Ethics Alarms has not spent a lot of time or space discussing the Stormy Daniels scandal, and the reason is quite simple. I don’t care about Stormy Daniels, and I don’t care what the President did or didn’t do with Stormy Daniels before he was President. What ever it was, it was not a crime, nor did it take place while he was President of the United States. As a result, the excessive coverage of this story is one more example of the press doing whatever it can to undermine and diminish this President, out of personal and partisan antipathy. The episode is embarrassing to the nation, and harmful as well, but no other President would have his pre-candidacy conduct obsessively covered like this. No talk late night talk show hosts induced any of Bill Clinton’s past conquests to dish on national TV, with the express desire of humiliating him and the First Lady. CNN’s carpet-bombing with this story is Exhibit A on how far Ted Turner’s promising baby has descended into squalor.
I assume that the porn star was paid hush money by sleazy Trump fixer Michael Cohen, with or without Trump’s knowledge, but probably with. This is sordid, but not illegal or even unethical. It is also not unusual. I don’t want to speculate on how many Presidential candidates or their staffs have paid large sums to women with whom they had adulterous or otherwise undignified relationships, but I’m sure, even outside of the secret sagas of Clinton and the Kennedys, it is a very large number. That Donald Trump had sexual adventures with women either physically or morally like Daniels was a certainty years ago, even before the campaign brought to light his primitive attitude towards women generally, which itself should have shocked no one. He’s had three trophy wives, and presumably cheated on all of them. He bought the Miss Universe Pageant, which is a pretty obvious tell. Donald Trump has always embodied the life-style and attitudes of a spoiled playboy.
Thus this is yet another example of the “resistance,” and its disgraced ally, the news media, trying to unseat Trump by pushing the narrative that he’s really, really, really an unsavory character, as if that matters any more. They are unable to accept that this man whom they find so repulsive was elected anyway, and think that just repeating over and over and over again how repulsive he is to them will somehow undo his election or change anyone’s mind.
I’m also certain that when he says he never had a relationship with Stormy, te President is lying. He is not, however, lying under oath (like Bill Clinton did) in court, and he is not lying about what was falsely called a “personal private relationship” when it was in fact an abusive, exploitative and illegal workplace relationship, like Bill Clinton’s. This was a personal, private relationship. Yes, a President lying to the American people is serious, but those who are most eager to use the Stormy Daniels scandal against Trump are the exact same people who waved off Bill Clinton’s perjury on a similar topic with “Everybody lies about sex.” They inflicted that outrageous rationalization on the culture, and yes, I want to see them suffer for it. They own it, it’s theirs, and it should cling to them like a barnacle. Their cynicism and hypocrisy is unbearable, and they should not be allowed to suddenly grandstand with a new standard now.
It is also unconscionable for the Mueller investigation to bring this self-promoting wannabe sex performer’s venal grab for fifteen minutes of fame into its work. At least the Starr investigation had a crime to justify exposing the Monica relationship, and it was a crime that took place while Clinton was President. Even if Trump’s fixer’s payment to Stormy—who herself may have been engaging in extortion—was an election law violation, it was almost certainly a civil rather than a criminal breach, and one that took place before the election. The remedy for such violations is a fine. Yes, I know: the idea is to trap the President in an obstruction of justice violation regarding a non-crime. Even though about 50% of the public has been brainwashed into thinking this is grounds for impeachment, another 50%, including me, will regard that strategy as an attempted coup. I would advise Democrats not to tempt fate.
What’s going on here? A rich, horny guy cheated with a carnally-attractive porn star for the thrill of it before he was in a Presidential race or anticipated being in one. She attempted a shakedown, his fixer paid her, and then, when she realized she could really cash in because the news media would take any route to attack this President, she threw red meat to the press, which immediately became a mob of National Enquirer clones. I care that our journalism has deteriorated to such an extent. I care that a partisan-manufactured effort to interfere with President Trump’s ability to govern has dragged on for a year and is now stooping into this kind of muck in desperation. I care that the political attention of the nation has been distorted by a publicity-hungry predator like Daniels. Of course it was stupid and reckless for Donald Trump to become involved with such a creature, but again: it wasn’t out of character, and it happened before the election. None of that is a surprise or news either, however.
Get back to me when this tabloid story involves substantive Presidential conduct. Until then, I have more important matters to care about.
Ethics Alarms 
Tour de force
I do wonder when she’s going to return the money, since she has obviously breached the terms of the agreement.
Interesting question.
She’s facing severe penalties for violating the agreement, more than the $130K she received.
