Rihanna's trashy necklace

[sillyberry]

I might not wear it, but it doesn't bother me at all. If you don't like it don't look at it.

Ah yes, the cry of the ME generation. It's all about ME. All the time. I MUST be free to express myself at all costs (and oddly enough, everything I do or wear is designed to elicit attention and reaction from the very people whose opinions I purport to scorn) and if anyone dares object or says anything that isn't just GLOWING, then they're narrow-minded, old-fashioned, maybe even bigots.

...but sillyberry's quote is true for so much. Don't like same sex marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex! Don't like abortion? Don't have one! Don't like ****? Don't watch it! Etc., etc. Same thing applies here.

Wasn't me who said that but... Does the same apply to "don't like guns? don't buy one!" or "don't like to pray before the football game? don't join in!"?

I tend to adhere pretty strongly to that quote, but on both sides of the cultural divide. It's fun being me.

 

[AGBF]

I might not wear it, but it doesn't bother me at all. If you don't like it don't look at it.

Ah yes, the cry of the ME generation. It's all about ME. All the time. I MUST be free to express myself at all costs (and oddly enough, everything I do or wear is designed to elicit attention and reaction from the very people whose opinions I purport to scorn) and if anyone dares object or says anything that isn't just GLOWING, then they're narrow-minded, old-fashioned, maybe even bigots.

...but sillyberry's quote is true for so much. Don't like same sex marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex! Don't like abortion? Don't have one! Don't like ****? Don't watch it! Etc., etc. Same thing applies here.

Wasn't me who said that but... Does the same apply to "don't like guns? don't buy one!"

Well, yeah. That's the NRA's position, fer sure!

or "don't like to pray before the football game? don't join in!"?

That would be a big yes from Governor Rick Perry and all the Republican candidates for president. What else do you want to know?

Deb/AGBF

 

[sillyberry]

I might not wear it, but it doesn't bother me at all. If you don't like it don't look at it.

Ah yes, the cry of the ME generation. It's all about ME. All the time. I MUST be free to express myself at all costs (and oddly enough, everything I do or wear is designed to elicit attention and reaction from the very people whose opinions I purport to scorn) and if anyone dares object or says anything that isn't just GLOWING, then they're narrow-minded, old-fashioned, maybe even bigots.

...but sillyberry's quote is true for so much. Don't like same sex marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex! Don't like abortion? Don't have one! Don't like ****? Don't watch it! Etc., etc. Same thing applies here.

Wasn't me who said that but... Does the same apply to "don't like guns? don't buy one!"

Well, yeah. That's the NRA's position, fer sure!

or "don't like to pray before the football game? don't join in!"?

That would be a big yes from Governor Rick Perry and all the Republican candidates for president. What else do you want to know?

Deb/AGBF

Well, yes, but T2T seemed to be in favor of the "don't like X, don't do it" mindset. So I was asking if that's a broadly applied belief, or only applied to certain subsets of thought.

 

[iheartscience]

I apply that line of thinking to things that don't affect others adversely. Wearing a necklace with the word c*nt on it doesn't affect anyone negatively, unless you're an old biddy, I suppose. You can't exactly say the same for guns. And I'm not anti-gun at all-I come from a family of gunsmiths and hunters. But people owning guns=some people using said guns to hurt others. Can't say the same for gay marriage, no matter what the religious right cuckoos want to claim.

ETA I said it applied to so many things, not all things. Not sure if you're just feeling argumentative or what, but it should be obvious that that line of thinking wouldn't apply to everything ever.

 

[missy]

I apply that line of thinking to things that don't affect others adversely. Wearing a necklace with the word c*nt on it doesn't affect anyone negatively, unless you're an old biddy, I suppose. You can't exactly say the same for guns. And I'm not anti-gun at all-I come from a family of gunsmiths and hunters. But people owning guns=some people using said guns to hurt others. Can't say the same for gay marriage, no matter what the religious right cuckoos want to claim.

Huge ditto here. My favorite motto (when conversing with my dh that is ) is do whatever you please as long as it doesn't affect me negatively in any way.

Seriously though I really believe in live and let live as long as it doesn't harm others around you so yeah, wear that necklace if you want but it's not the best thing to do if you are a role model to young people all over the world. In this country we are free to make asses of ourselves whenever we want to and while I may not agree with what they are doing I will always defend their right to do so. That is one of the things that makes the USA a great country.

I guess as I get older I realize there are lots of battles to fight so I don't want to spend my energy and time fighting them all so I pick the ones that really matter (to me). Same rule I (try to anyway) apply to my marriage. I try not to sweat the small stuff though there are some days when everything gets on my nerves.

