NuclMan wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

NuclMan wrote:

scott1328 wrote:
Your constant repetition of this misuse of vocabulary, doesn't make it correct, or any less misogynistic.

It does make you appear to be ignorant and slut shaming, however. Try to be better.

It's not necessarily misuse or misogynistic. To me, whore me refers to one that compromises their integrity or principles for personal advancement. If she compromised some values to make a living, then I'm a whore as well.

I use my physical strength at my job, so I'm whoring out my body for money.

My buddy works in IT, so he's whoring out his mind.

At what point did you or your buddy, compromise your personal integrity?

At what point did Jennifer Aniston?

Evolving wrote:This whole discussion suddenly makes sense when you realise it's a simple typo. It's hiring out.

I love to you.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

NuclMan wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

NuclMan wrote:

It's not necessarily misuse or misogynistic. To me, whore me refers to one that compromises their integrity or principles for personal advancement. If she compromised some values to make a living, then I'm a whore as well.

I use my physical strength at my job, so I'm whoring out my body for money.

My buddy works in IT, so he's whoring out his mind.

At what point did you or your buddy, compromise your personal integrity?

At what point did Jennifer Aniston?

I hope I didn't imply that I thought she did. Here article though, leaves the impression that she's somewhat regretful and got a raw deal in the end.

Just to be clear, I object to the way it's used (double standard) to denigrate female sex workers.

If people would pay to see pictures of my dingus it would be plastered on cereal boxes.

I ain't proud.

laklak wrote:If people would pay to see pictures of my dingus it would be plastered on cereal boxes.

I ain't proud.

I think that if people would pay for pictures of my dingus I might be a little proud of that.

tuco wrote:I think I understand that we need to talk about something but "whoring out"? Cmon .. Someone on the internet said whoring out! Achtung achtung! Be vigilant so this site does not become, how was it, soap box? for misogynists. Aha sure. That is happening very soon.

I'll be sure to consult you next time i want to comment on something, especially when i want you to attribute motivation to my comments.

No problem, hopefully others will not join you because I have limited time and energy ;)

Rachel Bronwyn, for example and hopefully, is aware what the "soap-box" reference meant. Its just, I realise how easy is engage someone who uses "whoring out" to describe activities in question, and at the same time I realise, as Byron noted elsewhere:

Byron wrote:
Same goes for banning abortion, beefing up the obscenity laws, repealing equal marriage, curtailing divorce, and all the other lost socially conservative policies mourned by Peter Hitchens. Brexit or no Brexit, the '60s cultural revolution was very thorough indeed.

that someone who uses "whoring out" as such is not a threat anymore.

scott1328 wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

scott1328 wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
Riiight. Now tell me how you really feel!

Do you disagree that she has built a career on being sexy as hell?

I don't find her particularly sexy, but even so, having oppurtunities open up to one due in part to one's appearance is NOT being a whore. "whore" is a derogatory name for a female sex worker.

It may well be. And selling your body like sexy stars (and others) do is whoring out their body.

Your constant repetition of this misuse of vocabulary, doesn't make it correct, or any less misogynistic.

It does make you appear to be ignorant and slut shaming, however. Try to be better.

At least we can agree she's a slut (calm down, it's tongue in cheek)

Is it only the wording you are objecting to? Would you feel better if I said she was consciously putting her body on display because she knows sex sells, and she wants to show her sexy body to the world and project a sexy image, and use that in order to gain and/or maintain fame, power and/or other things? That she is where she is now because she has been using her body as a sexual tool to further her career?

VazScep wrote:I don't think the original charge was about whoring oneself, but about hypocrisy.

That's true. My original comment here was a response to her complaining about being objectified. My comment pointed out that she had been objectifying herself. If she doesn't want to be a sexual object she should stop using her sexiness to get ahead in the world.

She's being a hypocrite. First "whoring out her body" as I worded it (did people really not get the point? Did we have to spend ages discussing word definition and stuff like that?) and then complaining of the consequences of said "whoring". It's like giving a piece of candy to a kid and then complaining that the kid ate it.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

NuclMan wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

NuclMan wrote:

It's not necessarily misuse or misogynistic. To me, whore me refers to one that compromises their integrity or principles for personal advancement. If she compromised some values to make a living, then I'm a whore as well.

I use my physical strength at my job, so I'm whoring out my body for money.

My buddy works in IT, so he's whoring out his mind.

At what point did you or your buddy, compromise your personal integrity?

At what point did Jennifer Aniston?

Well, that's up to her to decide. But she now seems to think she did compromise her personal integrity when she sees the results of her actions. So it's basically up to her to define, and now that she's complaining about objectification she seems to be saying that she compromised her personal integrity when she started using her sex appeal/body to further her career.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I literally get paid to be scantily clad or naked and have people look at and take pictures of me.

How that is any more or less whoring than how any man uses his body to make money, I don't know.

I don't know. But I'm thankful for all the women out there who choose to get naked and take photos.

Am I missing something here? Only in my admittedly somewhat limited experience, she's not the first actress I'd think of as being sexy and using her sex appeal and body to further her career, not by a long way. The impression I get of the image she wants to portray is more that of a clean living, clear skinned sort.

It comes down to what she wrote in the article. To me, its not a good article, with nothing new to tell, no interesting points to make and can be seen as hypocritical and self-serving. I am not pregnant .. who the fuck cares? I certainly do not. Tell me something I do not know or something interesting. That you are being followed by paparazzi and your personal life is being exposed in media and judging people by single characteristic is misleading .. alright, what else you got? Oh you are not pregnant ok.

