Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Karen Owen Sex List (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Karen Owen Sex List
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Carlotta:
I would disagree with you, Daruma. It's easier for a woman to be promiscuous than a man? Hardly. A man makes a mistake and aside from legal challenges he can walk away the next day and never think of it again. A woman makes the same mistake and she can end up pregnant, which even if you take the availability of the morning after pill and abortion into account, still has more consequences than the man. The morning after pill makes you very sick for about 8 hours (so I've heard) and an abortion is expensive, takes an entire day off from work, and carries with it serious health risks. (As an aside I am totally against abortion and the morning after pill, but I thought it was best to take the position that applies to most people in this country.)

I think a better explanation for the stud/slut dichotomy is biological: there is an evolutionary advantage to a male mating with lots of females, because there is the possibility of lots of babies. There is no such evolutionary advantage to a female mating with many males because each female can still only be pregnant by one male at a time. These kind of biological preferences are hard wired into our brains, as primates, which although it does not follow that following such evolutionary imperatives are moral or best for the kind of society we want to have, it does explain it much better than a theory of social conditioning.

Well if you ignore the social consequences, it's certainly easier for a woman to pick up than a man. Daruma's just putting the cart before the horse by assuming that this is the root cause of the double standard when it's actually a consequence of the double standard (playing the field harms your reputation less if you're a man, so less women than men actively look for casual sex, so it's a stud bonanza for ladies who are so inclined).

I also like Daruma's hilariously self-centred argument that the reason women have an easier time picking up is because a higher proportion of women than men are bonable [Smile]

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As usual, you completely miss the point. But than, you're a dumbass too, no doubt.

the reason women have an easier time picking up is because a higher proportion of women than men are bonable

No you stupid fornicator with sheep, it is simply because for the majority of human sexual partnering, women are the choosers of who they allow to have sex with. Women set the standards for who they will or will not sleep with.

For a woman to get laid, she need merely lower her standards.

Come now, sheepRailer, you're telling me you don't know of any guys who find it impossible to get a girl?

Remember, sheep don't count.

[ October 08, 2010, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be fair Daruma, I have many times lowered my standards as well to get laid. At some point in my life I decided it was better to have sex with 10 big girls then have no sex with 100 pretty girls. It was all their loss, not mine. And those big girls were great in bed. It's not the women's fault that I tried for so long to get with cheerleaders, dancers, and sorority girls. It was mine.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whatssamatter Tom, did you marry a slut? Are you offended that a man would dare to "judge" a woman for being promiscuous?
I don't know how you're defining "slut." I do know that, no matter how many people my wife may or may not have had sex with, I would never call her one.

What does offend me, Daruma, is that you seem to think that it's not only acceptable but a basic fact of nature that a promiscuous woman is a "slut" who deserves neither respect nor fidelity, whereas in men promiscuity is a predictor (and symptom) of fame and success. And rather than see this as a problem, you go for the circular argument and conclude that this is evidence for your worldview.

That offends me a great deal, because you are not helpless against your own biology. You don't have to think of this girl as a "slut" without thinking of, say, Magic Johnson as a "slut;" you choose to make that distinction. You hold an odious, repugnant, offensive opinion, and throw up appeals to "human nature" to excuse your lazy, self-serving rationales. As if attempts to get beyond "human nature" were not the entire point of civilization.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My how chivalrous of you Tom.

Just how high up the pedestal do you have all of womankind on anyhow?

White Knight Tom D, here to save all women from unfair judgment for their own behavior!

I don't know how you're defining "slut." I do know that, no matter how many people my wife may or may not have had sex with, I would never call her one.

Whether you would or not call her one doesn't matter, It's her behavior that defines whether she is or not.

Your refusal to recognize the sky is blue doesn't mean it isn't.

Would you feel the same way if you caught her in bed with your best friend?