I have lots of opinions but I don't think everyone (or anyone) has to agree with them. I enjoy *not* agreeing all the time. Makes life more interesting.

 

[sillyberry]

I apply that line of thinking to things that don't affect others adversely. Wearing a necklace with the word c*nt on it doesn't affect anyone negatively, unless you're an old biddy, I suppose. You can't exactly say the same for guns. And I'm not anti-gun at all-I come from a family of gunsmiths and hunters. But people owning guns=some people using said guns to hurt others. Can't say the same for gay marriage, no matter what the religious right cuckoos want to claim.

ETA I said it applied to so many things, not all things. Not sure if you're just feeling argumentative or what, but it should be obvious that that line of thinking wouldn't apply to everything ever.

I don't think I accused you of being absolutist, but the way I read your tone (always difficult online) was something like "the 'if you don't like X, don't do it' argument is largely beneficial so don't fight against it" and I was probing that. I'm not sure that was particularly argumentative, any more so than any follow-up question on PS, and it is possible I totally misread you, but I certainly didn't intend to be unpleasantly antagonistic. I'm also not sure I agree none of the three things you listed don't affect others adversely (the liberal feminist debates on pornography, particularly, should be noted), but I also am not sure this is the appropriate place to have that discussion.

I too couldn't care less about the necklace, even if I roll my eyes. But it does reflect a coarsening of culture which does could, in fact, change society in ways some believe as quite harmful.

 

[AmeliaG]

I might not wear it, but it doesn't bother me at all. If you don't like it don't look at it.

Ah yes, the cry of the ME generation. It's all about ME. All the time.

Sorry, ksinger, don't mean to pick on you but this quote struck me. My mom claims that her generation that came of age in the 70s were labeled the ME generation. She admits to looking out for herself but thought it was a good thing; now she's seeing my younger sisters as a lot more self-absorbed than even she was. There's not too much difference between me and her but she had me young.

Yeah, she's a bit concerned especially about one sister but she's more philosophical about it - more like 'If my mother could see this, she wouldn't have complained so much about me.' kind of thing. She just says that her younger daughters took their mom's traits to their illogical extremes. She can't believe that anyone can be more self-absorbed than my middle sister but she's not making any predictions on how self-absorbed the grandchildren will be.

 

[iheartscience]

I apply that line of thinking to things that don't affect others adversely. Wearing a necklace with the word c*nt on it doesn't affect anyone negatively, unless you're an old biddy, I suppose. You can't exactly say the same for guns. And I'm not anti-gun at all-I come from a family of gunsmiths and hunters. But people owning guns=some people using said guns to hurt others. Can't say the same for gay marriage, no matter what the religious right cuckoos want to claim.

ETA I said it applied to so many things, not all things. Not sure if you're just feeling argumentative or what, but it should be obvious that that line of thinking wouldn't apply to everything ever.

I don't think I accused you of being absolutist, but the way I read your tone (always difficult online) was something like "the 'if you don't like X, don't do it' argument is largely beneficial so don't fight against it" and I was probing that. I'm not sure that was particularly argumentative, any more so than any follow-up question on PS, and it is possible I totally misread you, but I certainly didn't intend to be unpleasantly antagonistic. I'm also not sure I agree none of the three things you listed don't affect others adversely (the liberal feminist debates on pornography, particularly, should be noted), but I also am not sure this is the appropriate place to have that discussion.

I too couldn't care less about the necklace, even if I roll my eyes. But it does reflect a coarsening of culture which does could, in fact, change society in ways some believe as quite harmful.

I do think that argument is largely beneficial. If it's not in your hula hoop*, why rail against it? I'm all about freedom of speech. For example, jackholes like Glenn Beck should have the right to say what they want, whether I like it or not. And this liberal feminist is happy people are taking the word c*nt back. Why is a word for a woman's vagina the most coarse, vile, terrible thing you can call someone? Because vaginas are so disgusting? What?

As for ****, of course there's room for debate, and I won't say I don't have conflicting feelings on the subject, but as long as consenting adults are involved, again, freedom of speech.

And I think the U.S. could stand to have our puritanical culture coarsened.

*Tacori originally posted the hula hoop metaphor on PS-credit where credit is due.

 

[HollyS]

Gee, it only took 3 pages to turn this into a liberal vs. Republican right-wing religious kook thread.

How very deja vu.

*yawn*

 

[iheartscience]

Gee, it only took 3 pages to turn this into a liberal vs. Republican right-wing religious kook thread.

How very deja vu.

*yawn*

Gee, it only took 3 pages for you to revert to your usual scolding self. How very deja vu.

