doesn't seem like it from this interview.
Robert A. Barr
> "David L. Pinkus" <dp...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<J_077.24183$O81.9...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>...
> > For all who may be interested... and if you ARE interested you will be very
> > jealous of Alexis Denisof...
> >
> > http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
>
> Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private?
Nah. She's obviously having fun with sex, which is pretty healthy, provided some basic precautions are taken.
Gavin Clayton
wrote:
>> Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private?
>
>Nah. She's obviously having fun with sex, which is pretty healthy,
>provided some basic precautions are taken.
She doesn't seem to live an immoral lifestyle or anything. If the
article said she'd had, like, groupsex and stuff, it would totally
ruin my image of her. But she's just had a normal life with normal
boyfriends... no one-night-stands or anything.
Gavin Clayton
Blackberry
>
>She doesn't seem to live an immoral lifestyle or anything. If the
>article said she'd had, like, groupsex and stuff, it would totally
>ruin my image of her. But she's just had a normal life with normal
>boyfriends... no one-night-stands or anything.
You're not trolling to start a new Revenge-style thread here, are you? :) I
assume it was a throw-away comment.
--------------------
"Guys like me are mad for turtle meat." - Leonard Cohen
kenm47
Yeah, right. Well, when I got there I had that old car wreck
compulsion. Rather it wasn't there, but since it was I read it.
Still think it's more than anyone needs to know.
Ken
Gavin Clayton
>>She doesn't seem to live an immoral lifestyle or anything. If the
>>article said she'd had, like, groupsex and stuff, it would totally
>>ruin my image of her. But she's just had a normal life with normal
>>boyfriends... no one-night-stands or anything.
>
>You're not trolling to start a new Revenge-style thread here, are you? :) I
>assume it was a throw-away comment.
What's wrong? I think groupsex and one-night-stands are immoral.
Personal opinion. You don't have to agree.
Gavin Clayton
Kathy B.
kenm47 wrote:
> "Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private? I'm no
> prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
> negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
You know how sometimes you wish you hadn't read something? Well, that's how I feel: "Gee, a little too much information.
Now I kinda wish I hadn't read that."
Kathy
******CRANK******
EGK
>BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<btr1702-E332BE...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>> > > http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
>> If you feel that for some strange reason knowing stuff like this will
>> have a negative impact on your perceptions of an actress's performance,
>> then perhaps you should avoid reading Playboy interviews with the title
>> Dirty Dozen.
>
>Yeah, right. Well, when I got there I had that old car wreck
>compulsion. Rather it wasn't there, but since it was I read it.
>
>Still think it's more than anyone needs to know.
Nothing she said offended me but I can definitely see where you're coming
from. What's wrong with showing a little class and keeping private things
private? What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public
but then they bitch and moan incessently about their privacy being invaded
by the media or fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
ANIM8Rfsk
Personal opinion. You don't have to agree. >>
Interesting
Suppose you spend a first night with someone, and it just doesn't go well at
all - so badly you'd rather not be with that person again. It would be immoral
NOT to spend another night with them?
Lisa
TMI. Definitely TMI. I'm totally grossed out.
Lisa
Mike Zeares
>
> Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private? I'm no
> prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
> negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
Hello? "The Dirty Dozen, Playboy.com's 12-Question Celebrity
SEX-amination." What do you think they're going to be talking about?
If you didn't want to know about her sex life, you shouldn't have read
it.
-- Mike Zeares (and I AM jealous of AD)
Gavin Clayton
><< What's wrong? I think groupsex and one-night-stands are immoral.
>Personal opinion. You don't have to agree. >>
>
>Interesting
Why's that interesting? Why do you care? The last thing I want is an
argument about the morality of casual sex. I know a lot of people have
casual sex and they think it's okay, but I don't, and there's no point
arguing about it. It's just different opinions. But seeing as you
tried to make a point...
>Suppose you spend a first night with someone, and it just doesn't go well at
>all - so badly you'd rather not be with that person again. It would be immoral
>NOT to spend another night with them?
This seems to be the old argument: "If I spend months romancing
someone, then have sex with her and discover she's a crap shag, I've
wasted those months. Better to shag her on the first night to see if
she's worth knowing."
I find that a bit sick. I think sex *can* be fun recreation without
any love, but it *shouldn't* be. Sex and love should be linked. People
should only give the amazing personal gift of their sexuality to
people who genuinely deserve it. In casual sex with someone you hardly
know, how can you admire or respect them yet? How can a virtual
stranger who hasn't earned your admiration and respect *ever* deserve
the ultimate act of human interaction? Isn't it a waste of the amazing
act of sex, to do it with someone you don't even admire or respect? I
think it cheapens sex to do it without love... cheapens the sexual
value of the person who has given their body to lots of people who
don't deserve it.
Cheapening and devaluing something that is supposed to be precious and
divine is very upsetting to me.
But it's just my personal views. I'm not preaching, because I'm not
asking you to think the same way. Maybe it sounds like I'm insulting
those who choose to have casual sex... I don't mean to, but I do kinda
think people who have casual sex *insult* the concept of meaningful
loving sex, and perhaps it causes me to have a lack of respect for
their actions. Sorry. That's usually why an attitude sounds "preachy".
But don't get mad. If you disagree, please disagree as objectively as
you can :-)
Gavin Clayton
Yasminke
What did you expect from Playboy?
-- Jennifer
"This is worse than when he found out 'Star Trek' wasn't a documentary."
(Lindy in _My Best Friend is an Alien_ or in Canada _I Was a 6th Grade
Alien_)
Mike Zeares
says...
There was nothing in that interview that was particularly graphic. Aly herself
kind of talked around the subject. I've read worse in the Playboy Advisor.
If you have issues with a person discussing her sexuality, why did you follow a
link to Playboy.com? Did you think she would be discussing her Beanie Baby
collection?
-- Mike Zeares
ANIM8Rfsk
Well, you DID post the original comment.
<< This seems to be the old argument: "If I spend months romancing someone,
then have sex with her and discover she's a crap shag, I've wasted those
months. Better to shag her on the first night to see if she's worth knowing. >>
Not what I meant at all. And why are you so angry about this?
Now
You seem to have elaborated on your view to define a one night stand as 'having
sex right away' which really wasn't what I was asking about.
Suppose you've known somebody forever, you're in love, but you just aren't
compatible in bed. You would consider it immoral to not just agree to cut your
losses and go back to being friends? The flip side of which is, of course,
that's it's moral to go on having bad sex.
ANIM8Rfsk
and realized they should NOT be doing this? Take their making out as a
euphamism for sleeping together - it was clearly awful and a mistake. Would it
have been immoral for them to have stopped?
Blackberry
Well, to be fair, Playboy in the past was noted for its in-depth serious
interviews. It was often *the* most unbiased and thorough source for such
things; for example, their interview with Sandra Day O'Connor. I wondered a
little myself at the URL "...sex/feature/dirtydozen...", kind of hinting that it
wouldn't be that type of interview. :)
HudsonGrl
>Date: 7/24/01 3:34 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <88lrltgg5c9v3b5up...@4ax.com
>
>This seems to be the old argument: "If I spend months romancing
>someone, then have sex with her and discover she's a crap shag, I've
>wasted those months. Better to shag her on the first night to see if
>she's worth knowing."
>
gee, for a guy who is preaching morality and not "cheapening" sex, i am really
offended by your term "crap shag".
Paul Hammond
Randy Burgess wrote in message <3B5D8A20...@wwa.com>...
>well,
>
>it's pretty clear she isn't gay.
>
>She could be bi - but it doesn't seem like it from this interview.
>
This was even a question?
I *do* agree that this was *way* TMI - much better to give coy
answers than be straight upfront to look cool. But, I guess it's
flattering to have so much media attention.
Paul Hammond
Gavin Clayton wrote in message ...
I think it's the use of the word "normal" that is in question here. Perhaps
you should qualify that you think that one-to-one gay sex is *also* normal.
I think Blackberry is overreacting, though.
Paul
johndiem
Late last week, I almost posted a link to this interview in
this newsgroup with a little warning attached. Something along the
lines of "don't read this if you like to pretend that the character
and the actress are the same person." But I decided that one way or
another someone would feel that his/her intelligence was being
insulted so I decided not to touch it. That's one of my own personal
weaknesses incidentally, the fantasizing that the character and the
actress are the same person part. Besides, I'm pretty sure any such
warning would have been self-defeating given the curiousity it'd stir
up.
Second thing worth noting: Alyson did this interview because
she's promoting "American Pie 2," which as most people know is the
sequel to a very raunchy "teen" flick. She didn't just suddenly
decide to blurt out a bunch of private information about her sex life.
This is simply the type of article that the people selling the movie
figure that the target audience for American Pie 2 reads. Alyson's a
professional, and this is the most highly promoted project she's been
associated with to date, so she took one for the team. Not that she
was completely unwilling, I'm just saying that this wasn't directed at
Buffy fans or even her own self-promotion. They'll probably have one
of the other actors on the Howard Stern show discussing similar stuff.
That's just how it's done in the business.
-Diem
Paul Hammond
ANIM8Rfsk wrote in message <20010724152455...@ng-mq1.aol.com>...
A one-night-stand is an entirely different thing from trying out a
relationship,
and then finding that it doesn't work out, IMV.
Paul
ANIM8Rfsk
relationship,
and then finding that it doesn't work out, IMV. >>
But a lot of the time you don't KNOW in advance it's a one night stand.
Gavin Clayton
>You seem to have elaborated on your view to define a one night stand as 'having
>sex right away' which really wasn't what I was asking about.
>
>Suppose you've known somebody forever, you're in love, but you just aren't
>compatible in bed. You would consider it immoral to not just agree to cut your
>losses and go back to being friends? The flip side of which is, of course,
>that's it's moral to go on having bad sex.
I take a "one night stand" to mean recreational sex for fun, not
romance. Whether it's between strangers who meet in a bar, or
long-time friends who have sex just cos they're bored... if it's
purely for sexual fun, with no romantic feeling, I think it's immoral.
A courting couple who have sex once and find out they don't like it...
no, that's not casual. So I wouldn't call it a "one night stand".
Gavin Clayton
Blackberry
>
>This is what anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) just wrote:
>
>><< What's wrong? I think groupsex and one-night-stands are immoral.