What does offend me, Daruma, is that you seem to think that it's not only acceptable but a basic fact of nature that a promiscuous woman is a "slut" who deserves neither respect nor fidelity

Your offended that a man would dare to judge a woman's sexual behavior and decide whether or not she deserves respect for it? Or fidelity? My, how sensitive of you.

The only person who deserves fidelity, is a person who is faithful.

And from the standpoint of marriage, a slut is a bad gamble to take in terms of whether or not she will be faithful to you.

If your goal is to get married, have children and live happily ever after, til death do you part, with her never having an affair or leaving you for another man, and your choices are:

Choice a: Marry a virgin or a very inexperienced woman; or
Choice b: Marry a slut

...are you saying it's offensive to judge a women's past behavior in making such a decision?

If you think that idea is so offensive, you surely are a dumbass.


That offends me a great deal, because you are not helpless against your own biology. You don't have to think of this girl as a "slut" without thinking of, say, Magic Johnson as a "slut;" you choose to make that distinction.

Look Tom, a slut is person who has engaged in a pattern of behavior; sexual activity that has damaged their long term worth for a serious, committed relationship.

MOST Men, knowing that a woman they are dating has had sex with a multitude of men, will find that fact very hard to overcome in deciding to make a commitment to her. That's just the way it is, regardless of the opinion of sensitive, non-judgmental and easily offended guys like you not withstanding.

If you want to fool yourself, and think that you can turn a slut into a faithful wife, go right ahead, good luck with that one.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Would you feel the same way if you caught her in bed with your best friend?
Do you think sleeping with my best friend and betraying our marriage vows is an offense comparable to having slept with a bunch of other men prior to marriage? Because, after all, you're saying the latter qualifies a woman for slut-status; what's the status of an actual cheater?

quote:
MOST Men, knowing that a woman they are dating has had sex with a multitude of men, will find that fact very hard to overcome in deciding to make a commitment to her. That's just the way it is....
You lazy ass. Are you "most men?" Or are you capable of being better?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I usually have scant good fortune with girls of this disposition, as upon their initiation of the courtship ritual I am often prone to inquire about the number and nature of stds they've had as well as their current count of abortions. I've learned to turn myself sideways before making queries of this nature to protect the valuables, duck quickly and run swiftly as the response dictates.

But seriously, I would be curious to know if she's gotten any STDs or has had any abortions. Maybe she's been lucky, but even with protection there's herpes and HPV as well as mono and a few other diseases to consider. Add to the shy and the rest of the guys on Daruma's list the guys afraid of getting a disease to the ones who aren't considered very studly. My wife doesn't generally like it when she asks why I love her and I mention that she is and always has been disease free, so I've learned to omit that from the long list of her good graces, but it's there anyway.

As for this girl and her stable of guys, it's a free country. Nowadays I find it increasingly difficult to get worked up over these types of antics and it seems like it's always a continuing game of one-upsmanship, and the consistent plea that the release was against their will rings increasingly hollow. Most of the past lessons have shown that very rarely is any type of fame bad. Monica did quite well with Slim-Fast, Paris is making enough money to finance an entire Columbian drug cartel single nostrilly, and Kim Kardashian isn’t fairing badly either. I bet she's going to be fine, will get very rich and may enjoy an open marriage with a like-minded fellow as Warren Beatty and Bill Clinton have arranged with their wives, and in a hundred years none of this will even matter. The big question now is how will the next 15 minutes of famer top this.

One last thing though, as to the question of why they hate us and attacked us on 9-11. A big part of it, and the honor killings as well as what the jihadists have themselves put forward as their motivation, is that this is precisely what they fear most from the West, that their daughters will become like this. I'm not blaming her for 9-11. It happened a while back already. But this is part of why they fight, so for those accepting or approving of this behavior, you should gird your loins for battle because it will be relentless.

