Join 3,558 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


August 3, 2000
12:33 PM   Subscribe

This isn't anything new, or really all that interesting, it's hardly a link, but, Steven posted similar material, and this is certainly not some bait. Just, it might be interesting to hear your opinion. Ohh, and I apologize for it being this long.

While trying to find when the kubrick festival thing at the music box will be, I found they were playing Sex: The Annabel Chong Story, below they also had a quote :

"A man shags 251 women on camera and he is proclaimed a stud. He is admired. Why am I not regarded in the same way? I am a stud!" - Annabel Chong"

My immediate thought was, well, confusing. Where I wouldn't exactly call someone who just "shagged" 251 women a "stud", I wouldn't really look all that much down on him either. I'm not implying that Ms. Chong is the scum of the earth or anything, but I would certainly think just that much more of the man.

Is it me? I checked imdb's page, and a lot of the reviews had the same questions,

"I didn't know quite what to expect from this film. I didn't expect light and fluffy, but this movie, which documents the life of one weird nymphette, was less enjoyable than I could have imagined. Ms. Chong (not her real name) had a very decent middle class upbringing. The question I asked myself was why she turned out the way she did"
And many more such reviews, which I won't cite, since I'm already taking up half the page, but you get the point.

Why? Our standard of women higher? Or, are we (some of us) (men), just can't stand for this sort of a thing, because we envision any woman as a mother, as maybe a wife? Easy answer might be Morals and Ethics, that it's simply not very, ahmn, in a lot of people's opinion, it's not right (it's dirty). Ok, going too far ahead here.

What are your thoughts on this?
posted by tiaka (22 comments total)

 
Thought one: just put a link and the briefest of summaries on the front page, post the rest in a comment afterwards.

Thought two: what the hell is in American drinking water that makes people think "dirty" = "wrong"?
posted by sylloge at 12:48 PM on August 3, 2000


Sexism and Puritanism certainly have roles in this dialogue, but there are other elements too.The impression I got from reading a couple of articles about the movie is that Ms. Chong has a few personal issues. The message that most people are getting from the movie, apparently, is that she's a porn star because she's emotionally damaged. This may or may not be true; I haven't seen the movie. And of course, this doesn't mean that all female porn stars are emotionally damaged.
posted by lbergstr at 1:00 PM on August 3, 2000


The reviews I've read say that the movie is rather underhanded in its presentation of Ms. Chong's experiment. Apparently she was gang-raped at age 18 (revealed in The Onion review, which also said "after the film was released, [she] asserted it was not the rape but the counseling that was dehumanizing"). The filmmaker withholds this crucial information for most of the movie. Chong's previous victimization can't help but add a disturbing subtext to her project to have sex with over 200 men in a day.
posted by wiremommy at 1:22 PM on August 3, 2000


Please in the name of the sweet Lord our God, post a short link/description on MetaFilter's front page and put the bulk of your comments in the thread.
posted by rcade at 1:33 PM on August 3, 2000


What are your thoughts on this?

My thought is that you shouldn't post anything this long on the front page--and with meta stuff, too?

As for my thoughts on the questions you asked. I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're asking. Do most people in American society have great respect for promiscuous men while deprecating women with the same reputation? I don't think so. I think most people would look at a guy and a girl who were both similarly promiscuous in the same way.

Now, do women (in general) look at these promiscuous people, be they men or women, differently than men (in general) do? That's something to argue about.
posted by daveadams at 1:36 PM on August 3, 2000


I think you guys are making too big of a deal of size of the post on the front page. Isn't the idea to comment on things? And it's just text anyway. It doesn't take that long to load, so .. you people whine too much. Anyway, continue. (Ignore the fact that I have written nothing of my position of the contrasting and sometimes unfair public views of female and male nymphomaniacs in society.)