>>Personal opinion. You don't have to agree. >>
>>
>>Interesting
>
>Why's that interesting? Why do you care? The last thing I want is an
>argument about the morality of casual sex. I know a lot of people have
>casual sex and they think it's okay, but I don't, and there's no point
>arguing about it. It's just different opinions. But seeing as you
>tried to make a point...
There is such a thing as non-casual group sex...
Gavin Clayton
>>This seems to be the old argument: "If I spend months romancing
>>someone, then have sex with her and discover she's a crap shag, I've
>>wasted those months. Better to shag her on the first night to see if
>>she's worth knowing."
>>
>
>gee, for a guy who is preaching morality and not "cheapening" sex, i am really
>offended by your term "crap shag".
But I'm talking about how it's *wrong* to think like that. I'm
condemning the very idea of a man having sex with a woman and having
thoughts like that. That's what I mean... to think that way, to think
of "crap shags", is what cheapens sexuality.
I don't want to snap at you, but, like, read things properly before
criticising me please.
Gavin Clayton
Gavin Clayton
>I think it's the use of the word "normal" that is in question here. Perhaps
>you should qualify that you think that one-to-one gay sex is *also* normal.
I think any sexual partnership is "normal" if it is based on love,
respect, admiration, etc. I wasn't saying only heterosexuality is
normal. This wasn't related to the "does this indicate she's bi?"
portion of the thread. I'm just glad she hasn't had any casual sex or
anything.
Gavin Clayton
Gavin Clayton
>There is such a thing as non-casual group sex...
You have to go and complicate it, don't you? :-)
I've heard of 3-way couples before... all living together in a kind of
3-way marriage. And presumably the sex is 3-way too. It leads to
interesting questions about whether it's moral... and I dunno. I think
a 2-way partnership is "correct" according to evolution, God,
genetics, whatever you choose to believe in most. You have to be more
than just friends to morally have sex with someone, and besides some
rare cases of 3-way relationships, I doubt a whole *group* of friends
could love each other equally in that way. Therefore I doubt a group
of people could have sex together according to my morals.
To have more than one partner to be in love with... that's just...
greedy! And to have sex without being in a relationship with a person
is wrong (to me). So why would you *want* to be in a loving
relationship with a group of people? Isn't one just right? Isn't one
the perfect number to invest your love in?
Gavin Clayton
ANIM8Rfsk
Whether it's between strangers who meet in a bar, or long-time friends who have
sex just cos they're bored... if it's purely for sexual fun, with no romantic
feeling, I think it's immoral. >>
Of course, the reason for romance is to get you to have sex, so they're just
jumping ahead a step.
Sandra S
to make very clear that she is NOT a lesbian, she
just plays one on BtVS?
Many actors seem to do that so it wouldn't surprise me.
Sandra
Steve Farrell
somebody called Sandra S made the following views known to all at
alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer:
It's difficult for actors to be viewed seperately from their on-screen
characters.
I once appeared in an amateur production playing a scientist, and was
accosted for weeks by small children saying 'You're that professor!'. Not
that I'm as convincing an actor as Alyson Hannigan or anything, but you get
the point.
Steve
--
I've been accused of a great many things in my time, but paranoia isn't one
of them. Unless people have been saying it behind my back.
Tim O'Connor
> "David L. Pinkus" <dp...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<J_077.24183$O81.9...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>...
>> For all who may be interested... and if you ARE interested you will be very
>> jealous of Alexis Denisof...
>>
>> http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
> Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private? I'm no
> prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
> negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
> Ken
No actually. She just comes across being a really nice, honest open person...
--
For the spam bots:
pres...@whitehouse.gov
vicepr...@whitehouse.gov
Ziggy.Sw...@team.telstra.com
in...@rambus.com
delirium
"Sandra S" <7521...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
news:9jl184$s7o$1...@suaar1ab.prod.compuserve.com...
> Wonder if Alyson Hannigan agreed to such an interview
> to make very clear that she is NOT a lesbian, she
> just plays one on BtVS?
Probably not a bad idea, either. Because it seems like a lot of people have
problems differentiating between the fact that she's just ACTING. That in
itself is pretty irritating, do they think SMG is really a vampire slayer in
real life? haha.
Forge
>Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private? I'm no
>prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
>negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
Well, she was talking to Playboy...
Mrs. Poet
Felicity for revealing the age when she first had sex, and said she didn't want
to see Carmen Diaz' butt crack on Vanity Fair?
Bet Gellar would really have something to say about THIS interview.
BTW, I hope Alyson checked with Alexis before getting into all of this stuff
publicly... :)
RosePoet
Tara and Anya together in 2001-2002!
"I made a promise to a lady." -- Spike in Knight mode
Mrs. Poet
>From: Mike Zeares mze...@yahoo.com
>Date: 7/24/2001 1:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9jkkt...@drn.newsguy.com>
Mike, I read the article knowing it was Playboy.com and not expecting an
interview the kind of interview I'd expect to see with Steven Tyler of
Aerosmith. Playboy does include articles which aren't all about intercourse.
I don't think she was morally wrong or anything, as long as Alexis is cool with
it, but her way of expressing herself about her sex life was a bit gross. To
me. YMMV.
There's an erotic way of putting things and there's an icky way of putting
things.
JMILESGRAN
deliberately going into the night with the intention that it will only be a
one-night stand and going into it otherwise. The former, seems to me, might be
using the other person (especially if they don't see it as a one-night stand)
and the latter, as you seem to suggest, thought otherwise.
Personally, i wish people would take such things more seriously.
Jeff Vavasour
"EGK" <e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q1grltkd5lb1h0h4o...@4ax.com...
> Nothing she said offended me but I can definitely see where you're coming
> from. What's wrong with showing a little class and keeping private things
> private?
Nothing. Nothing wrong with being forthright in receptive company either.
It's matter of taste/culture, etc.
I think the only problem here is that some people read the article not knowing
what they were getting into. MPAA or whoever must've been falling down on the
job... :-) Can't blame her though. It wasn't like she indiscrimately started
blabbing off at the dinner table, oblivious of a squeamish audience. (Brings
to mind Harlan Ellison's amusing anecdote of his one day as a Disney staff
writer, but I digress...)
> What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public
> but then they bitch and moan incessently about their privacy being invaded
> by the media or fans.
That's a bit of a generalisation. Some guard their privacy, some are
forthright, some don't mind what's printed as long as it's true, some don't
want anything printed that's not related to their professional work, etc.
There's nothing in the SAG contract that stipulated a uniform standard that
all celebrities must adhere to. Some might be hypocritical, but when A
behaves one way and B another, that does not make A+B hypocritical.
- Jeff
BTR1701
<gavin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> This seems to be the old argument: "If I spend months romancing
> someone, then have sex with her and discover she's a crap shag, I've
> wasted those months. Better to shag her on the first night to see if
> she's worth knowing."
>
> I find that a bit sick. I think sex *can* be fun recreation without
> any love, but it *shouldn't* be. Sex and love should be linked. People
> should only give the amazing personal gift of their sexuality to
> people who genuinely deserve it. In casual sex with someone you hardly
> know, how can you admire or respect them yet? How can a virtual
> stranger who hasn't earned your admiration and respect *ever* deserve
> the ultimate act of human interaction?
That assumes sex *is* the ultimate act of human interaction. You may
believe it to be but that doesn't make it an objective fact.
> Cheapening and devaluing something that is supposed to be precious and
> divine is very upsetting to me.
What proof is there that sex is supposed to be either precious or divine?
In the natural world around us, sex is a biological act like any other.
A cow or a dog or a chimpanzee place no more value or importance on sex
than any other bodily function, like eating or waste elimination. They
do it and move on to the next task.
It can be argued that it's merely anthropomorphic arrogance on our part
that we think *our* reproductive functions are so much more special or
divinely inspired.
Tom Breton
> Remember when Sarah Michelle Gellar publicly scolded the actress who plays
> Felicity for revealing the age when she first had sex, and said she didn't want
> to see Carmen Diaz' butt crack on Vanity Fair?
>
> Bet Gellar would really have something to say about THIS interview.
To be fair, what SMG said was a little tamer than that. It was one of
the TV guide interviews, she was talking about "I think we celebrities
reveal too much", and she mentioned them in passing.
Diaz had a total diva response, but Russell was gracious.
--
Tom Breton, http://world.std.com/~tob
Notice the media is reluctant to say Condit's a Democrat?
BTVS geek code, http://world.std.com/~tob/btvs-geek-code.html
1+ 2+++ 3- 4- 5- W--- B--? Bbot+++ F+ Dar++ J+ A&B--- A&Dar+ W&Moloch+++
T&O++ X&C+ XL+++ Cru--- Gav--- SR-! JM++ JW---- MN- DF--- JE+
Gavin Clayton
>> Cheapening and devaluing something that is supposed to be precious and
>> divine is very upsetting to me.
>
>What proof is there that sex is supposed to be either precious or divine?
No proof. I just wish it were.
(Why are you making me feel like Revvy, anyway?)
>It can be argued that it's merely anthropomorphic arrogance on our part
>that we think *our* reproductive functions are so much more special or
>divinely inspired.
We were given (or we evolved) emotion and conscious thought. As a
result, our entire psychology, and arguably our entire existence, is
based on sexuality. So I just wish sex was treated more reverently,
and not devalued by doing it for empty fun. Just my personal way of
looking at it.
Gavin Clayton
EGK
wrote:
>
>"EGK" <e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:q1grltkd5lb1h0h4o...@4ax.com...
>> Nothing she said offended me but I can definitely see where you're coming
>> from. What's wrong with showing a little class and keeping private things
>> private?
>
>Nothing. Nothing wrong with being forthright in receptive company either.
>It's matter of taste/culture, etc.
It's a sign of the times. Some applaud it and others bemoan the lack of
modesty and class so many people exhibit in public forums.
Like I said, the article didn't bother me at all but I can definitely see
where other people might find it a bit much. :)
>> What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public
>> but then they bitch and moan incessently about their privacy being invaded
>> by the media or fans.
>
>That's a bit of a generalisation. Some guard their privacy, some are
>forthright, some don't mind what's printed as long as it's true, some don't
>want anything printed that's not related to their professional work, etc.
>There's nothing in the SAG contract that stipulated a uniform standard that
>all celebrities must adhere to. Some might be hypocritical, but when A
>behaves one way and B another, that does not make A+B hypocritical.