On a somewhat sideways legal note, didn’t all of the people who published her work in its entirety violate her copyright? My understanding is that you don’t have to put the little c with a circle around it anymore to have a copyright on something. You just have to write it yourself.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You lazy ass. Are you "most men?" Or are you capable of being better?
Daruma is a sheep who thinks he'll be able to distract us of seeing how much of a sheep he is by calling the rest of us "sheep" while making BAAH BAAH sounds.

But he serves a very useful purpose -- he's showing us in the flesh how horrid the ideology he represents is. Everyone is free to choose whether they'd prefer to live in a world populated by the likes of e.g. Grant, Carlotta, Tom -- or in a world populated by the likes of Daruma.

And it's not as if these are futurological hypotheses we can only imagine. We know which countries represent the "patriarchy" Daruma represents, and which countries represent the feminism he despises. We can see them and judge them, and choose according to our tastes: Arab peninsula, or Northern Europe? I know I choose the latter -- which one does Daruma choose?

quote:
One last thing though, as to the question of why they hate us and attacked us on 9-11. A big part of it, and the honor killings as well as what the jihadists have themselves put forward as their motivation, is that this is precisely what they fear most from the West, that their daughters will become like this. I'm not blaming her for 9-11. It happened a while back already. But this is part of why they fight, so for those accepting or approving of this behavior, you should gird your loins for battle because it will be relentless.
Cherry has obviously chosen the side of the Arab peninsula and the terrorists. You can see this from the fact that he blames 9/11 on everything unique about to the West -- and the way he consistently urges the West to become more like the Arab peninsula in regards to individual rights, torture, etc.
Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Whatssamatter Tom, did you marry a slut? Are you offended that a man would dare to "judge" a woman for being promiscuous?
I don't know how you're defining "slut." I do know that, no matter how many people my wife may or may not have had sex with, I would never call her one.

What does offend me, Daruma, is that you seem to think that it's not only acceptable but a basic fact of nature that a promiscuous woman is a "slut" who deserves neither respect nor fidelity, whereas in men promiscuity is a predictor (and symptom) of fame and success. And rather than see this as a problem, you go for the circular argument and conclude that this is evidence for your worldview.

That offends me a great deal, because you are not helpless against your own biology. You don't have to think of this girl as a "slut" without thinking of, say, Magic Johnson as a "slut;" you choose to make that distinction. You hold an odious, repugnant, offensive opinion, and throw up appeals to "human nature" to excuse your lazy, self-serving rationales. As if attempts to get beyond "human nature" were not the entire point of civilization.

Frightening. I actually agree with everything that Tom just said. And Magic Johnson is actually one of a small handful of people that I have referred to as a "slut." [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by tonylovern:
ok, what private information did she reveal? saying that you slept with someone whom you did, in fact sleep with, is not a crime. if we have such a right to sleep with someone and then penalize them for talking openly to the public about it, then why isn't lewinski in jail?

Lewinski talked to one friend. It was CONGRESS that took that info and published it to the internet.

The only legal question here, depending on facts, is whether it was forseeable to her that her powerpoint presentation would get mass-disseminated. If she just showed it to people, she's probably OK. If she emailed it, then I think she could be liable.

If anyone wants to understand the law, it's called "INVASION OF PRIVACY-PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS." (There are four basic subtypes of invasion of privacy.)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
MOST Men, knowing that a woman they are dating has had sex with a multitude of men, will find that fact very hard to overcome in deciding to make a commitment to her. That's just the way it is, regardless of the opinion of sensitive, non-judgmental and easily offended guys like you not withstanding.
Most men who aren't deluding themselves know that sleeping with a "multitude" of partners is now the norm among women, not the exception. What is a "multitude"? I'd speculate that it's more than 2 and less than 7, but that's just a dumb guess. Really Daruma, does it matter? At what point does the woman pass the threshold into slutdom? If she slept with two lovers but not three, is she marriagable, but if three than she's not?