Fallible wrote:Am I missing something here? Only in my admittedly somewhat limited experience, she's not the first actress I'd think of as being sexy and using her sex appeal and body to further her career, not by a long way. The impression I get of the image she wants to portray is more that of a clean living, clear skinned sort.

I would assume that it's not so much that actresses do use their sex appeal to further their career, it's that they feel they have to. That so many roles for women are based entirely on being the object of the male character's desire and there are very few big or leading roles for women that don't take their looks into account. And even roles that specifically call for an average-looking actress are frequently given to beautiful actresses because that gets them more attention on the red carpet. Jennifer Aniston made her living post-Friends in rom-coms, where she was clearly chosen in large part for her looks (although partly of course, for her experience as a comedy actress). And while there are plenty of examples of men chosen for their looks in this genre too, it's probably more common for the man to be chosen for his comic abilities. Comedian + beautiful actress seems to be the standard casting.

Fallible wrote:Am I missing something here? Only in my admittedly somewhat limited experience, she's not the first actress I'd think of as being sexy and using her sex appeal and body to further her career, not by a long way. The impression I get of the image she wants to portray is more that of a clean living, clear skinned sort.

She's not the first actress to use sex to further her career, but she's the one complaining about objectification now, after objectifying herself for many years.

I don't know. But I'm thankful for all the women out there who choose to get naked and take photos.

Yup - my feeling is if it's a genetic gift....use it as you see fit...it fades right quick anyway for most tho Charlotte Rampling and Helen Mirren kept their sex appeal/camera appeal for a long time.
It took Clint Eastwood to coax Meryl...who wants to look at a middle aged woman...Streep out of self imposed exile.

I must admit I'm only soso on Aniston for either looks or acting appeal....never did see the appeal.

Here is a list of the "Top 100"..not sure what the criteria are.
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls057168130/

My top picks would be Juliette Binoche, Helen Mirren, Natalie Portman, Keira Knightley with a nod to Maggie Smith and Judi Dench for both incredible acting skills and staying power.

Some like Marilyn Monroe are clearly in the eye candy little talent category others like Kathy Bates on talent not looks ( tho not a fav of mine ).

Most tho I think go beyond the "pretty fluff" label and combine looks and acting chops to sustain a long term career.

I note Aniston does not appear at all.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

VazScep wrote:I don't think the original charge was about whoring oneself, but about hypocrisy.

That's true. My original comment here was a response to her complaining about being objectified. My comment pointed out that she had been objectifying herself. If she doesn't want to be a sexual object she should stop using her sexiness to get ahead in the world.

She's being a hypocrite. First "whoring out her body" as I worded it (did people really not get the point? Did we have to spend ages discussing word definition and stuff like that?) and then complaining of the consequences of said "whoring". It's like giving a piece of candy to a kid and then complaining that the kid ate it.

Why is her complaining about objectification hypocritical? Are you saying she's the one responsible for the nit picky way people criticize other people's bodies? Hell, doesn't it make sense that someone that is in the public eye would complain about what it's like to be in the public eye? Who else would?

And no, she's a sexual object, end of story. She doesn't even need to try to be that. She is one by virtue of being an attractive woman and made one even more explicitly by being an actress. Hypocrisy in this case would be her objectifying someone, complaining about the minor or major imperfections of their body, and then saying objectification is wrong (incidentally, her potential hypocrisy has no bearing on whether objectification is a problem). Being frequently objectified, though, means she knows how being objectified feels and what thoughts crop up as a result. But she's hypocritical for complaining about it? Her complaints don't matter? Why? How is she hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for a sailor to say that sailing kinda sucks sometimes? That being tossed about in a stormy sea is really awful? That maybe a nicer boat is preferable?

I think we men should re-introduce the fashion of the Codpiece.


Then when women comment, er, 'favourably' (as some would), we could claim we men are being objectified.

It can work both ways.

Who else would? Nobody?

Obviously the very same people who buy tabloids watch her movies. Who else would? She is saying .. stop objectifying me, stop reading tabloids but see my movies. Good luck with that. I do not objectify you, I do not read tabloids, and I do not watch your movies. btw are you pregnant? lol

Boyle wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

VazScep wrote:I don't think the original charge was about whoring oneself, but about hypocrisy.

That's true. My original comment here was a response to her complaining about being objectified. My comment pointed out that she had been objectifying herself. If she doesn't want to be a sexual object she should stop using her sexiness to get ahead in the world.

She's being a hypocrite. First "whoring out her body" as I worded it (did people really not get the point? Did we have to spend ages discussing word definition and stuff like that?) and then complaining of the consequences of said "whoring". It's like giving a piece of candy to a kid and then complaining that the kid ate it.

Why is her complaining about objectification hypocritical? Are you saying she's the one responsible for the nit picky way people criticize other people's bodies? Hell, doesn't it make sense that someone that is in the public eye would complain about what it's like to be in the public eye? Who else would?

And no, she's a sexual object, end of story. She doesn't even need to try to be that. She is one by virtue of being an attractive woman and made one even more explicitly by being an actress. Hypocrisy in this case would be her objectifying someone, complaining about the minor or major imperfections of their body, and then saying objectification is wrong (incidentally, her potential hypocrisy has no bearing on whether objectification is a problem). Being frequently objectified, though, means she knows how being objectified feels and what thoughts crop up as a result. But she's hypocritical for complaining about it? Her complaints don't matter? Why? How is she hypocritical? Is it hypocritical for a sailor to say that sailing kinda sucks sometimes? That being tossed about in a stormy sea is really awful? That maybe a nicer boat is preferable?

She's being hypocritical for the reason I already mentioned: She used sex to further her career. She made herself an object. Objectifies herself.