 

[Black Jade]

English is a rich language with an usually large amount of synonyms and a very flexible vocabulary. Personally, when I meet someone who depends on using obscenities to make conversation, I assume they are lazy, either uneducated or poorly educated, unimaginative and possibly stupid as well. Either that, or they follow trends like a sheep--whether or not they make sense. It has been a trend for the last thirty or so years to use four-letter words to show others how advanced you are in your thinking--how far you are removed from the despised middle class. Epater les bourgeois and all that (except without knowing how to paint). It's all extremely silly and it really makes no sense to limit your vocabulary like that. And you are not really shocking people. Everyone nowadays has heard it all and seen it all long ago and no one is shocked. You are just boring them to death.

There is no moral reason not to use the most basic words for body parts and sexual acts and defecation in conversation from a religious point of view--blasphemy (which is truly offensive) would be taking the name of the Lord in vain, not as some seem to think, referring to what belongs in the toilet(or just simply is private) in polite company. If Rihanna wants to hang the word for her private parts around her neck, it's neither surprising nor interesting. We all already knew what she thinks of herself. Other than generating canned music, Isn't she mostly famous for getting beaten up by her ex-boyfriend? That is all that I have ever heard previously about her. She is clearly not someone with self-respect.

What is sad is that there are undoubtedly young girls who admire her and will think this is the way to go. Girls are already very degraded in our current society and all too often seem to have no defences against being used and abused and treated like so much meat on display, available to everyone who shows half an interest. Then they wake up the next morning thinking they are in a 'relationship' when all they are is fooled again. I have, unbelievably, seen young girls laughing as if they had been paid a compliment when young boys call them female dogs to their faces and order them around as if they were their masters and other things of that sort; I have also seen girls watching movies and reading books from the days when a woman had to be courted, and was seen as someone of value, worth waiting for, who a man wanted to do things for (instead of to), looking sad and saying they wonder what it was like 'back then'. Labelling yourself, the way Rihanna has, as if the only thing of importance about you is your vagina is not likely to be helpful to her fans as they try to learn to navigate the complicated world of male-female relations.

(I am calling them 'girls' by the way, because I suspect that most of them are not eighteen yet and so they are not yet 'young women').

 

[HollyS]

Gee, it only took 3 pages to turn this into a liberal vs. Republican right-wing religious kook thread.

How very deja vu.

*yawn*

Gee, it only took 3 pages for you to revert to your usual scolding self. How very deja vu.

Actually, I started my scolding on page 1. It was a scoffing scold about stupid pop culture and paying attention to it. Was I too subtle?

Black Jade, you always sum it up so well. Thank you.

 

[ksinger]

Too many to respond to at length so...in no particular order...

AmeliaG - I never said ego precludes real musical talent. A reasonable level of ego is required for performance. I just don't like it when it overshadows what talent someone has, and obscures the music. When it becomes about the person and not the music, then you lose me. Since everyone thinks I have it in for pop music in particular, I thought Charlotte Church was a sad marketing creation too, although as young as she was, that really wasn't her fault. Sad, because she had some real talent I believe, but they ruined it and burned it out too soon.

MonkeyPie - I never said or even implied that being young and popular meant that someone was devoid of talent. I did however say, "My generation certainly put out some ghastly pop pablum in its day too, but I didn't like it then and I like it even less now."

AmeliaG, again - not sure how referencing your mother's generation is picking on me, but I'll take your word for it. The ME generation has been used before, it's true. My reference is less to a particular generation perhaps, than the current emphasis - crossing generational lines it seems - on self-expression over the mores of any group at all. There seems very little consideration for anyone else. "You don't like my using c*nt every other word? Tough. Something wrong with you then, and I'm not going to moderate it one bit for anyone, so shove off."

Thing, glad you clarified your "don't like it don't do it".

Finally, as many threads as have been on PS about who said what, and endless outrage about "how could anyone SAY THAT", or "that's so RUDE" (just search the word "rude" for a plethora of PS outrage), I find it very disingenuous that all of a sudden everyone is nonchalant about inserting c*nt into everday speech. Words CAN damage. They can damage individuals and I believe they can damage culture. They certainly damage real creativity with language.


"it would be less of a big deal if people ignored it" seems to be the paradigm of the day. Fair enough. Well, let's take it a bit further. You could just as easily apply that reasoning to oh, say, Fred Phelps and his lovely family. Like the necklace, it's not like they're hurting anyone - they're just expressing themselves by signage - just a few more words than Rihanna's necklace. Besides it's just words and words can't hurt. It's neither good nor bad, because making any good/bad distinctions means you're narrow-minded - if you don't like it, well, clearly YOU have issues. Other people are not responsible for your mental and emotional states, you are. And really, it would be less of a big deal if people - particularly the grieving parents and family - just ignored it, right? If they just ignore it, it'll go away.

That ignore it mantra, like anything, can be taken too far....