The reality is that if there were enough single blushing virgins in their 20's and 30's to go around, then you might come close to having a point. But the female virgin of marriagable age is a rare thing in today's society. So clearly, most men are entirely comfortable with marrying a girl who has had at least one sexual partner in the past or else the reception halls and churches and synagogues would be empty each summer, and all those cupcake and wedding cake shops that keep popping up in my neighbourhood would be bankrupt.

As far as I'm concerned, unless she is some kind of notorious uber-slut, most men will never be the wiser. No girl is going to admit to her husband to be that she has slept with the entire high school football team and the chess club for good measure. And no man who values his testicles would dare to ask about it in any significant detail.

So forgive me for thinking that "reputation" is a bit of a red herring here. No girl has a reputation unless she's dumb enough to announce it, or as in this case, compile it into a spread sheet and share it with 100,000,000 of her closest friends. So your suggestion that reputation is a huge deal for guys is true in one sense, just as Tom's suggestion that there is a "double-standard" is also true in once sense. But in another more practical sense, you're both about 50 years out of date.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaD:
LoJ: provide a link? I want to see it myself.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6976853-karen-owens-powerpoint-presentation/content/64958049-karen-owen-s-powerpoint
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I looked at the power point presentation myself last night. My take:

1. Yeah, it's kinda funny, but it's more outrageous that I imagined. It's pretty cocky, and came off to me like braggadacio. To be fair, if a guy showed me a power point presentation similar of how he banged every member of the cheerleader squad, I'd congradulate him, but I'd still think he was cocky and ungentlemanly. Again, I have no problem she slept with the lacross team, but to me the presentation seemed like she was bragging to her friends about it. You can screw as many people as you can, but kissing and telling is a sign of low character, no matter who is doing it, man or woman. The funny part was that it was in a ppt presentation, and was very well done. The title was hilarious.

2. I don't know who said Karen Owen was a 6, maybe Daruma, but I have to politely disagree, just from my own point of view. She seemed pretty cute to me. I'd put her down as a solid 8 or 8.5.

I congradulate Karen Owen, but I've decided that I probably wouldn't join her for a horizontal study session, because she's a big mouth. I know all girls talk to their girlfriends, but the level you disclose tells me about your inner breeding. I have no problem with sluts, I'm one too, but I never disclose information to that extreme.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OceanRunner
Member
Member # 5605

 - posted      Profile for OceanRunner   Email OceanRunner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Look Tom, a slut is person who has engaged in a pattern of behavior; sexual activity that has damaged their long term worth for a serious, committed relationship.

MOST Men, knowing that a woman they are dating has had sex with a multitude of men, will find that fact very hard to overcome in deciding to make a commitment to her. That's just the way it is, regardless of the opinion of sensitive, non-judgmental and easily offended guys like you not withstanding.

You know, I personally don't shy away from the "slut" term, but I apply it equally to men and women. Sex without protection outside of a monogamous relationship? You're a slut. Help a married person cheat knowingly? You're a slut without integrity. I know a lot more man-sluts than the female variety.

I don't think just having a lot of partners damages your long-term "worth". That seems like a rather twisted world view - especially if you don't apply it equally to both men and women. A woman's value as a human being should not be related to offering up an intact hymen.

Karen Owen's real problem is her lack of discretion, not her level of activity. There are jobs I think she could still well get (like a job as a writer for a woman's mag) and others I don't think she would well qualify for (like anything where she'd deal with sensitive information, since she obviously is a bit lacking in common sense).

Posts: 740 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would not be surprised if toneylovern is actually bothered that he cannot trust those with whom he beds, though he insists all too vehemently the opposite.

Nor would I be surprised if Daruma is in reality Camille Paglia.

I am happily surprised at how much I enjoyed reading Grant's posts.

[ October 09, 2010, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
Karen Owen's real problem is her lack of discretion, not her level of activity. There are jobs I think she could still well get (like a job as a writer for a woman's mag) and others I don't think she would well qualify for (like anything where she'd deal with sensitive information, since she obviously is a bit lacking in common sense).

from a skim of her powerpoint presentation, I'd also say that she's a sexual submissive and a masochist
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Frightening. I actually agree with everything that Tom just said.
Me three.