She’s being manipulated by, to borrow a phrase, a vast left wing conspiracy. Hah. And I don’t think it’s going to end very well for her.
Agreement was never duly executed. She hasn’t breached anything.
Mmmmmmm…I dunno. If she accepted the money, my Contracts book said that was consideration for an enforceable promise, whether the document was signed or not. She can breach, but she can’t keep the cash if she does.
Agreed. If she took the money, I think we have lift off. That’s a loser, Sparty. And you know it.
Look. I don’t have a stake in this fight — I really don’t care. But, “enforceable promise” generally isn’t worth diddly. If you have an unsigned contract, you’ve got major SOL problems when the dollar amounts are this high. I once had a client who began paying under an unsigned settlement agreement millions of dollars — over my objection. The other party (who never signed) successfully argued that the agreement was unenforceable — and following discovery had to enter into a new settlement agreement. Such blanket statements like that Other Bill betray your ignorance on this subject.
As for the broader question about the Stormy Daniels investigation, I pretty much agree with Jack’s analysis (except the inferences he made about the time that has elapsed; sometimes prosecutors like to slowly accumulate evidence until they think they have a slam dunk case). I keep telling my friends that this is much ado and it is Monica in reverse. Truthfully, the only interesting detail to me is the ATT, Novartis, and other payments. Those don’t pass the sniff test — there might have been some laws broken there. Whether or not they should be attributed to Trump, I have no opinion. Let’s see where the investigation leads.
I meant SOF, not SOL. Sorry about that.
But it seemed to read just fine the other way also!
Perhaps this kerfuffle began when Daniels found out Trump paid off other paramours a lot more money than he paid her, so she figured that by stirring the waters, she could get some more cash. Nothing sells better than a good political sex scandal, no? All of the ingredients are here: Future (thrice-married) president cavorting with an adult film star, engaging in adulty things in a hotel room, and one pays off the other to keep the whole thingy quiet.
The incentive to pay her more money, though. evaporated when Daniels and her legal team showed up at CNN’s doorstep and went public with their story. The value of another confidential settlement plummeted and now she is stuck on the talk-show circuit to discuss what appears to be an odd affair in a Trump casino in Las Vegas (I thought what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas), which by all measures was between two consenting, participating adults, where there is no allegation or proof of coercion, assault, or other nefarious activities implicating crimes.
jvb
Also, the fact that Trump has repeatedly denied participating in this agreement makes it harder to argue that it is enforceable.
Does Trump absolutely have to be a party to the agreement?
If I paid you $2 million to never talk about Africanized Honey Bees again…and you agreed…does it matter at all that Africanized Honey Bees aren’t even interested in the agreement if you go back on the agreement after I paid?
She can’t refute an agreement where she received consideration and still keep the consideration. It doesn’t matter who the deal is with.
“It doesn’t matter who the deal is with.”
Thanks!
Only if the agreement is enforceable. I don’t think it is. I actually would bet my life savings on it — if forced to bet my life savings (I’m not a gambler).
Further, the written agreement is the most poorly constructed piece of legal mumbo-jumbo garbage I have ever seen. I think most Judges would agree.
When you talk about enforceable oral agreements, they tend to be made by two individuals face-to-face. The fact that attorneys were involved, pseudonyms, and still no fully executed contract? That really weakens the case — especially with all the damaging statements that Trump has made. Garbage case.
To bring it back to my real-world example, my client paid millions under one of these, and the other party still got to keep the money (this was NJ State law) because the agreement was not fully executed.
Don’t some states consider verbal contracts binding?
ALL states, the Common Law, and basic contract principles. An oral contract is just as binding as a written one.
Doesn’t adjudication of oral contracts then just become a big “He-said she said” fiasco?
Well, if money changes hands, that’s pretty powerful evidence of a deal. But yes, oral contracts often end up in court, with juries having to decide what was agreed upon.
Any prominent known cases where a really great liar has swindled the crap out of someone by presenting a really great argument before a jury?
Daniel Webster pulled it off getting Jabez Stone out of an agreement with Mr Scratch.
I doubt seriously that ‘The Devil And Daniel Webster’, being a religious tract, and thus fictional, would establish precedent in a Court of Law.
What Trump / Cohen have on their side is that there is a written agreement stating that they would give her $130K, and they did give her $130K. Even if she didn’t sign it, she accepted the money. Unless she can produce an alternative agreement, a reasonable person will presume that the agreement is valid once she takes the money.
No doubt. I was curious about oral contracts in general. I mean, we work on formal written contracts as well, though my boss always reminds us everything is ultimately an oral contract which is why contractor-client *relationship* built on trust is more important than anything else.