Thing, I think as the years go by you're going to get your wish for a coarsened culture in a big way. I know perfectly well the world is going to roll on, changing - sometimes for the better, and sometimes not - regardless of how I feel about it. But if everyone can now cuss me out with impunity because that is the norm, then at the very least I don't feel obligated anymore to hold MY tongue when I say I find that sort of thing rude and crass.

Oh, and for the record I actually CAN cuss like a...I was going to say sailor, but the sailors I know are actually pretty mannered - like a highschool dropout food-service worker. That's where I learned how - in food service. I can, but I choose not to.

Finally, Black Jade - I laughed heartily. Boring and predictable indeed. Here we have this brilliant language, full of nuance and true creativity, and the best you can come up with is a sentence full of expletives? Sad really. A bit tangential, but your post for some reason, reminded me of a story my husband tells about working in retail (holiday job) with a young woman who had the word F*CK tattooed inside her bottom lip so that you could read it if she pulled it down. His astonished comment was "Do you use it so you'll have directions for what to do on a date??" When she sputtered that "Well, I have tattoos because they make me unique", he shot back without a second's hesitation (really, the boy needs to censor that instant response occasionally) "I thought that was what a personality was for." That didn't go over so well as you might imagine...

 

[Black Jade]

LOL
I am going to use that one somewhere, I know. "But it makes me unique!" "I thought that was what a personality was for."

Sums it up brilliantly. Your husband is a wit, KSinger. I wish I could think on my feet like that.

That was a good way to sum up Thing2's remarks also--a wish for a coarsened culture. She is far from being alone in this, but I fear it is not thought out to its logical conclusion. I will be teaching Rome, Republic to Empire next week. When I was a girl, historians would mention the morals and preoccupations of the later Romans in carefully couched language to avoid shocking people. This is no longer necessary, not even with quite young adults as it is all very familiar to us nowadays and we have gone so far in the same direction that it looks inevitable that we will come to same kind of end a lot sooner than they did. Only, our barbarians don't need to surge in from outside of our borders, they are with us on the inside already and working hard at making all of our children just like them.

 

[ksinger]

LOL
I am going to use that one somewhere, I know. "But it makes me unique!" "I thought that was what a personality was for."

Sums it up brilliantly. Your husband is a wit, KSinger. I wish I could think on my feet like that.

That was a good way to sum up Thing2's remarks also--a wish for a coarsened culture. She is far from being alone in this, but I fear it is not thought out to its logical conclusion. I will be teaching Rome, Republic to Empire next week. When I was a girl, historians would mention the morals and preoccupations of the later Romans in carefully couched language to avoid shocking people. This is no longer necessary, not even with quite young adults as it is all very familiar to us nowadays and we have gone so far in the same direction that it looks inevitable that we will come to same kind of end a lot sooner than they did. Only, our barbarians don't need to surge in from outside of our borders, they are with us on the inside already and working hard at making all of our children just like them.

Yes, he certainly IS that. He truly cracks me up with some of his snap observations. Very pithy. He uses that ability quite a lot in class. He was always good at it, but years of teaching teenagers has honed it to a fine point. The kids like to test him.

He's teaching World this year and seems to be enjoying a break from the grind of American. And Rome is a long-time passion of his too, oddly enough. He has helmets, and has built armour and shields, just for the fun of it. We have swords too. Such a fun geek he is, but it is weird tripping over shields.

I'm assuming you saw "The Emperor's Club"? (All teachers should see that movie) Well, during the scene where the Mr. Hundert(Kevin Kline) is officiating the Mr. Julius Caesar contest, where the boys answer all sorts of obscure questions about Roman history, the hubs was answering them correctly before the kids onscreen. I just swiveled my head and said..."Dude...you're a freak, you know that??" He just shrugs and keeps answering.

 

[AGBF]

Well, during the scene where the Mr. Hundert(Kevin Kline) is officiating the Mr. Julius Caesar contest, where the boys answer all sorts of obscure questions about Roman history, the hubs was answering them correctly before the kids onscreen. I just swiveled my head and said..."Dude...you're a freak, you know that??" He just shrugs and keeps answering.

Try marrying someone with two advanced degrees in Greek and Latin classical literature. He could run rings around Kevin Kline's character. And he has a memory like a steel trap. I have a memory like a sieve. He's probably forgotten more than I ever knew. It ain't fair.

Deb/AGBF


PS-At the risk of being caught "editing", I have to add that my husband has a new intellectual quirk that drives me mad: he insists that he must read any book written in a language he knows in the language in which it was written. He says it's "(his) duty". So he read the works of the Marquis de Sade in French. He is patting himself on the back for picking Crime and Punishment for his next book, because, since he does not know Russian, he does not have to read it in its original language!