The world is ending!

quote:
As if attempts to get beyond "human nature" were not the entire point of civilization.
This.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
Karen Owen's real problem is her lack of discretion, not her level of activity. There are jobs I think she could still well get (like a job as a writer for a woman's mag) and others I don't think she would well qualify for (like anything where she'd deal with sensitive information, since she obviously is a bit lacking in common sense).

I don't think even that it a fair conclusion here. She made a mistake during the time of people's lives that is essentially for making as many mistakes as possible and internalizing the reasons that they are mistakes. While it might be worth asking her how the matter affected her decision making process overall, the issue itself should be pretty much irrelevant- the horse it already out of the barn on that one. It doesn't, without evidence for ongoing behavior at whatever time she's being evaluated provide any good measure of future behavior.

Everyone makes stupid mistakes of all caliber, especially in teen and college years. She's getting more public scrutiny of hers than most people get, but the punishment or reward is inherent in the direct consequences. If anything, its equally likely that she'll be a better person to trust with private information after this because the firsthand experience with the pain caused by mishandling it will give her a higher level of respect for it.

Our ever increasing level of information saturation means that we're going to have to realize that there are no more closets to hide skeletons in, so it's going to be more and more untenable to keep casting stones instead of giving people the chance to redeem themselves.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OceanRunner
Member
Member # 5605

 - posted      Profile for OceanRunner   Email OceanRunner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, whether its fair or not, do you really think people are going to jump to hire her for a position that requires a security clearance or where she'll be handling people's medical information? (No idea what her major is and if this even matters).

And while I don't think her crime is too great (though I do think it does illuminate some potential character flaws), I don't feel the need to excuse her behavior as youthful folly - she's a 2010 grad, so probably a 21 or 22 year old woman. Let's not infantalize an adult woman just because she's in college.

Posts: 740 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OceanRunner
Member
Member # 5605

 - posted      Profile for OceanRunner   Email OceanRunner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
Karen Owen's real problem is her lack of discretion, not her level of activity. There are jobs I think she could still well get (like a job as a writer for a woman's mag) and others I don't think she would well qualify for (like anything where she'd deal with sensitive information, since she obviously is a bit lacking in common sense).

from a skim of her powerpoint presentation, I'd also say that she's a sexual submissive and a masochist
You say that like it's a bad thing? I don't think anyone would want their private sexual preferences immortalized on the interwebs, but I don't think liking it rough means anything about her other than she, well, likes it rough.
Posts: 740 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A member called my attention to the fact that calling someone a "stupid fornicator with sheep" went far beyond what could be considered respectful discourse on Ornery. So Daruma28 will be banned for a couple of days as soon as I manage to login to the administrative account for Ornery. Any others using similar language should take warning and desist.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
Karen Owen's real problem is her lack of discretion, not her level of activity. There are jobs I think she could still well get (like a job as a writer for a woman's mag) and others I don't think she would well qualify for (like anything where she'd deal with sensitive information, since she obviously is a bit lacking in common sense).

from a skim of her powerpoint presentation, I'd also say that she's a sexual submissive and a masochist
You say that like it's a bad thing?
Sexual submissive a bad thing? [Big Grin] You got the wrong guy, OR. Cute little subby's got me excited. [Embarrassed]

Masochist OTOH is a bad thing, IMO. Poor self-esteem. She put all this effort into making a powerpoint presentation, and now she sounds shocked that it got out. I think she's genuinely beating herself up about it. But she really set herself up, and I doubt that it's the first or last time she does so. But emotional masochism isn't a sexual preference, but a way of life.

I don't think that the dumb jocks she boned are going to be too hurt; I don't think that she's some vicious rat or anything like that. I bet most of them would give her another go if they had a chance.