(Hmm. Public views not being shows of the behavior out in the open. I meant what the public thinks of these promiscuous people.)
posted by eyesandfists at 1:55 PM on August 3, 2000


I apoligise for the size, but, I saw a lot of long posts, some shorter, some longer, and I don't recall anyone objecting to it, so that's why I thought it'd be ok. So, again, sorry.
posted by tiaka at 2:01 PM on August 3, 2000


I don't have any opinion in particular, but I found the interview with Miss Chong in The Stranger titled "A Nice, Middle-Class Gangbanger" pretty intelligent and interesting.
posted by endquote at 2:05 PM on August 3, 2000


Do most people in American society have great respect for promiscuous men while deprecating women with the same reputation? I don't think so.

Take a look at the language. What are the words we have for a man who makes it with lots of women?

Stud, playboy, ladykiller, chick magnet? Gigolo? Hustler?

What words do we have for a woman who makes it with lots of men? Slut, trollop, ho'? Whore?

Don't you think the words for a promiscuous woman are rather more negative than those for a guy? If you can think of counterexamples I'm interested to hear them.
posted by wiremommy at 2:22 PM on August 3, 2000


Masher? Pimp? A knotty carbunkle? There are no good words for slutty men, tho I think you can use the same words cast upon women to even greater effect on men. I sure would not want to be called a strumpet or a slatern.
Do any guys out there actually have any admiration for guys who are promiscuous? I have no desire to emulate Alan Alda's sickning sensitivity, but why would anybody, of any sex, wanna score big numbers when it comes to this.
posted by thirteen at 2:37 PM on August 3, 2000


Pimp? That's not a necessarily a man who has sex with lots of women, that's a man who sells the sexual services of women. If a guy you know told you, "I've had sex with over 100 women," you probably wouldn't call him a "pimp" (even behind his back ;) ...
posted by wiremommy at 2:42 PM on August 3, 2000


I have heard pimp used as a pejorative, tho I will not argue the point. You basic point is correct, there are no masculine words to choose from to negatively describe rutting men.
My knowledge of pimps comes mostly from Iceburg Slim novels, This American Life, and the testimony of 13 year olds proclaiming what their life will be like when they become pimps. All seem to agree that the pimp has sex with the women to control the women.
posted by thirteen at 3:05 PM on August 3, 2000


"why would anybody, of any sex, wanna score big numbers when it comes to this."

I guess it might be one of those "if I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand" things, but it has to with sex being enjoyable, the variety of human forms, adventurousness, etc.

"Do any guys out there actually have any admiration for guys who are promiscuous?"

I admire a lot of men and women who are fairly promiscuous, though in no case is it because of their promiscuity. In other words, being promiscuous does not prevent you from being admired by me — excellent news, I am sure, for all those holding back pending my approval. It is neither here nor there (though I think promiscuity—oh, for a better word—is often related to other traits that are admirable: joie de vivre and the like).

(BTW, Alan Alda was quite promiscuous.)

I wholeheartedly agree with wiremommy here: our vocabulary tells a story and it's a lame one.
posted by sylloge at 3:11 PM on August 3, 2000


Sweet Lucifer! Have I come accross as anti-sex? Perhaps I should have said do any men admire them for their promiscuous. I remember being repulsed by Wilt Chamberlin's score card a few years back, I certainly was not jealous. I am not saying there is a proper number of partners to have. I'm not even saying you have to be in love, but when you hit 3 digits it seems like something might be wrong. I AM a guy, I do know the excitement of a new parter, but I am more of the quality not quantity school. I will accept your "sweet mystery" defense and file it away with the arguments about why I should drop acid, or eat sea food.
I look forward to reading Alan Alda's obituary, my desire has nothing to do with his sex tally. Hopefully it will have something to do with a knife in his ear.
posted by thirteen at 3:36 PM on August 3, 2000


here's one generalization to consider:

men and women admire (or accept) men who have had lots of partners because it is seen as a sign of thier prowess, their sexual power.

men and women fear (and as a result look down upon--as a defense mechanism) women who have lots of partners because they see it as a sign of their sexual power.

men fear a woman who has that kind of power over them; women fear women who have that kind of power over men.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 4:13 PM on August 3, 2000


Regarding Alan Alda: are we sure we're not confusing the role he played for the man himself? Hawkeye was promiscuous. Alda is a happily married man who happens to be very liberal and active in the women's movement.