I read the agreement. On the second page, it says that the agreement goes into effect upon her signature, and Trump’s transfer of the money.
She also waived any prior claims against Trump. So she may we’ll have been threatened by a Trump goon, and thus had a legitimate grevience against him. However, she settled that claim, while allowing Trump to admit no wrong doing….
Thanks Rich. Nice work.
Still Spartan wrote, “Agreement was never duly executed. She hasn’t breached anything.”
Bull.
She signed the agreement and accepted the cash, that is a done deal. At one point of our history, people were honorable and it only took a handshake for people to keep their agreements.
She’s a profiteering unhonorable slutty whore and I there is no reason to trust anything that comes out of her mouth. Pardon the unintended pun, it just happened.
Let’s definitely continue using far worse language for a woman that Trump had sex with and then paid off then for Trump himself.
That definitely doesn’t reveal anything about you as a person or your attitudes toward women.
Chris wrote, “Let’s definitely continue using far worse language for a woman that Trump had sex with and then paid off then for Trump himself.”
So call Donald Trump the slutty John, I just don’t don’t give a damn.
Chris wrote, “That definitely doesn’t reveal anything about you as a person or your attitudes toward women.”
You just crossed the line you f**king dip-stick; if you were standing next to me right now you’d have my pointy boot up your ass. My attitude is toward a confirmed whore and a slut not women in general; you can shove your innuendo extrapolation straight up your f**king ass.
YIKES! That escalated quickly. Time out, guys.
Yeesh, sorry Jack—go ahead and delete that.
If I do, I might as well delete them all.
“I don’t know. Maybe they just oughta leave it the way it is. Kind of a shrine to all the bullshit in the world.”
Special credit for naming the movie and the speaker!
“I don’t know. Maybe they just oughta leave it the way it is. Kind of a shrine to all the bullshit in the world.”
Paul Newman (“Doug Roberts”) said it at the end of “The Towering Inferno.”
DINGDINGDINGDING!!!
Yup, right before Steve McQueen as Chief O’Halloran (if someone was a cop or fireman in those days he was ALWAYS Irish) tells him he knows where to find him when he’s ready to talk safety instead of grandiosity. Both guys asked for top billing and they split the difference by positioning their names on the screen diagonally.
That happened because they mashed up two big budget films about skyscraper fires. Still the best of all disaster movies, by far.
“My attitude is toward a confirmed whore and slut not women in general”
I am choosing to believe this is brilliant satire. Please don’t own yourself by contradicting this belief.
Nope, she’s a slutty whore. She took off her clothes for money and allowed herself to be filmed having sex for money. If the latter isn’t whoring, i.e. having sex for money, I don’t know what is. She actually considered running for Senate, but junked the idea. At least the US hasn’t sunk as low as Italy, which had a Hungarian porn star in its parliament.
Steve-O wrote, ” If the latter isn’t whoring, i.e. having sex for money, I don’t know what is.”
It is art, I tell you! Art! See: Plot changes, mood setting and lighting, character development, scripts being interpreted in the best possible way (all method acty by methody actors). Kurosawa at his best.
jvb
I think people keep thinking I am coming at this through a liberal lens. I’m looking at it purely as an attorney who did high stakes contracts law for years. There are some serious questions about the enforceability of this agreement. Given that Trump claims that he didn’t meet with Stormy, the “oral promise” is iffy, and you might have Statute of Frauds issues.
Absolutely: enforceability is big question. There is no question, however, that she can’t both keep the money and say there was no valid deal.
We’ll see. I don’t really care. Well, I guess I care that I usually like to be right — but I don’t really care whether or not a porn star is out $130,000.
Promissory estoppel would prevent her from repudiating the agreement, no? She accepted $130k and signed the agreement, waiving claims she had. She changed her position in consideration for accepting the payment. Whether pre-President Trump signed it would be irrelevant. If she repudiates, she has to return the cash, and not give it to some stupid charity.
jvb
Promissory estoppel always is that last and weakest stance in one of these cases though. I actually prevailed on an estoppel argument once — and it was one of the highlights of my career because I fought tooth and nail to hang our hat on it. Seeing the judge basically adopt my argument word for word in his opinion was very satisfying. But I digress….
But, let’s play this out. Who actually has standing to bring this action against Ms. Daniels? Trump? Maybe. More likely it is Mr. Cohen, and that complicates this. Either way, relying on estoppel or an oral promise opens you up to a ton of discovery. And Trump certainly does not want discovery. So, most likely, she is going to keep her $130,000 or get a ton more in a new settlement. And this time the NDA will be drafted properly.