[ October 09, 2010, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The more I read of her presentation the more it seems to me that she is just a sex addict rather then a true slut. She mentions several times in her presentation that she tried to revert to "more mature behavior". A true slut embraces promiscuity and doesn't have any regrets behind it. A sex addict is an individual who continually strives to maintain a more chaste life but finds themselves unable to control their hypersexuality. True sluts embrace their hypersexuality and run with it. Weather or not this is also a mental problem is debateable, considering risks associated with promiscuity.

I also don't find anything necessarily wrong with light masochism. A good number of lightly submissive women I've been intimate with, either physically or simply intellectually, enjoy the hightened dominance that comes with hair pulling, spanking, and greater power per stroke. I don't know where you want to draw the line at "mentally questionable"; choking, slapping, or knife/blood play.

[ October 09, 2010, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, it was the regret and self-deprecation and combination of shame and boasting that made me say masochist. (As opposed to her enjoying bruises and rough stuff which is sexual submissiveness, all fun stuff between consenting adults).
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
I also don't find anything necessarily wrong with light masochism. A good number of lightly submissive women I've been intimate with, either physically or simply intellectually, enjoy the hightened dominance that comes with hair pulling, spanking, and greater power per stroke. I don't know where you want to draw the line at "mentally questionable"; choking, slapping, or knife/blood play.

What you call masochism I call sexual submissiveness. What I call her masochism is her tendency to humiliate and degrade herself.

While knife-blood play is not my kink, I've got no moral objection to it. I do draw the line at choking, because people die from it, and also because it has the potential to vitiate consent. If you're being choked, can you say no, stop? I think gags are problematic for the same reason.

My rules are, get consent, don't kill anyone, and don't do it in front of the kids. Does that make me a puritan? [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by hobsen:
A member called my attention to the fact that calling someone a "stupid fornicator with sheep" went far beyond what could be considered respectful discourse on Ornery. So Daruma28 will be banned for a couple of days as soon as I manage to login to the administrative account for Ornery. Any others using similar language should take warning and desist.

I am shocked and appalled by this outrageous decision!

Mainly on the grounds that I was willing to let it slide for the sake of entertainment [Big Grin]

Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TheRallanator
Member
Member # 6624

 - posted      Profile for TheRallanator   Email TheRallanator       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anywise, getting back on target, I think we're getting a tad too freudian trying to analyse the heck out of the whole Karen Owen thing and figure out exactly what sort of messed up in the head she is.

She's young, she's inexperienced when it comes to sex and relationships (I mean sure she's racked up an impressive tally since she got to college, but she's still learning the ropes when it comes to relationships), she's in an environment where bragging and hijinks are encouraged, and again, she's young.

The only thing she's really done wrong here is letting herself get egged on into bragging and gossiping about her conquests (which isn't terrible, but is a bit of a faux pas) and forgetting that gossiping on the internet is gossiping to an audience of billions.

Posts: 503 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TheRallanator:
Anywise, getting back on target, I think we're getting a tad too freudian trying to analyse the heck out of the whole Karen Owen thing and figure out exactly what sort of messed up in the head she is.

I didn't say she's messed up.

I said she's a cute little subbie, and nothing wrong with that. I said that she's a bit masochistic, and that's not good, but it's not necessarily messed up or mentally ill.

This whole incident had the potential to really hurt people, but I don't think any of the guys in question were particularly harmed. Not like that other Duke Lacross sex blahoo.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the subject at hand, I don't think what she did was that horrible. I'm sure she will have to suffer her reputation for awhile, but I'm sure she'll do alright.

That said, I don't think being young excuses everything. Or that being young should automatically result in a free pass for every transgression commited by yutes. And yes, I know nobody else suggested that either.

