Wednesday, June 10, 2009

so here's the thing

I am, once again, stealing topics from elsewhere. I can't help it. I read things, my head wants to explode, I must tell you all. That's the way it works. Also, this touches on something I was going on about awhile ago, so you know I don't want to pass up my chance to present corroborating evidence.

Now, I don't know nothin bout no Twitter, except for my relatively-uninformed opinion that it is the pinnacle of complete narcissism, and thus, another one of the signs of the downfall of Western civilization or the Apocalypse or both. I am old, cranky, and a Luddite. I was therefore unaware that there are "trending topics" where people at random could add to the tweet(?). But now I know. And now I know that there is one called #urahoe, wherein some fine brilliant young (I'm assuming) people can discuss what makes a woman (mostly) a "hoe".

Literacy, yur doin it rong. But whatevs. I would like to discuss the insightful conversation about what makes a ho. For instance, did you know that wanting sex with someone you've known less than a week makes you a ho? Not even, I guess, actually doing it, but wanting it. Good to know. Purity of thought is apparently important. Also? Having sex while you are menstruating makes you a ho. If you get a lot of phone calls and have a lot of friends, you are also apparently a ho. My goodness. The things you learn on the interwebs.

Remember when we were having the slut-shaming talk in here and I maintained things are worse for young women these days than in my day? I would like to offer this up as evidence. I mean, I have known some guys who did not want/like to have sex with a menstruating partner, and I have likewise known some women who preferred to abstain at that time of the month, but as far as I know, that has always been an aesthetic or (misguided) health decision, without any moral component. But apparently for some young people these days, squeamishness has led to moral condemnation, perhaps because a woman who does something "disgusting" must *be* disgusting. Likewise, in my day, I can't remember anyone ever condemning anyone for lusty thoughts or having an appetite. Sating that appetite indiscriminately, especially with other women's boyfriends or when you had promised fidelity to someone yourself, might get you called a slut but merely liking and wanting sex was not a negative in 1979 or 1985. In my experience.

And, okay, maybe the "in my experience" is the key there, because we didn't have the interwebs and Twitter in my day, so really, I did not get to, or need to, hear the innermost thoughts and deeply held opinions of a bunch of morons and douches I did not know. Perhaps 1979 was chock full o' guys and girls who thought that being sexually attracted to someone meant you were irredeemably loose, that sex on your period branded you as a whore, and that if people were calling you, obviously you were fucking them all, no questions asked. But if so, I, thank god, never knew because I never had to talk or listen to them.

See why I'm a Luddite?

xoxo

2 comments:

Uncle said...

It would not be the first time that it struck me that that doing this or that made someone--usually the female part of the equation--an unseemly part of the equation.

It would also be not the first time that doing this or that, and judging them accordingly, made the judgee a "ho" and the the judger a repulsive, sexist hypocrite.

Just sayin'.

Most of the human race makes me puke.

malevolent andrea said...

Some of those repulsive comments on #urahoe were made by other women (in case I didn't make that clear.) We're apparently as quick to viciously judge each other as the mens are to judge us. (Other places on the interwebs would tell that that's the fault of The Patriarchy, instilling us all with self-hatred n shit. I dunno. Since I prefer to believe that most people aren't evil [that being better for my personal mental health and all], I guess it's as good a theory as any.)

I'm still going with "love is free, love me, say HELL YES."