The only item that interests me is that it appears that other people/corporations might have funded the pay out. If that is the case — and I’m not saying it is — we might have some campaign finance laws broken here. It also raises some interesting questions about just how rich Trump is if he has to send his attorney out begging for some pretty minor sums of money. Otherwise, I agree that this is ho-hum Monica Lewinsky all over again. Wow, another politician can’t keep his pants zipped. Let’s move along.
Agreed. Promissory estoppel is equity, to prevent unjust enrichment with justifiable reliance. But, let’s assume Daniels sued. What would be her claim? Breach of contract? Probably not. She signed the agreement and accepted payment of $130k. Failure of consideration, in that she did not get paid what other women were paid? Very tenuous. Fraud? Probably not, from what is known.
jvb
No need for her to sue. She should just market her story around and wait for someone to come after her.
Well done Jack, well done.
I’m sure the money’s long spent. Rich playboys like Trump may be sleazy, but the women they bed are frequently sleazier still, and wouldn’t know thing one about financial management. Stormy Daniels, Anna Nicole Smith, Jessica Hahn, et al, they’re really not much more than whores and they know they have nothing to offer other than their bodies to the highest bidder while they are at their prime and the stories of what they did with their bodies after those bodies are at the point no one wants them anymore.
She’s already way, way past her sell by date.
This is an article I’ve been waiting for:
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/387088-who-is-paying-michael-avenatti
I had to laugh when the Iranian politicos and mullahs were trying to upset Trump by saying and doing various things. Haven’t they been paying attention to what the Dems and the media, but I repeat myself, have been doing to Trump? And he doesn’t care! Why would he be upset by anything those guys in Iran say or threaten to do? He deals with much worse every day over here. Maybe the Iranians will hire Avenetti after the Daniels case folds.
Bill Clinton would have had any woman who tried this sort of thing killed.
Monica Lewinsky is dead?
Chris wrote, “Monica Lewinsky is dead?”
Seriously Chris, did you really not comprehend the totality of the comment?
I comprehended that the person who made it is a Clinton murder truther and should be mocked thusly.
I will take no further questions at this time.
Chris wrote, “I comprehended that the person who made it is a Clinton murder truther and should be mocked thusly.”
Yup, that’s what I figured you’d do, misrepresent to attack the messenger and deflect. No you idiot, Monica Lewinsky hasn’t done what this Stormy Daniels slutty whore has done.
Chris wrote, “I will take no further questions at this time.”
Good thing, you’re misrepresenting others anyway.
No misrepresentation. You’re the misrepresentation.
Lewinsky nearly got Clinton impeached, and he didn’t kill her…my initial comment stands.
And the fact remains that Clinton murder truthers are absurd and deserving of mockery. Disagree?
LEWINSKY nearly got Clinton impeached? That is a spin classic. Clinton nearly got Clinton impeached, and Lewinsky went out of her way to protect him. Like she never revealed who dictated that document she tried to get Linda Tripp to sign. Clinton, meanwhile, ruined Lewinsky’s life. In a movie, it would be her trying to kill HIM.
Good points.
Clinton murder truthers are still stupid as fuck.
Clinton DID get Clinton impeached, and nearly thrown out of office.
Ugh. The old “impeached”/”Convicted’ gaffe. Please call me on that every time I do it.
Zoltar wrote: “Stormy Daniels slutty whore”
I quibble over definitions/semantics. She is an adult film performance artist. She challenges us to reconsider our antiquated notions to propriety and sexual more . . . Oh, forget it. I just can’t type with a straight face.
jvb
The photo…Gad, she’s got knockers bigger than Sydney Spies’ glutes.
Or head.
“Get back to me when this tabloid story involves substantive Presidential conduct.”
Does the discovery that his personal lawyer was a bag man for a Russian oligarch and for corporate influence-peddling qualify?
Oh, you sweet summer child.
Ah ha ha ha ha 🙂
Two words, Charles: Billy Carter.
I loved Billy Beer, but fail to get the connection here?
Come on, Charles. Billy was trying to get deals done with Mhoamar Ghadaffi (sp?). That wasn’t influence pedaling? Surely your remember that. And what’s the big deal of dealing with a Russian oligarch? The NBA owners have one in their club. The guy owns the Brooklyn Nets. And there’s a Russian oligarch who owns an English Premier League football club. Maybe David Stern should be impeached and thrown in jail? Or the owners in the Premier League? Looks like collusion to me.
Come on, Charles. Billy was trying to get deals done with Mhoamar Ghadaffi (sp?). That wasn’t influence pedaling? Surely your remember that
I don’t know what the statute of limitations on double standard gotchas is, but it’s gotta be less than forty years, no?