Well, sure it's a generalization but it happens quite frequently and in my
opinion, hypocrisy is rampant in Hollyweird. Alyson is at the point in her
career where I thinks she believes any publicity is good publicity.
Titillation and sex sell. I'll let others argue whether that's a good or
bad thing. :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
Kanji Moder
news:4c527512.0107...@posting.google.com...
| "David L. Pinkus" <dp...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:<J_077.24183$O81.9...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>...
very
| > jealous of Alexis Denisof...
| >
| > http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
|
| prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
| negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
hrm...one thing I think many people forget is that actors/actresses aren't
always exactly like the characters they play.
--
Kanji Moder - Xander is my hero.
AIM - Kanji Moder
E-mail - kanji...@yahoo.com
BTR1701
<gavin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> This is what BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> just wrote:
>
> >> Cheapening and devaluing something that is supposed to be precious and
> >> divine is very upsetting to me.
> >
> >What proof is there that sex is supposed to be either precious or divine?
>
> No proof. I just wish it were.
>
> (Why are you making me feel like Revvy, anyway?)
I'm surely not because I recognize that *you* recognize that these are
merely your personal beliefs and not some crusade on your part to
cleanse the earth.
>
>
> >It can be argued that it's merely anthropomorphic arrogance on our part
> >that we think *our* reproductive functions are so much more special or
> >divinely inspired.
>
> We were given (or we evolved) emotion and conscious thought. As a
> result, our entire psychology, and arguably our entire existence, is
> based on sexuality. So I just wish sex was treated more reverently,
> and not devalued by doing it for empty fun. Just my personal way of
> looking at it.
But what you call empty fun is to other people not empty at all. It may
not be full of romantic love and emotional feeling but the "fun" is
something they enjoy and therefore not empty.
My take on it is that sex is nothing more than a way to propagate the
species and feelings of love and romance, while rewarding to the
individual (I have them myself toward my own family), are nothing more
than nature's way of making sure human parents bond together and care
for their offspring so that they will survive.
I can step back and look at human behavior from an objective/scientific
point of view while at the same time participating in those very natural
imperatives myself. I just see nothing mystical or supernatural about
sex. It's a function of nature and biology, nothing more. (IMHO)
H. McDaniel
BTR1701 wrote:
There's probably a guy duing college research on "the mating behavior of big
breasted women named after cities". All very professional of course ;) One
guy's objectivity is another's excuse. The very word, "objectivity" is loaded
with concepts like propaganda and cover-up when you look at it's historical
mis-application.
---
-McDaniel
surucan on Netscape-AOL Instant Messenger
S-pammers: rita3...@china.com postm...@china.com sa...@china.com
ro...@china.com
hlk
LRL94
>>> What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public
>>> but then they bitch and moan incessently about their privacy being invaded
>>> by the media or fans.
>>
The difference, of course, is that Ms. Hannigan *chose* to reveal these things.
That's a far cry from having someone break into your house or get in your face
with a camera or sell your love letters to a tabloid. It's basically the
difference between consensual sex and rape - one you do because you want to,
the other is forced upon you.
>>That's a bit of a generalisation. Some guard their privacy, some are
>>forthright, some don't mind what's printed as long as it's true, some don't
>>want anything printed that's not related to their professional work, etc.
>>There's nothing in the SAG contract that stipulated a uniform standard that
>>all celebrities must adhere to. Some might be hypocritical, but when A
>>behaves one way and B another, that does not make A+B hypocritical.
>
>Well, sure it's a generalization but it happens quite frequently and in my
>opinion, hypocrisy is rampant in Hollyweird.
As opposed to the rest of the world, where it doesn't exist at all :-)
Alyson is at the point in her
>career where I thinks she believes any publicity is good publicity.
Or she just isn't ashamed to talk about her sex life when an adult magazine
asks.
>Titillation and sex sell. I'll let others argue whether that's a good or
>bad thing. :)
>
>
Depends on who's doing the selling :-)
Loey
Early-Bird Reviews and more at -
http://members.aol.com/LRL94/home.html
Impending Giles-Withdrawal Line of the Week: "It may be that you can wrest
some information from that dread machine....That was a bit British, wasn't it?"
Mrs. Poet
>Date: 7/24/2001 7:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <m366chw...@world.std.com>
>
>fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) writes:
>
>> Remember when Sarah Michelle Gellar publicly scolded the actress who plays
>> Felicity for revealing the age when she first had sex, and said she didn't
>want
>> to see Carmen Diaz' butt crack on Vanity Fair?
>>
>> Bet Gellar would really have something to say about THIS interview.
>
>To be fair, what SMG said was a little tamer than that. It was one of
>the TV guide interviews, she was talking about "I think we celebrities
>reveal too much", and she mentioned them in passing.
>
Yes, I read the article, but she directly mentioned these two women as doing
something she thought they shouldn't do.
>Diaz had a total diva response,
I'd be cranky too if someone dissed me in TV Guide.
>but Russell was gracious.
She was a true lady.
Elf Bard
>In the natural world around us, sex is a biological act like any other.
>A cow or a dog or a chimpanzee place no more value or importance on sex
>than any other bodily function, like eating or waste elimination. They
>do it and move on to the next task.
And (in the case of our closest kin the bonobo chimps [I think]) conflic
resolution! :D Had an argument with your bestest bud? Shag her to say
"sorry"! :D
Elf Bard
>-- Mike Zeares (and I AM jealous of AD)
lol, who isnt? ;)
Nick Rheinwald
> Second thing worth noting: Alyson did this interview because
> she's promoting "American Pie 2," which as most people know is the
> sequel to a very raunchy "teen" flick. She didn't just suddenly
> decide to blurt out a bunch of private information about her sex life.
> This is simply the type of article that the people selling the movie
> figure that the target audience for American Pie 2 reads.
Exactly. In family-friendly publications and shows, she'll give
family-friendly answers to family-friendly questions. In Playboy,
she'll give raunchy answers to raunchy questions. The content of the
interview fits the content of the publication. She wouldn't have done
the Playboy interview in the first place if she weren't willing to
volunteer some titillating information about the goings-on in her
bedroom. Her prerogative. On the other hand, SMG refuses to talk
about private stuff in interviews, but the stuff she does talk about
is often full of outright lies. To each her own.
--Nick
Sarah Trombley
Nick Rheinwald <toast...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>john...@hotmail.com (johndiem) wrote in message news:<3b5defbf...@news.bellatlantic.net>...
>> Second thing worth noting: Alyson did this interview because
>> she's promoting "American Pie 2," which as most people know is the
>> sequel to a very raunchy "teen" flick. She didn't just suddenly
>> decide to blurt out a bunch of private information about her sex life.
>> This is simply the type of article that the people selling the movie
>> figure that the target audience for American Pie 2 reads.
>
>Exactly. In family-friendly publications and shows, she'll give
>family-friendly answers to family-friendly questions. In Playboy,
>she'll give raunchy answers to raunchy questions. The content of the
>interview fits the content of the publication.
Exactly. I have less than zero interest in the details of AH's sex life,
but this is an interview in _Playboy_. You know, the softcore porn
magazine? She's an adult, her audience are adults, if they want to be
collectively tacky...it's up to them.
--Sarah T.
Paul Hammond
Sandra S <7521...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
Nah - johndiem had it right - she agreed to the interview to
promote American Pie 2, and the marketeers expect lots
of Playboy readers to be interested in that film.
She talked about the way her character was supposed to
have done something naughty with her flute in the first film, and
barely referred to Buffy at all. Even when she was talking about
her boyfriend, the article didn't point out that it was "Angel star
Alexis Denisof", which it would have if they thought Buffy fans
would read it.
So, it was all have you had embarrassing or unusual sex, like
your character in AP?
Paul
Paul Hammond
ANIM8Rfsk wrote in message <20010724193729...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
I don't agree, because if that was the case couples would always split
up once they got bored with having sex with each other. Sex is just
*one* part of a healthy relationship, never its whole point.
For instance, why did Willow stay with Tara and care for her after
she was brainsucked ? - she was clearly useless for sex at that point,
so Willow had no reason to knock herself out, since romance was
now entirely useless.
Paul
Paul Hammond
ANIM8Rfsk wrote in message <20010724183432...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
><< A one-night-stand is an entirely different thing from trying out a
>relationship,
>and then finding that it doesn't work out, IMV. >>
>
>But a lot of the time you don't KNOW in advance it's a one night stand.
>
Then it's not a one-night-stand, and we're working from different
definitions of what one is.
I understand a one-night-stand to be when you go out for the night,
pick someone up, take them to your home or their home with no
thought in your mind that what you are doing is more than physical
fun, and then you leave, either before or after breakfast, and never
mention the idea of getting in touch again.
For me, a relationship never starts like that. The defining characteristic
is your intention to just have sex with the person that you meet, because
you and she are both feeling horny when you meet.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Gavin Clayton wrote in message ...
>This is what Blackberry <le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com> just wrote:
>
>>There is such a thing as non-casual group sex...
>
>You have to go and complicate it, don't you? :-)
>
Well, to complicate it further, there have been *many* models
for human relationships apart from the "monogamous partnership"
one which is familiar to us.
For instance, even today Muslims are permitted to marry as many
as four wives, and this pattern was common in the past, as well
as in Utah.
Now, *I* think that Mormon multiple marriages are pretty wierd, but
when I saw one in a documentary programme last year, I didn't
feel that the wives' love for their husband was not genuine. I thought
he was a scumbag and a borderline child-abuser, but that's a different
issue.
I also know that *I* couldn't possibly marry more than one woman
at the same time - but I wouldn't necessarily say that arrangements
that I'm not familiar with were morally wrong.
Paul
Blackberry
>
>I've heard of 3-way couples before... all living together in a kind of
>3-way marriage. And presumably the sex is 3-way too. It leads to
>interesting questions about whether it's moral... and I dunno. I think
>a 2-way partnership is "correct" according to evolution, God,
>genetics, whatever you choose to believe in most. [...]
In general, I agree with what you've said and couldn't offer any sort of strong
counter-argument.
>To have more than one partner to be in love with... that's just...
>greedy! And to have sex without being in a relationship with a person
>is wrong (to me). So why would you *want* to be in a loving
>relationship with a group of people? Isn't one just right? Isn't one
>the perfect number to invest your love in?