He's been married to the same woman since 1957. That's a long time.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 4:35 PM on August 3, 2000


Mea culpa. I was trying to remember where I heard that and I couldn't. I think it was totally fabricated (an amalgam of characters that he's played, esp. Hawkeye).

Re rcb's power comments: I recently heard a bunch of the interviews that were behind Leora Tanenbaum's SLUT!, mostly high school students (the books is largely about the effects of being labelled promiscuous as an adolescent) and the motivations seemed to be just about as much based on plain character assasination (it didn't really matter whether or not the person accused was promiscuous or not) as it was on (preceived) threats from actual behaviour.

The emotional force of the term "slut" may derive from the power relationships, but I think being labelled promiscuous is generally more to do with everyday group dynamics and politicking.

Interesting:
"Two out of five girls nationwide have had sexual rumors spread about them," reports Leora Tanenbaum. "Three out of four girls have received sexual comments or looks, and one in five has had sexual messages written about her in public areas."
And thirteen: I gotcha now.
posted by sylloge at 5:14 PM on August 3, 2000


sylloge:
I have no doubt that characterizing women as promiscuous is often used as simple character assassination.

my post is more of a comment on *why* that characterization would be negative.

interestingly, when someone tries to characterize a promiscuous man in an unfavorable light, typically they will use one of the words traditionally used to describe promiscuous women to do it.

rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 5:45 PM on August 3, 2000


I think the bigger sociological comment here is the fact that Amazon's web server saw fit to shove an ad for the DVD of "Sex & the City" on the same page.
posted by aaron at 5:52 PM on August 3, 2000


First of all, I'm new here. I have never before been in the least interested in joining metafilter, although sometimes I scan the front page when it is linked to. This story encouraged me to do so.

Too long? *Shrug* Well, at least it's interesting.

I definitely think men are seen as "studs" if they have a lot of sex and women are seen as "whores" or "sluts" I definitely think that's wrong......but there is so much evidence that this is so, to say otherwise is like saying the sky is green. It's some sort of denial.

I think women do it to and imho it's because this tenet has been inculcated in them for centuries. Men are rewarded if they are promiscuous, women are degraded.

Sometimes, when one is totally powerless, as some women still are, and have been for a long time, they take the side of the person who has power, in this case the male establishment, and that gives them a sort of power by reflection. (feminism studies 101)

That's why this is occurring I think, why women as well as men habitually pour scorn on other women's sexual proclivities (among other things)

This movie sounds heart-wrenching. I don't think I could bear to watch it. I agree with the first poster on the movie review page, and the poster who says that this movie "will challenge all you libertarian beliefs"

I think women do end up getting screwed regarding pornography and prostitution in every meaning of the word. I think pornography makes all men look at all women differently.

And of course there is quite a schism as to how man perceive women.....they figuratively split them into "disgusting whores" or "Saintly mothers" and never the twain shall meet.

Time more boys were taught to treat women as human beings. That women are not responsible for lustful thoughts, you are. That women are allowed to feel sexy and wear sexy clothes without "asking to be raped" and so on......that women have a right to feel safe when they are out alone, and shouldn't need a man to accompny them as a "protector"

Sorry I digressed. Anyway, an interesting if depressing topic.

posted by lucien at 8:06 PM on August 3, 2000


lucien:I would like to think nothing could challange my Libertarian beliefs, or that if something did, it just means I am not strong enough to live up to those ideals. I know that one line was not your main point, it just stuck out for me. This is not meant to be a snarky reply, I am glad you decided to post.
posted by thirteen at 10:59 AM on August 4, 2000


mmmmmm, onions......

;-]
posted by humboldt32 at 1:15 PM on August 4, 2000


« Older The flip side of the DejaNews linking fracas....  |  DaimlerChrysler is taking the ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments