let me list the problem they point out:
1) She's a "cutter". Translation: A person who cuts their skin when they are anxious. This is a sign of borderline personality.
2) she claims she needed to do porn to pay tuition. He points out that she turned down a full scholarship to Vanderbuilt. (My take is that she could have worked her way through a state college, like I did).
3) She did a torture porn film. This is sick. And, as a feminist, it should be condemned. Most folks shrug at "debbie does dallas" or other happy hookers doing happy things, but a film that encourages violence against women is not something a self proclaimed feminist does. (this is why I stopped HBO when I had kids: because every other film was a "serial killer vs women" film that told the story from the serial killer's point of view). Then they wonder why so many teenaged girls and hookers are killed.
4) her expertise was looking young: i.e. letting pedophiles think it's okay. Indeed, one wonders if she made such films while underage herself.
5). she says she watched porn as a kid. WTF? Did she sneak it on her tv, meaning her parents didn't have it blocked (or she knew how to get around the block) or was someone watching it with her?
6) she now says she's a lesbian. No big thing here, but why do porn? I thought lesbians were normal, except that they preferred women (most lesbians I know are either bi or gay, but are pretty "straight" sexually, and fairly faithful, but then I tend to work in poor areas, not with the kinky).
7) she claims anyone who objects to her choices are "slut shaming".
Well, I'm old enough to remember when feminists opposed porn, wanted husbands to respect them as equals. Silly me.
or as the blog post notes:
Over the past five weeks, Duke University freshman Miriam Weeks has offered the world an increasingly elaborate series of rationalizations to justify her bad decisions, exploiting feminism as a defense mechanism to garner sympathy as a victim of “slut-shaming” while basking in admiration as a sort of “pro-sex” heroine...
Let’s run the check list: Intelligent, superficially charming, manipulative, deceitful, narcissistic, remorseless, lacking empathy for others, impulsive, with an appetite for risky behavior . . .
Can you say “sociopath,” boys and girls?
or apply the "taxi driver rule" of psychiatry: If the local taxi driver would call a person's ideas crazy, maybe they are crazy.
She should have stopped at: I needed money, and hey, I enjoyed it...but now it is getting crazy and full of manipulation.
can you say "evil" girls and boys?
Why is this on my medical blog?
Compare and contrast with Camille Paglia's warning in Time Magazine last week that we need to remember sex is linked with babies, and the promotion of promiscuity (by the media and now by the government) is giving our children a false picture of reality.
But then, MsPaglia is a lesbian, a mother, a feminist, and an expert on old fashioned porn.
\
Promiscuity is a social problem and spreads disease. The most recent s&M stuff being pushed is dangerous to the victim both mentally and physically, and dangerous physically to the perpetrator.
And we docs will be the ones trying to pick up the pieces. One wonders how many "test tube baby surrogates" are needed because mom put off having babies, and although age and endometriosis is enough to cause infertility, (been there, done that) the dirty little secret is that a lot of older women are infertile from STD or recurrant abortions...
No comments:
Post a Comment