I don't consider it greed. Rather, I consider it from two angles:
- I'm not egotistical enough to think that I could ever be everything that
another person could and would want and satisfy their every last desire and
fantasy perfectly; likewise, I don't believe a single person could do that for
me.
- There is enough love in my heart for me to love someone with no limits and
still love others. I love all of my friends and I love my mate.
- I love to share wonderful things with my good friends.
--------------------
"Guys like me are mad for turtle meat." - Leonard Cohen
Paul Hammond
Blackberry wrote in message <9jmkt...@drn.newsguy.com>...
ah, but the *question* is do you want to *mate* with your friends.
(here we encounter the problem in the English language that there
are different *types* of love, but only one word for them all - so
we adjectivise. Family love, love for friends, sexual love etc., etc)
Paul
Paul Hammond
Elf Bard wrote in message <3b5e...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
The bonobos do indeed fuck like, well, bonobos. Some other primates
(gorillas, I think) mate for life and virtually never stray.
Most of our close relatives are pretty similar to ourselves - they identify
an official partner, but that doesn't necessarily stop them from
sleeping around on the side.
Paul
Corwin2
<dp...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> writes:
>For all who may be interested... and if you ARE interested you will be very
>jealous of Alexis Denisof...
>
>http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
Q&A ?
Q&A ?
Q&A ?
nevermind...
EGK
>EGK wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public
>>>> but then they bitch and moan incessently about their privacy being invaded
>>>> by the media or fans.
>>>
>
>
>The difference, of course, is that Ms. Hannigan *chose* to reveal these things.
> That's a far cry from having someone break into your house or get in your face
>with a camera or sell your love letters to a tabloid. It's basically the
>difference between consensual sex and rape - one you do because you want to,
>the other is forced upon you.
I never said a thing about breaking the law. I just don't think celebrities
or anyone for that matter should ever bitch and complain about people trying
to find out about their private lives after exposing some of their most
private doings in public Don't go exposing yourself then be surprised if
people want to take pictures of it. Make no mistake, it's all about making
money whether someone's doing an interview for Playboy or finds themselves
the subject of a tabloid article. I'd bet a good portion of tabloid
articles come from access to the celebs themselves who need the attention.
Someone else even made the point that she's probably doing interviews like
that to promote American Pie2 which is a sex comedy. I'd change your
analogy to public prostitution rather then consensual sex which most people
tend to keep private.
It's funny, Alyson's been quoted numerous times about people constantly
bringing up her flute line from American Pie. She makes it sound like it's
a little embarrassing. I'm sure after reading that interview people might
have a lot worse things to ask her now. :)
>>>That's a bit of a generalisation. Some guard their privacy, some are
>>>forthright, some don't mind what's printed as long as it's true, some don't
>>>want anything printed that's not related to their professional work, etc.
>>>There's nothing in the SAG contract that stipulated a uniform standard that
>>>all celebrities must adhere to. Some might be hypocritical, but when A
>>>behaves one way and B another, that does not make A+B hypocritical.
>>
>>Well, sure it's a generalization but it happens quite frequently and in my
>>opinion, hypocrisy is rampant in Hollyweird.
>
>
>As opposed to the rest of the world, where it doesn't exist at all :-)
Most of us in the rest of the real world don't have to worry about being
asked to give our opinions in magazines like Playboy or be put on pedestals
by fans. Celebrities and sports stars who say they don't want to be role
models are really saying they don't want any responsibility thrust upon
them. They just want the attention and the money.
>
>Alyson is at the point in her
>>career where I thinks she believes any publicity is good publicity.
>
>
>Or she just isn't ashamed to talk about her sex life when an adult magazine
>asks.
It's not about being ashamed. It's about the need to look cool. Like I
said, it didn't bother me personally. I just found it a little tacky. More
like something you'd find a porn star talking about on Howard Stern not
something a serious actress would be wanting in print. People can say,
"yeah, but it's Playboy" all they want but obviously a lot of people have
access to this interview without being able to buy playboy.
I'm of an age and persuasion where I think it's much sexier to leave some
things to the imagination. That's just me. Other's have an anything goes,
the more the better attitude which I find tacky.
Anyway, it doesn't affect my image of her as an actress because I don't
pretend to know her or think she's the characters she plays.
Tom Breton
> "EGK" <e...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q1grltkd5lb1h0h4o...@4ax.com...
>
> > Nothing she said offended me but I can definitely see where you're coming
> > from. What's wrong with showing a little class and keeping private things
> > private?
>
> Nothing. Nothing wrong with being forthright in receptive company either.
> It's matter of taste/culture, etc.
>
> I think the only problem here is that some people read the article not knowing
> what they were getting into. MPAA or whoever must've been falling down on the
> job... :-)
I've since seen the page, and there's a Playboy logo and so forth.
It's also clear from the URL. Nobody should claim they didn't know
what they were getting into.
> Can't blame her though. It wasn't like she indiscrimately started
> blabbing off at the dinner table, oblivious of a squeamish audience.
Exactly. Good point.
K.B.Lamke
"Robert A. Barr" wrote:
>
> Nah. She's obviously having fun with sex, which is pretty healthy, provided some basic precautions are taken.
I'd have to say that "don't drive and have sex at the same time" should be one of those precautions.
K.B.Lamke
LRL94
>On 25 Jul 2001 06:15:28 GMT, lr...@aol.com (LRL94) wrote:
>
>>EGK wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public
>>>>> but then they bitch and moan incessently about their privacy being
>invaded
>>>>> by the media or fans.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>The difference, of course, is that Ms. Hannigan *chose* to reveal these
>things.
>> That's a far cry from having someone break into your house or get in your
>face
>>with a camera or sell your love letters to a tabloid. It's basically the
>>difference between consensual sex and rape - one you do because you want to,
>>the other is forced upon you.
>
>I never said a thing about breaking the law. I just don't think celebrities
>or anyone for that matter should ever bitch and complain about people trying
>to find out about their private lives after exposing some of their most
>private doings in public Don't go exposing yourself then be surprised if
>people want to take pictures of it.
You're missing the distinction I was making. If people *choose* to reveal
certain things about their personal lives, that's fine. If someone else
spreads around private information without permission, or deliberately invades
an individual's privacy (legally or not), that's out of line.
Besides, when has Alyson Hannigan complained about her privacy being invaded?
Does her doing this interview really have any bearing on your argument at all?
Make no mistake, it's all about making
>money whether someone's doing an interview for Playboy or finds themselves
>the subject of a tabloid article.
Well, *yeah*. I think everyone already knew that (at least I hope they did).
I'd bet a good portion of tabloid
>articles come from access to the celebs themselves who need the attention.
Most celebs aren't really that desperate for attention - all their publicists
have to do is call a talk show or People magazine, and they can get all the
attention they want. Even people on Alyson Hannigan's level can get magazine
interviews without too much trouble, especially when they have both a hit TV
show *and* a major movie coming out.
Yes, some B-level celebs make a deal with the devil and go along with tabloid
articles because they need the exposure, but major stars aren't that hard up
for media attention. They can get publicity from much more reputable outlets,
who aren't as likely to stab them in the back as tabloids are.
>Someone else even made the point that she's probably doing interviews like
>that to promote American Pie2 which is a sex comedy.
No kidding. What tipped you off? The ads for the movie all over the site or
the fact that it was mentioned about 5 times in the article?
I'd change your
>analogy to public prostitution rather then consensual sex which most people
>tend to keep private.
Again, you're missing the point. It's a matter of consent, not exposure. Even
prostitutes get a choice in the matter (theoretically, at least).
>It's funny, Alyson's been quoted numerous times about people constantly
>bringing up her flute line from American Pie. She makes it sound like it's
>a little embarrassing. I'm sure after reading that interview people might
>have a lot worse things to ask her now. :)
>
If she found it embarassing, she would never have said the line in the first
place. She's obviously not shy about these things.
She does, however, seem a little surprised at how successful the movie was and
how much attention she got for that one line. Everyone involved with the movie
has expressed surprise that it did as well as it did - it started out as just a
low-budget comedy, and nobody really saw it as having much box office potential
before it opened. The whole phenomenon caught a lot of people off-guard.
>
>>>>That's a bit of a generalisation. Some guard their privacy, some are
>>>>forthright, some don't mind what's printed as long as it's true, some
>don't
>>>>want anything printed that's not related to their professional work, etc.
>>>>There's nothing in the SAG contract that stipulated a uniform standard
>that
>>>>all celebrities must adhere to. Some might be hypocritical, but when A
>>>>behaves one way and B another, that does not make A+B hypocritical.
>>>
>>>Well, sure it's a generalization but it happens quite frequently and in my
>>>opinion, hypocrisy is rampant in Hollyweird.
>>
>>
>>As opposed to the rest of the world, where it doesn't exist at all :-)
>
>Most of us in the rest of the real world don't have to worry about being
>asked to give our opinions in magazines like Playboy or be put on pedestals
>by fans.
What does that have to do with anything? My point was simply that hypocrisy is
rampant everywhere - Hollywood doesn't have any more of it than any other
business.
Celebrities and sports stars who say they don't want to be role
>models are really saying they don't want any responsibility thrust upon
>them.
No, they're saying they don't want to be *role models*, because that's not
their job. Their job is to act or sing or play a sport or whatever. Their only
responsibility is to do that job well and entertain people. Anything else they
choose to do is entirely up to them, and shouldn't be imposed by total
strangers who think they own them just because they're famous.
Besides, what does any of this have to do with Alyson Hannigan? Are you saying
she has a responsibility to be a role model? To whom, and for what reason?
They just want the attention and the money.
>
Of course, they want attention and money. What are they supposed to want?
Poverty and obscurity? That still doesn't mean they have to be role models, or
that they don't have a right to a personal life.
>>
>>Alyson is at the point in her
>>>career where I thinks she believes any publicity is good publicity.
>>
>>
>>Or she just isn't ashamed to talk about her sex life when an adult magazine
>>asks.
>
>It's not about being ashamed. It's about the need to look cool.
Like I
>said, it didn't bother me personally. I just found it a little tacky. More
>like something you'd find a porn star talking about on Howard Stern not
>something a serious actress would be wanting in print. People can say,
>"yeah, but it's Playboy" all they want but obviously a lot of people have
>access to this interview without being able to buy playboy.
>I'm of an age and persuasion where I think it's much sexier to leave some
>things to the imagination. That's just me. Other's have an anything goes,
>the more the better attitude which I find tacky.