I don't believe Karen Owen should suffer mightily for what she did. I don't think what she did was that bad. But I disagree that her youth excuses her.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say that she shouldn't suffer the immediate consequences of her actions- just the opposite, I said that the immediate consequences should be the whole of her punishment unless she clearly shows that she didn't learn for them. Otherwise there is little incentive for people to learn form their mistakes and improve themselves. If it's impossible to live down ones past mistakes, why should one bother to try to exceed them? The past should be used only to compare to the present, not to replace it. Her age is only relevant in that it would doubly hypocritical to burden her for the rest of her life based on such mistakes, when the only real difference here is the level of publicity that she accidentally attained. It becomes not a matter of trying to correct bad behavior, but of lip service to indignation over the fact that she got caught so that the loudest complainers can better distance themselves from their own mistakes.

I do fully believe that she's going to hurt by this for a long time, unless she finds a way to own the situation and turn it to her own profit. My point is that such judgementalism is fundamentally damaging to society and that it's long past time to for us to see the wisdom in a certain admonishment about who may cast the first stone and try to distance ourselves from it as a society, especially since it's quickly becoming impossible to keep our own sins hidden.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

quote:
Or that being young should automatically result in a free pass for every transgression commited by yutes.
Not even if it is accidentally stealing a can of tunafish?
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Grant,

quote:
Or that being young should automatically result in a free pass for every transgression commited by yutes.
Not even if it is accidentally stealing a can of tunafish?
LOL. Not even for stealing a can of tuna fish. I just don't think the punishment for stealing a can of tuna fish should be that steep anyways, for a child or a man.

If you tell me that the punishment for stealing a can of tuna fish will be charging a 5 year old with shoplifting, going to court, going to juvie, and paying $2000 in fines and court fees, then I think the punishment is out of proportion to the crime.

Maybe using a 5 year old is hyperbole. If a 20 year old steals a can of tuna fish, they will be charged with shoplifting, and tried as an adult. A 20 year old is still "young". I still think that the punishment should fit the crime. The store manager can simply banish the yute from all Woolworths, in perpituity.

[ October 10, 2010, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grant,

Thought you were making a 'My Cousin Vinny' reference - in the film two young guys accidentally steal a can of tunafish from a convenience store and right after they leave, another two guys i a car pulls up, robs it, then kills the clerk. So they get pulled over by the police, and he 'admits' it, thinking he got pulled over for stealing a can of tunafish.

Anywho his cousin Vinny is a lawyer, and has a thick Jersey accent, and when talking to the judge says 'the two yutes'.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR,

I was making a Vinny reference, I just forgot about the tuna fish part. I remember them confessing but I forgot what they thought they were confessing to.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
Karen Owen's real problem is her lack of discretion, not her level of activity. There are jobs I think she could still well get (like a job as a writer for a woman's mag) and others I don't think she would well qualify for (like anything where she'd deal with sensitive information, since she obviously is a bit lacking in common sense).

from a skim of her powerpoint presentation, I'd also say that she's a sexual submissive and a masochist
You say that like it's a bad thing? I don't think anyone would want their private sexual preferences immortalized on the interwebs, but I don't think liking it rough means anything about her other than she, well, likes it rough.
You are so wrong.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Damnit, Daruma , i dont appreciate needing to defend Tom twice on one thread. Dont insult the man's wife to get.at him. Sheesh. That's tackier than the sheep crack.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OceanRunner
Member
Member # 5605

 - posted      Profile for OceanRunner   Email OceanRunner   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh god, Tommy, when I said "anyone" I meant people. Soylent green is people. Tucker Max is not a person.
Posts: 740 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
Oh god, Tommy, when I said "anyone" I meant people. Soylent green is people. Tucker Max is not a person.

LOL
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OceanRunner:
Oh god, Tommy, when I said "anyone" I meant people. Soylent green is people. Tucker Max is not a person.

He also became famous almost exactly the same way this girl did.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ouch. Wish you hadn't introduced me to him, Tommy. Mixed cognac drinks smell delicious; I'm sure they would be the death of me. http://www.tuckermax.com/stories/the-famous-sushi-pants-story/
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1