>
You're sure not acting like it doesn't bother you.
Look, I think it's a bit tacky, too, but I'm not going to assign all kinds of
negative ulterior motives to someone just because they obviously feel
differently.
Yes, Hannigan is doing this to publicize her film and advance her career. So
what? That's part of being an actor, and it's entirely her choice to make.
That still wouldn't make it OK for someone to disseminate personal information
about her without her permission. Which has been my point from the beginning.
>Anyway, it doesn't affect my image of her as an actress because I don't
>pretend to know her or think she's the characters she plays.
That's good to know. So where are all these comments about "hypocrisy" and
"role models" coming from?
Elf Bard
>The bonobos do indeed fuck like, well, bonobos. Some other primates
>(gorillas, I think) mate for life and virtually never stray.
I know, but I chose the bonobo example cause I love that idea! :D Imagine a
world where sex was acceptable as conflic resolution! Make love not war!
ACK!! I just had the mental image of the Palastinian (sp?) and Israeli
leaders working things out bonobo-style >.<;;;;
>Most of our close relatives are pretty similar to ourselves - they identify
>an official partner, but that doesn't necessarily stop them from
>sleeping around on the side.
true enough.
ev...@tiac.net
<ndvrlt89dvtufbbk2...@4ax.com>:
>This is what Blackberry <le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com> just wrote:
>
>>There is such a thing as non-casual group sex...
>
>You have to go and complicate it, don't you? :-)
>
>I've heard of 3-way couples before... all living together in a kind
of
>3-way marriage. And presumably the sex is 3-way too. It leads to
>interesting questions about whether it's moral... and I dunno. I
think
>a 2-way partnership is "correct" according to evolution, God,
>genetics, whatever you choose to believe in most. You have to be
more
>than just friends to morally have sex with someone, and besides some
>rare cases of 3-way relationships, I doubt a whole *group* of
friends
>could love each other equally in that way. Therefore I doubt a group
>of people could have sex together according to my morals.
>
>To have more than one partner to be in love with... that's just...
>greedy! And to have sex without being in a relationship with a
person
>is wrong (to me). So why would you *want* to be in a loving
>relationship with a group of people? Isn't one just right? Isn't one
>the perfect number to invest your love in?
>
>Gavin Clayton
>
I promised myself I wouldnt get involved in threads like
this one...(*sigh* another broken promise*)
A 2-way partnership is not correct in evolution, hence: infidelity,
cuckoldry and the 4 yr-itch (*when a man can leave a mate because the
kid can find food on its own in a hunter/gatherer setting*).
Personally I agree with monogamous 2 parent families but..efvolution
sint backing me up..nor is it you...
EGK
>EGK wrote:
>
>
>>On 25 Jul 2001 06:15:28 GMT, lr...@aol.com (LRL94) wrote:
>>
>>>EGK wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public
>>>>>> but then they bitch and moan incessently about their privacy being
>>invaded
>>>>>> by the media or fans.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>The difference, of course, is that Ms. Hannigan *chose* to reveal these
>>things.
>>> That's a far cry from having someone break into your house or get in your
>>face
>>>with a camera or sell your love letters to a tabloid. It's basically the
>>>difference between consensual sex and rape - one you do because you want to,
>>>the other is forced upon you.
>>
>>I never said a thing about breaking the law. I just don't think celebrities
>>or anyone for that matter should ever bitch and complain about people trying
>>to find out about their private lives after exposing some of their most
>>private doings in public Don't go exposing yourself then be surprised if
>>people want to take pictures of it.
>
>
>You're missing the distinction I was making. If people *choose* to reveal
>certain things about their personal lives, that's fine. If someone else
>spreads around private information without permission, or deliberately invades
>an individual's privacy (legally or not), that's out of line.
I got the distinction you're are making but where have I ever said
different? Alyson herself says in the interview she hopes her mom doesn't
read it. Maybe she's just kidding or doesn't care but she says it. I'm
simply saying that if she chooses to expose herself in this way, she
shouldst ever be embarrassed or offended if someone brings it up or asks
ever more private questions in the guise of just wanting an interview or
just simply being nosy. Sure she then has a right to say "none of your
business" but she certainly shouldn't ever be offended if others raise
similar questions.
>Besides, when has Alyson Hannigan complained about her privacy being invaded?
>Does her doing this interview really have any bearing on your argument at all?
I didn't say she had. If you go back and read my original post I said I
wasn't bothered by Hannigan. I said what got me was the celebrities who want
it both ways. When they want to promote a movie or something they're
looking for any attention they can get and will sometimes do very outlandish
things to get it. Later on they'll scream bloody murder about the evil
paparazzi always invading their privacy. The very same paparazzi they USE
and cozy up to when they need them.
>
>I'd bet a good portion of tabloid
>>articles come from access to the celebs themselves who need the attention.
>
>
>Most celebs aren't really that desperate for attention - all their publicists
>have to do is call a talk show or People magazine, and they can get all the
>attention they want. Even people on Alyson Hannigan's level can get magazine
>interviews without too much trouble, especially when they have both a hit TV
>show *and* a major movie coming out.
Oh, come on. They most certainly are often desperate for attention. All
it takes is one bad movie for some stars and they're desperate for any
attention they can get.
>>Someone else even made the point that she's probably doing interviews like
>>that to promote American Pie2 which is a sex comedy.
>
>
>No kidding. What tipped you off? The ads for the movie all over the site or
>the fact that it was mentioned about 5 times in the article?
No need to be snide is there? I merely mentioned someone else's comment
mentioning she may have only done that type of interview in order to hype
the movie.
>
>
>I'd change your
>>analogy to public prostitution rather then consensual sex which most people
>>tend to keep private.
>
>
>Again, you're missing the point. It's a matter of consent, not exposure. Even
>prostitutes get a choice in the matter (theoretically, at least).
yeah, yeah, yeah. I love people who keep telling me I'm missing their point
as if that gives it more weight. Even you admit here she's hyping the
movie. That's a hell of a lot more like prostitution, (paid for) then your
earlier analogy of consensual sex vs rape.
>
>>It's funny, Alyson's been quoted numerous times about people constantly
>>bringing up her flute line from American Pie. She makes it sound like it's
>>a little embarrassing. I'm sure after reading that interview people might
>>have a lot worse things to ask her now. :)
>>
>
>
>If she found it embarassing, she would never have said the line in the first
>place. She's obviously not shy about these things.
She's mentioned she finds it embarrassing at how many times it's been
brought up since then.
>>Most of us in the rest of the real world don't have to worry about being
>>asked to give our opinions in magazines like Playboy or be put on pedestals
>>by fans.
>
>
>What does that have to do with anything? My point was simply that hypocrisy is
>rampant everywhere - Hollywood doesn't have any more of it than any other
>business.
I guess that's why the whole image of Hollywood is like it is, huh? Only
other place I can imagine it's that bad is Washington DC.
>
>Celebrities and sports stars who say they don't want to be role
>>models are really saying they don't want any responsibility thrust upon
>>them.
>
>
>No, they're saying they don't want to be *role models*, because that's not
>their job. Their job is to act or sing or play a sport or whatever. Their only
>responsibility is to do that job well and entertain people. Anything else they
>choose to do is entirely up to them, and shouldn't be imposed by total
>strangers who think they own them just because they're famous.
But to many impressionable fans they ARE role models. No one wants to take
any responsibility for anything they do nowadays.
>Besides, what does any of this have to do with Alyson Hannigan? Are you saying
>she has a responsibility to be a role model? To whom, and for what reason?
I never said it had anything to do with her personally. You took one thing
I said out of context and have made two long posts on it since.
"What gets me is celebrities will say things like this in public but then
they bitch and moan incessantly about their privacy being invaded by the
media or fans." So far, Aly hasn't bitched or moaned but many do.
>
>
>They just want the attention and the money.
>>
>
>
>Of course, they want attention and money. What are they supposed to want?
>Poverty and obscurity? That still doesn't mean they have to be role models, or
>that they don't have a right to a personal life.
I notice how you cut my post up to make it look like I said something
different. I happen to think celebrities and sports stars do owe a little
something to their fans for lavishing the attention and money on them.
Often it's simply about carrying yourself with a little dignity and class,
two things which apparently don't mean much today.
>>>Or she just isn't ashamed to talk about her sex life when an adult magazine
>>>asks.
>>
>>It's not about being ashamed. It's about the need to look cool.
>Like I
>>said, it didn't bother me personally. I just found it a little tacky. More
>>like something you'd find a porn star talking about on Howard Stern not
>>something a serious actress would be wanting in print. People can say,
>>"yeah, but it's Playboy" all they want but obviously a lot of people have
>>access to this interview without being able to buy playboy.
>>I'm of an age and persuasion where I think it's much sexier to leave some
>>things to the imagination. That's just me. Other's have an anything goes,
>>the more the better attitude which I find tacky.
>>
>
>
>You're sure not acting like it doesn't bother you.
Actually, you're bothering me a lot more because you seem insistent on
trying to argue points i never made.
>Look, I think it's a bit tacky, too, but I'm not going to assign all kinds of
>negative ulterior motives to someone just because they obviously feel
>differently.
Hmm, you call it a bit tacky too but then say you're not going to assign any
negative motives. I didn't assign any to her personally either. The one
comment was about her interview and the rest was general comments about
things that I did dislike.
>Yes, Hannigan is doing this to publicize her film and advance her career. So
>what? That's part of being an actor, and it's entirely her choice to make.
>That still wouldn't make it OK for someone to disseminate personal information
>about her without her permission. Which has been my point from the beginning.
You act like I've said things like that would be ok when I never did so why
are you arguing with me about it? Here's an example of what I'm talking
about. If Aly's at a fan gathering and someone who's read the Playboy
interview asks her further questions like that, she shouldn't be surprised
or offended now. The person asking wouldn't have any class either but
she'll have left herself open to it.
>
>>Anyway, it doesn't affect my image of her as an actress because I don't
>>pretend to know her or think she's the characters she plays.
>
>
>That's good to know. So where are all these comments about "hypocrisy" and
>"role models" coming from?
They were comments made in response to your own. You seemed to feel a need
to attack me for my opinions simply because you don't agree with them.
Look, all I said in my original (and fairly short) post was her interview
didn't bother me at all, it was for titillation value. I then said I could
understand how it might bother others though. You're reading a hell of a
lot more in to that then I ever said.
BTR1701
<e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I didn't say she had. If you go back and read my original post I said I
> wasn't bothered by Hannigan. I said what got me was the celebrities who
> want it both ways. When they want to promote a movie or something they're
> looking for any attention they can get and will sometimes do very
> outlandish things to get it. Later on they'll scream bloody murder about the evil
> paparazzi always invading their privacy. The very same paparazzi they
> USE and cozy up to when they need them.
There's a difference between reporters asking prying questions of
celebrities in interviews and paparazzi that trespass onto private
property, climb over fences to snap pictures of people in the privacy of
their home or, in the case of Arnold Schwarzenegger, run their car off
the road in order to get a good picture. Arnold had his young child in
the car and was rightfully outraged when one of these vultures
endangered his family with a 2-ton vehicle just to snap a photo of him.
That particular photographer is currently serving a prison term, by the
way, and it serves him right.
EGK
I agree with you. I never mentioned someone being allowed to break the law
to invade someone's privacy. Chasing Princess Diana's car in which she was
killed was going way over the line too.
LRL94
Look, forget it. We obviously disagree strongly about what should be expected
of celebrities and what rights they should have regarding their personal
business. I think you're making a lot of unfair generalizations, about
Hollywood and society as a whole, and reducing complicated issues to
black-and-white arguments. You obviously think that your generalizations are
accurate and your arguments cover all the bases. So there's not much point in
continuing.
Also, I was trying to respond to your post point-by-point, in a concerted
effort *not* to take it out of context. I apologize if that effort failed.
Loey
Beren
-B = )
Paul Hammond
Elf Bard wrote in message <3b5f...@news.iprimus.com.au>...
>
>
>>The bonobos do indeed fuck like, well, bonobos. Some other primates
>>(gorillas, I think) mate for life and virtually never stray.
>
>
>I know, but I chose the bonobo example cause I love that idea! :D Imagine a
>world where sex was acceptable as conflic resolution! Make love not war!
>ACK!! I just had the mental image of the Palastinian (sp?) and Israeli
>leaders working things out bonobo-style >.<;;;;
>
Eww! And you just had to make us all imagine the same thing!
Now, *that* kind of gay sex *is* unhealthy and immoral.
Paul Hammond
EGK wrote in message ...
>I didn't say she had. If you go back and read my original post I said I
>wasn't bothered by Hannigan. I said what got me was the celebrities who
want
>it both ways. When they want to promote a movie or something they're
>looking for any attention they can get and will sometimes do very
outlandish
>things to get it. Later on they'll scream bloody murder about the evil
>paparazzi always invading their privacy. The very same paparazzi they USE
>and cozy up to when they need them.
>
Sure, but that's just the way it goes, isn't it? Everyone loves good press,
and hates bad press - but you can't turn it on and off like a tap, as
*every* celeb finds to their cost. Nice stories about your latest
movie are great - but it's not so great when every time you make
a new movie all everyone says is "will this be a bigger turkey than
her last one". And some newspapers prefer to write about your
argument with your mom than your latest project...
Still, hypocritical it may be, but it doesn't seem any more hypocritical
than *most* people are.
>
>>>Someone else even made the point that she's probably doing interviews
like
>>>that to promote American Pie2 which is a sex comedy.
>>
>>
>>No kidding. What tipped you off? The ads for the movie all over the site
or
>>the fact that it was mentioned about 5 times in the article?
>
>No need to be snide is there? I merely mentioned someone else's comment
>mentioning she may have only done that type of interview in order to hype
>the movie.
>
It's the main reason why famous people get on the interview circuit.
Sometimes, if you watch a lot of TV, you'll see one person's shtick
four or five times over in the same week, and usually that's because
a new show is opening next month, the new book has just been
published, or there's a new album coming out.
>>
>>>It's funny, Alyson's been quoted numerous times about people constantly
>>>bringing up her flute line from American Pie. She makes it sound like
it's
>>>a little embarrassing. I'm sure after reading that interview people
might
>>>have a lot worse things to ask her now. :)
>>>
>>
>>
>>If she found it embarassing, she would never have said the line in the
first
>>place. She's obviously not shy about these things.
>
>She's mentioned she finds it embarrassing at how many times it's been
>brought up since then.
>
Yeah, well it seems to be the thing that has stuck from the first film,
so the Playboy piece kinda started from there and went on.
>
>I guess that's why the whole image of Hollywood is like it is, huh? Only
>other place I can imagine it's that bad is Washington DC.
>
Yup. Politicians. The other people who *need* the press, but only
want it to ever say good things about them, and bad things about
the opposition, and then, they're always a useful whipping boy, if
you want to say it wasn't the government's fault there was no sensible
debate, and everyone thinks politics is boring.
At least some pop stars can sing, and some actors can act!
>I happen to think celebrities and sports stars do owe a little
>something to their fans for lavishing the attention and money on them.
>Often it's simply about carrying yourself with a little dignity and class,
>two things which apparently don't mean much today.
>
Well, if they get successful, they usually get pots of cash, and I think
it isn't excessive to expect *some* awareness of duty and responsibility.
Of course, rock idols should never be too square!
>
>>Yes, Hannigan is doing this to publicize her film and advance her career.
So
>>what? That's part of being an actor, and it's entirely her choice to make.
>>That still wouldn't make it OK for someone to disseminate personal
information
>>about her without her permission. Which has been my point from the
beginning.
>
>You act like I've said things like that would be ok when I never did so why
>are you arguing with me about it? Here's an example of what I'm talking
>about. If Aly's at a fan gathering and someone who's read the Playboy
>interview asks her further questions like that, she shouldn't be surprised
>or offended now. The person asking wouldn't have any class either but
>she'll have left herself open to it.
>
I'm with you on that. I've seen sexy girls interviewed in British lad mags,
like Loaded, where they get asked slightly softer versions of the
Playboy questions - it's all about sex and boyfriends, and what it's like
to be sexy - well, Alyson did a photoshoot for FHM, so you know what
it's like. But, the *best* interviews in those mags, to me, are the ones
where the woman doesn't act like the questions embarrass her, or
that she thinks sex is wrong or dirty, but she just gives enough hints
to give you an idea, but draws definite lines about what she's prepared
to reveal.
Paul
Serial # 19781010
wrote:
>Wonder if Alyson Hannigan agreed to such an interview
>to make very clear that she is NOT a lesbian, she
>just plays one on BtVS?
>Many actors seem to do that so it wouldn't surprise me.
If Alyson was that worried that people might think she IS a lesbian
she sure as hell wouldn't do a "cheesecake" photo layout for Out
magazine....
http://www.out.com/html/main.html
I've downloaded all the scanned pix already but still am tempted to
buy the mag even though I'm slightly out of their targeted
demographic...
Re the Q & A in the Playboy article-- I'm surprised they didn't ask
the glaringly obvious question about whether the carpet matched the
curtains but then again almost all redheads get that asked at one
point or another.
Marysia
>"David L. Pinkus" <dp...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<J_077.24183$O81.9...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>...
>> For all who may be interested... and if you ARE interested you will be very
>> jealous of Alexis Denisof...
>>
>> http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
>
>Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private? I'm no
>prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
>negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
Well if you're gonna read an interview done by Playboy then you're
gonna be reading about sex. Personally it doesn't bother me at all, if
that sort of thing did I wouldn't have read it. I thought it was kind
of sweet actually, especially the last bit about her current boyfriend
(Alexis right?).
--
Marysia in Seattle, www.marysia.com - remove the "spanner" to email
music at www.mp3.com/marysia inc Spike inspired song 'Darker than This'
"And you can use my skin, to bury secrets in" - Fiona Apple
Marysia
<pa...@hammond3671.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I *do* agree that this was *way* TMI - much better to give coy
>answers than be straight upfront to look cool. But, I guess it's
>flattering to have so much media attention.
Maybe she gave upfront answers cause that's who she is, how do you
know she was trying to be "cool".
Marysia
>I got the distinction you're are making but where have I ever said
>different? Alyson herself says in the interview she hopes her mom doesn't
>read it. Maybe she's just kidding or doesn't care but she says it. I'm
>simply saying that if she chooses to expose herself in this way, she
>shouldst ever be embarrassed or offended if someone brings it up or asks
>ever more private questions in the guise of just wanting an interview or
>just simply being nosy. Sure she then has a right to say "none of your
>business" but she certainly shouldn't ever be offended if others raise
>similar questions.
So if Alyson has an interview with Playboy she shouldn't be offended
is a stranger walks up to her on the street and asks if she likes to
take it up the ass?
I presume this is the thinking behind the people who email me asking
if I'll do hard porn just cause I have nude photos on my website. And
the photographers who assume I'll fuck them just cause I'll take my
clothes off for a photo shoot.
Personally I reserve my right to be offended and I'm sure Alyson does
too.
>>If she found it embarassing, she would never have said the line in the first
>>place. She's obviously not shy about these things.
>
>She's mentioned she finds it embarrassing at how many times it's been
>brought up since then.
There's a time and a place for everything. I think I can use enough
sense to figure out not to walk up to her going "flute, eh, nudge
nudge, wink wink". People should think before they open their mouths
and I understand that she might be embarassed to constantly have to
get that line thrown at her and I think that's fair enough.
>>Yes, Hannigan is doing this to publicize her film and advance her career. So
>>what? That's part of being an actor, and it's entirely her choice to make.
>>That still wouldn't make it OK for someone to disseminate personal information
>>about her without her permission. Which has been my point from the beginning.
>
>You act like I've said things like that would be ok when I never did so why
>are you arguing with me about it? Here's an example of what I'm talking
>about. If Aly's at a fan gathering and someone who's read the Playboy
>interview asks her further questions like that, she shouldn't be surprised
>or offended now. The person asking wouldn't have any class either but
>she'll have left herself open to it.
She was wearing a short skirt, your honour. She was asking for it.
(yeah yeah, I know everyone hates the rape analogy but it just seemed
to fit so well)
She probably wouldn't be surprised, as I'm sure having been doing her
job as long as she has she's aware of how many crass, insensitive
assholes there are out there. But I think she still has every right to
be offended. She gave her consent to the interviewer to ask those
questions, having to answer something individually for a single fans
titillation is a whole other thing. eg. If I have nude photos on my
website should I be expected to strip down on request for any stranger
who happens to have seen my website? I don't think so.
Marysia
<gavin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>This is what Blackberry <le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com> just wrote:
>
>>>She doesn't seem to live an immoral lifestyle or anything. If the
>>>article said she'd had, like, groupsex and stuff, it would totally
>>>ruin my image of her. But she's just had a normal life with normal
>>>boyfriends... no one-night-stands or anything.
>>
>>You're not trolling to start a new Revenge-style thread here, are you? :) I
>>assume it was a throw-away comment.
>
>What's wrong? I think groupsex and one-night-stands are immoral.
>Personal opinion. You don't have to agree.
Okay, but why? I mean what's immoral about them?
Personally I've done both and everyone survived the experience :)
Marysia
<gavin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I find that a bit sick. I think sex *can* be fun recreation without
>any love, but it *shouldn't* be. Sex and love should be linked. People
>should only give the amazing personal gift of their sexuality to
>people who genuinely deserve it. In casual sex with someone you hardly
>know, how can you admire or respect them yet? How can a virtual
>stranger who hasn't earned your admiration and respect *ever* deserve
>the ultimate act of human interaction? Isn't it a waste of the amazing
>act of sex, to do it with someone you don't even admire or respect? I
>think it cheapens sex to do it without love... cheapens the sexual
>value of the person who has given their body to lots of people who
>don't deserve it.
First let me make it clear, I am discussing not arguing. I don't feel
I have to change your mind or whatever. I'm just interested in the
discussion.
Okay.
Why do you have to love someone romantically in order to admire or
respect them? Why does not loving someone romantically mean they don't
deserve to have sex with you?
>Cheapening and devaluing something that is supposed to be precious and
>divine is very upsetting to me.
Love is precious and divine, not sex. Sex can be precious and divine.
It can also be fun, dirty, light-hearted, serious, hot and sweaty,
good, bad, indifferent, painful, loving, sweet, tender, rough...
I think people who can have casual sex without getting fucked up are
actually better adjusted because they don't confuse sex with love. Of
course some people just aren't turned on by the thought of having sex
with someone they don't love and that's okay too. I think making sex
such a big issue is a bad thing. Sex is something you should always be
careful about but it can be good with or without love. Sex should
always entail some level of caring and intimacy, but you can care
about lot's of people.
As far as I'm concerned the only immoral things are things that hurt
people. If someone gets hurt then what you're doing is wrong. If the
people involved aren't hurt then why should it be immoral? I've had
good one night stands and bad one night stands, I've had sex with
friends that was a mistake and sex with friends that wasn't. It's not
the sex that's the problem, it's the people involved and what they
take into the situation and whether they're truthful. Sex should
always be truthful. And having sex with people I don't love with all
my heart has never made sex with people I do feel that way about any
less meaningful to me.
>But it's just my personal views. I'm not preaching, because I'm not
>asking you to think the same way. Maybe it sounds like I'm insulting
>those who choose to have casual sex... I don't mean to, but I do kinda
>think people who have casual sex *insult* the concept of meaningful
>loving sex, and perhaps it causes me to have a lack of respect for
>their actions. Sorry. That's usually why an attitude sounds "preachy".
>But don't get mad. If you disagree, please disagree as objectively as
>you can :-)
Well I'm trying but you did slip into a bit of a Revvy-ism there Gavin
:) You know, "I don't mean to insult you but I think you're immoral"
I don't really see how what I do in bed affects you or your concept of
sex unless I'm having sex with you or someone you're dating. How does
it _actually_ affect you. Does it make what you do less meaningful?
Why?
Not that it really matters since it's been so long since I got any
that I think I'm officially a virgin again.
Marysia
<gavin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>To have more than one partner to be in love with... that's just...
>greedy! And to have sex without being in a relationship with a person
>is wrong (to me). So why would you *want* to be in a loving
>relationship with a group of people? Isn't one just right? Isn't one
>the perfect number to invest your love in?
Why would you want to love more than one person and have more than one
person love you in a happy and harmonious group?
Gee, let me think....
Why wouldn't you?
Do you only pick one parent to love, only one child?
Marysia
<pa...@hammond3671.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>- There is enough love in my heart for me to love someone with no limits
>and
>>still love others. I love all of my friends and I love my mate.
>>- I love to share wonderful things with my good friends.
>
>ah, but the *question* is do you want to *mate* with your friends.
Mating and sexual play are two different things.
Do you hug and kiss your friends? Is there anything wrong with hugging
and kissing your friends? Who says where the line gets drawn?
>(here we encounter the problem in the English language that there
>are different *types* of love, but only one word for them all - so
>we adjectivise. Family love, love for friends, sexual love etc., etc)
True. But to be honest I'm not so sure there are different kinds of
love. I think there is love plus other things and there are degrees of
love. You love your family, you love your friends but maybe not as
strongly as you love your family, you love your significant other(s)
but you also feel lust for them. You have sex with them because you
feel lust for them. You spend your life with them because you love
them. You enjoy the sex more than you would with someone you loved
less because you care more about making them feel good.
Marysia
> I promised myself I wouldnt get involved in threads like
>this one...(*sigh* another broken promise*)
*grin*
>A 2-way partnership is not correct in evolution, hence: infidelity,
>cuckoldry and the 4 yr-itch (*when a man can leave a mate because the
>kid can find food on its own in a hunter/gatherer setting*).
>Personally I agree with monogamous 2 parent families but..efvolution
>sint backing me up..nor is it you...
Indeed, human testes size to body size proportion suggests we are
designed to be somewhat frisky. The larger the testes the more
partners. At the top of the range are species which are very
promiscuous, they have the largest testes to body size ration, at the
other end are monogamous species who have very small testes to body
ratios. Humans are in the middle. The reasoning behind this is that
the more promidcuous the female of the species the more sperm you want
to be shooting off to battle it out with whatever other guy's sperm is
already there or arriving soon.
"Recent data on monogamy confirms the result: 80% of males and 50% of
females do have sex with outside partners after marriage."
Take a look here http://www.king.igs.net/~rogersk/mono.htm
I covered this subject in my Developmental Biology courses at Glasgow
University.
Marysia
<gavin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>This is what BTR1701 <btr...@ix.netcom.com> just wrote:
>
>>> Cheapening and devaluing something that is supposed to be precious and
>>> divine is very upsetting to me.
>>
>>What proof is there that sex is supposed to be either precious or divine?
>
>No proof. I just wish it were.
>(Why are you making me feel like Revvy, anyway?)
I dunno, I think you've just been in that thread too long and he's
starting to rub off on you. It's kind of scary.
>>It can be argued that it's merely anthropomorphic arrogance on our part
>>that we think *our* reproductive functions are so much more special or
>>divinely inspired.
>
>We were given (or we evolved) emotion and conscious thought. As a
>result, our entire psychology, and arguably our entire existence, is
>based on sexuality. So I just wish sex was treated more reverently,
>and not devalued by doing it for empty fun. Just my personal way of
>looking at it.
Our entire psychology and existance is based on sexuality?
You know I may like to talk about it quite often, especially on the
net, but I certainly don't agree with that at all.
Sex is not meant to be treated reverently, IMO, it's supposed to be
fun. Although it can also be deep and meaningful. But is that the sex
or the emotions going on aside from the sex?
And why is fun empty?
Marysia
<pa...@hammond3671.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>The bonobos do indeed fuck like, well, bonobos. Some other primates
>(gorillas, I think) mate for life and virtually never stray.
>Most of our close relatives are pretty similar to ourselves - they identify
>an official partner, but that doesn't necessarily stop them from
>sleeping around on the side.
If you take a series of male apes and weigh their testicles (a
procedure not actually recommended ), you will find a pattern.
Chimpanzees and other species with high "relative testes weight"
(testes weight in comparison to body weight) feature quite promiscuous
females. Species with low relative testes weight are either fairly
monogamous (gibbons, for example) or systematically polygynous
(gorillas), with one male monopolizing a harem of females.
Marysia
<pa...@hammond3671.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Then it's not a one-night-stand, and we're working from different
>definitions of what one is.
>I understand a one-night-stand to be when you go out for the night,
>pick someone up, take them to your home or their home with no
>thought in your mind that what you are doing is more than physical
>fun, and then you leave, either before or after breakfast, and never
>mention the idea of getting in touch again.
To me a one night stand does not have to be with a stranger or
necessitate no further or previous communication. However it does
imply that the sexual side of the relationship is intended to be a
one-time event (or at the least very very rare).
Anyway Gavin has stated that he feels any sex without love, sex for
sexual pleasure only, is immoral whether it's a one off or not.
Marysia
<pa...@hammond3671.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>She doesn't seem to live an immoral lifestyle or anything. If the
>>>>article said she'd had, like, groupsex and stuff, it would totally
>>>>ruin my image of her. But she's just had a normal life with normal
>>>>boyfriends... no one-night-stands or anything.
>>>
>>>You're not trolling to start a new Revenge-style thread here, are you? :)
>I assume it was a throw-away comment.
>>
>>What's wrong? I think groupsex and one-night-stands are immoral.
>>Personal opinion. You don't have to agree.
>
>I think it's the use of the word "normal" that is in question here. Perhaps
>you should qualify that you think that one-to-one gay sex is *also* normal.
>I think Blackberry is overreacting, though.
So if you think someone's immoral but don't bring God into it it's
okay? Aside from the fact that Gavin is a sane and non-psychopathic
person I don't see much difference between his and Revvy's views.
Gavin just expresses his better and less offensively.
Revvy thinks homosexual sex is immoral.
Gavin thinks casual sex and group sex are immoral.
I disagree with both of them. I worry less about Gavin's opinions
cause I don't think he'd hurt anyone over them :)
The question is... would he support laws against group marriage? If he
was on a jury would he be more prejudiced toward a person who was
shown to engage in casual sex? I'm not saying he would. I'm just
bringing up some of the dangers inherent to freedom in beliefs that
other people's actions are immoral.
But really I'm just addicted to getting myself into arguments I'll
regret :)
I'm also interested in the topic as I too have strong beliefs in
regards to what is right and wrong when it comes to sex.
Marysia
Yeah, that was the one bit that did bother me. I consider that to be
irresponsible. If you have to pull over to use a cell phone you should
also pull over if you're going to have sex.
Hadn't they seen Parenthood?
Elf Bard
>Oh, hell yes. Now, if they were also talking on a cell phone at the same
time, I'd have to send AH a nasty letter.
>-B = )
Feh, you want to send her a *nasty* letter anyhow ;P
Marysia
>I don't think she was morally wrong or anything, as long as Alexis is cool with
>it, but her way of expressing herself about her sex life was a bit gross. To
>me. YMMV.
>There's an erotic way of putting things and there's an icky way of putting
>things.
Innit wierd how different people are?
I thought the interview was kinda sweet, it didn't come anywhere near
my TMI or gross out level.
Stoneco864
>one of those precautions.
>
>Yeah, that was the one bit that did bother me. I consider that to be
>irresponsible. If you have to pull over to use a cell phone you should
>also pull over if you're going to have sex.
What if AH got into a car accident like that what would the Headlines be?
Wow, I finally made someones Sig!
Inmehd
you couldn't be any more chill than Stoneco864"
The Ma-jin
LRL94
>On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 02:52:02 -0400, EGK <e...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I got the distinction you're are making but where have I ever said
>>different? Alyson herself says in the interview she hopes her mom doesn't
>>read it. Maybe she's just kidding or doesn't care but she says it. I'm
>>simply saying that if she chooses to expose herself in this way, she
>>shouldst ever be embarrassed or offended if someone brings it up or asks
>>ever more private questions in the guise of just wanting an interview or
>>just simply being nosy. Sure she then has a right to say "none of your
>>business" but she certainly shouldn't ever be offended if others raise
>>similar questions.
>
>So if Alyson has an interview with Playboy she shouldn't be offended
>is a stranger walks up to her on the street and asks if she likes to
>take it up the ass?
>
>I presume this is the thinking behind the people who email me asking
>if I'll do hard porn just cause I have nude photos on my website. And
>the photographers who assume I'll fuck them just cause I'll take my
>clothes off for a photo shoot.
>
>Personally I reserve my right to be offended and I'm sure Alyson does
>too.
>
<sarcasm> But didn't you know? Celebrities only have the rights we condescend
to give them! After all, they "owe" us. <sarcasm>
>>>If she found it embarassing, she would never have said the line in the
>first
>>>place. She's obviously not shy about these things.
>>
>>She's mentioned she finds it embarrassing at how many times it's been
>>brought up since then.
>
>There's a time and a place for everything. I think I can use enough
>sense to figure out not to walk up to her going "flute, eh, nudge
>nudge, wink wink". People should think before they open their mouths
>and I understand that she might be embarassed to constantly have to
>get that line thrown at her and I think that's fair enough.
>
True. And I don't think her embarassment is at having said the line, but at
the fact that nobody will shut up about it. It seems to get mentioned in every
interview she does, even ones that have nothing to do with "American Pie". She
had no way of knowing the movie - let alone that one line of dialogue - was
going to cause such a ruckus.
>>>Yes, Hannigan is doing this to publicize her film and advance her career.
>So
>>>what? That's part of being an actor, and it's entirely her choice to make.
>>>That still wouldn't make it OK for someone to disseminate personal
>information
>>>about her without her permission. Which has been my point from the
>beginning.
>>
>>You act like I've said things like that would be ok when I never did so why
>>are you arguing with me about it? Here's an example of what I'm talking
>>about. If Aly's at a fan gathering and someone who's read the Playboy
>>interview asks her further questions like that, she shouldn't be surprised
>>or offended now. The person asking wouldn't have any class either but
>>she'll have left herself open to it.
>
>She was wearing a short skirt, your honour. She was asking for it.
>
>(yeah yeah, I know everyone hates the rape analogy but it just seemed
>to fit so well)
>
I'm glad I'm not the only one making this connection. Hannigan *consented* to
do the Playboy interview. That doesn't give someone else the right to be rude
and intrusive. Even prostitutes don't deserve to be raped (to use EGK's
favored analogy).
>She probably wouldn't be surprised, as I'm sure having been doing her
>job as long as she has she's aware of how many crass, insensitive
>assholes there are out there. But I think she still has every right to
>be offended. She gave her consent to the interviewer to ask those
>questions, having to answer something individually for a single fans
>titillation is a whole other thing. eg. If I have nude photos on my
>website should I be expected to strip down on request for any stranger
>who happens to have seen my website? I don't think so.
>
>
Of course not, but if you were famous, somebody would probably get upset that
you didn't.
I used to have this attitude that celebrities had forfeited their right to
privacy and owed us all something beyond doing their jobs. Then I actually got
the chance to see, up close and personal, some of the shit they have to deal
with from clueless wonders who think being famous makes you fair game for
anything. Most celebs handle it gracefully - moreso than I probably would.
I've wanted to deck a few reporters on the actors' behalf at times.
Loey
Early-Bird Reviews and more at -
http://members.aol.com/LRL94/home.html
Impending Giles-Withdrawal Line of the Week: "It may be that you can wrest
some information from that dread machine....That was a bit British, wasn't it?"
Mrs. Poet
>From: Marysia mar...@marysia.spannercom
>Date: 7/27/2001 10:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <gsi4mt8d9epvv0edd...@4ax.com>
>
>On 25 Jul 2001 00:34:52 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) wrote:
>
>>I don't think she was morally wrong or anything, as long as Alexis is cool
>with
>>it, but her way of expressing herself about her sex life was a bit gross.
>To
>>me. YMMV.
>>There's an erotic way of putting things and there's an icky way of putting
>>things.
>
>Innit wierd how different people are?
>
>I thought the interview was kinda sweet, it didn't come anywhere near
>my TMI or gross out level.
>
Maybe it's not so much how she put it as the mental picture she gave me. I
don't want to imagine Alyson pleasuring Alexis in a certain way and the
blissful expression he gets on his face when such event transpires. I am not
sure why this is so, but so it be.
RosePoet
Keeper of the Codpiece of Mumble*&%^, the Key to Spike's Redemption!
"I made a promise to a lady." -- Spike in Knight mode
Mrs. Poet
>From: Marysia mar...@marysia.spannercom
>Message-id: <mnd4mtsj7jgobvm9t...@4ax.com>
>
>On 24 Jul 2001 04:47:32 -0700, ken...@ix.netcom.com (kenm47) wrote:
>
>>"David L. Pinkus" <dp...@nospam.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
>news:<J_077.24183$O81.9...@typhoon1.gnilink.net>...
>>> For all who may be interested... and if you ARE interested you will be
>very
>>> jealous of Alexis Denisof...
>>>
>>> http://www.playboy.com/sex/feature/dirtydozen/alysonhannigan/
>>
>>Anyone else feel AH should keep some of this stuff private? I'm no
>>prude, but this is a lot more info than I need, and may impact, in a
>>negative way, when watching her perform, so to speak.
>
>Well if you're gonna read an interview done by Playboy then you're
>gonna be reading about sex.
Is this really true? I haven't read a Playboy since the '80s but I thought
they had non sexual articles.
Mrs. Poet
>From: Marysia mar...@marysia.spannercom
>Message-id: <n5f4mt8hv7d4s32qt...@4ax.com>
>
>On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 18:55:31 +0100, Gavin Clayton
><gavin....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>This is what Blackberry <le...@NOnwlinkSPAM.com> just wrote:
>>
>>>>She doesn't seem to live an immoral lifestyle or anything. If the
>>>>article said she'd had, like, groupsex and stuff, it would totally
>>>>ruin my image of her. But she's just had a normal life with normal
>>>>boyfriends... no one-night-stands or anything.
>>>
>>>You're not trolling to start a new Revenge-style thread here, are you? :)
>I
>>>assume it was a throw-away comment.
>>
>>What's wrong? I think groupsex and one-night-stands are immoral.
>>Personal opinion. You don't have to agree.
>
>Okay, but why? I mean what's immoral about them?
>
What's moral and immoral in matters of sex is pretty subjective except, of
course, for my definition of immoral. ;) By my standards, immoral sex is sex
which either hurts someone else or carries an unusually high risk of hurting
someone else. However, if someone else thinks group sex is immoral just
because it's group sex, heck, so be it. As long as consenting adults are not
restricted from engaging in their chosen activities, I respect the viewpoints
of people who disapprove of certain things even if I don't agree.
EGK
wrote:
>On 25 Jul 2001 00:34:52 GMT, fyl...@aol.comspam (Mrs. Poet) wrote:
>
>>I don't think she was morally wrong or anything, as long as Alexis is cool with
>>it, but her way of expressing herself about her sex life was a bit gross. To
>>me. YMMV.
>>There's an erotic way of putting things and there's an icky way of putting
>>things.
>
>Innit wierd how different people are?
>
>I thought the interview was kinda sweet, it didn't come anywhere near
>my TMI or gross out level
Kinda hard to maintain class or dignity when you're talking in public about
the joys you get giving head then go on to say you hope your mother doesn't
read the interview. To me that's a good yardstick for class and dignity
right there. Never say or do things in public you think might embarrass
your mother. :)
Loey insinuates shit I never said and makes analogies about consensual sex
vs rape and doing illegal things to violate people's privacy. Too bad none
of it had anything to do with my original post. Then after all that she
agrees with me and says she thought the interview was kinda tacky even using
the same word I did. Sheesh!!
Then you jump in with more straw man arguments trying to put words in my
mouth and pretending things i've said are comparable to thinking women
wearing short skirts deserve to be raped. Give me a break.
Howard Stern is one of the most popular shows on radio but you'd never
accuse him or most of his guests of being classy. Alyson's interview reads
more like Stern interviewing a porn star. If that was her intention that's
fine, I like porn stars as much as the next guy but yes, I think interviews
like that leave her open to a lot of shit she might not like. You mentioned
nude pics on a web site. Well, you have every right to do whatever you
please but obviously you weren't surprised by some of the reactions you got.
Believe it or not, I liked the interview on one level but that doesn't
change the fact I also think it was tacky for her to do it and could
understand why some people might not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are opinion newsgroups. Please try to remember that when posting. No
one is trying to force you to believe anything and everyone is entitled
to their own view.
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
- (Calvin and Hobbes)
ANIM8Rfsk
>gonna be reading about sex.
Is this really true? I haven't read a Playboy since the '80s but I thought
they had non sexual articles. >>
A ton of them; especially interviews.
BTR1701
<mar...@marysia.spannercom> wrote:
But on the other hand, people also have the freedom to believe what ever
they want.
Wouldn't it also be a danger to freedom to dictate to people what
beliefs are acceptable (i.e. groupthink) and which are unacceptable?
Down that road lies the world envisioned by Orwell.