Peddling. Not pedaling. Embarrassing.
The point is, this stuff has been going on forever. And Jimmy Carter is always held up as a paragon of virtue by Dems, particularly when he’s bashing Israel, notwithstanding he was, next to Obama, the most feckless president we’ve ever had.
No. Why would it? Clients are not responsible for their lawyers’ conduct unless they direct it. There is no evidence at all that these contacts had anything to do with Trump. Russian oligarchs are not Russia. A lawyer accepting money to provide access isn’t even illegal, unlike, for example, what the Clinton Foundation was doing, because the money was going to the family of the official involved. I get the theory: if anything could possibly be used to implicate Trump, it does implicate Trump. That’s been the news media’s narrative all along.
I’m sure this is just a big coincidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/09/russia-linked-company-that-hired-michael-cohen-registered-alt-right-websites-during-election/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d0500320362d
It’s not even a coincidence. It’s two loosely correlated things. But thank you for demonstrating the false-cause fallacy.
Hey, I think some engineer who worked on the twin towers also was wired some money from some Jews, and then was out of the city on 9/11. Better look into that smoking gun.
Stormy Daniels is nothing more than a slutty whore that gets paid to have sex with loads of different men. I have zero respect for any slut like her.
Classy.
Chris wrote, “Classy.”
Serious Chris, you can try until you’re blue in your face to explain her life in a more PC way but it all means exactly the same thing – slutty whore.
But she doesn’t do anal, so she’s got that going for her.
Don’t forget, ZMan, sex workers are a protected class of the left. Unless James Carville is running the show.
Ouch.
jvb
Well THIS thread has not been one of Ethics Alarms shining moments, THAT’S for sure.
For the record, I think a porn star who has sex with a married billionaire, threatens to tell, accepts six figures not to, sells the story anyway to a tabloid after the Billionaire becomes President, and uses the scandal to score TV slots on late night shows, and then calls a critic a “twat” on Twitter because she “doesn’t do anal” is not unfairly characterized as a slut. Whore is hyperbole, because of the timing of the payment (as far as we know.)
Ugh. “Slut” is a sexist slur. One can no more be fairly characterized as a slut than one can be fairly characterized using the n word. The word is meaningless outside its intent to demonize a woman.
I expect English teachers to understand English better than that. “Nigger” is just a disparaging slur: it has no meaning other than to show disrespect. Slut has a very specific meaning, just as “whore” does. Calling a woman either word just to disparage her is using the word as a slur. The word means “a sexually promiscuous woman, or a woman who behaves or dresses in an overtly sexual way.” Well, for God’s sake: this is a perfectly accurate, and in fact rather restrained description of this woman. Sluts are real; they aren’t mythical.It’s not a slur, any more than calling a rat a rat, an asshole an asshole, or a moron a moron.”Nigger” in contrast, is never a fair description. I can call Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein a pig, and that is fair and accurate. Calling a man a pig just because he’s male, however, is like calling a woman a slut just because she’s a slut. Calling Stormy a slut couldn’t be fairer.
I would never call a person a “slut,” simply because there are more polite equivalent terms. However, Chris is trying to change the factual and popular definition of a word by sheer false assertion (which is itself a polite way of saying, ‘lying.’)
Just because large numbers of progressives have all joined in on this particular lie, (making Chris feel secure upon the bandwagon,) doesn’t make the lie true.
The thing about virtue-signaling is, people sincerely interested in virtue don’t care how it looks on them in the eyes of others. There’s no glory in Jack, or anyone, defending the proper use of the word ‘slut.’ It’s probably embarrassing to find oneself playing the devil’s advocate like that. But it is in this case the virtuous course.
I think “shrew” is a fitting descriptor for a woman like Stormy Daniels, no matter what her sexual practices are and why.
I know, I know, it’s simian privilege all over again, and species-ist, but I’ve never met a shrew that cares.
Well said, Isaac
Chris, it’s the “s-word”. C’mon, man. Get with the 21st Century!
jvb
Chris you are at the top of my shit list, in fact you’re the only person on it, that’s not a good place to be. You owe me a public apology in this thread for your blatant misrepresentation of my statement, taking the accurate terms I used specifically about one individual woman and extrapolating that into your false misrepresenting innuendo. You’ve been told that your constant misrepresentations will get you into trouble, well you’ve stepped well over that line with me and I don’t take kindly to such things.
I’m taking a needed personal break for a few days to walk away from this and do a little personal reflection, but before I go I’m posting the following to clear something up…
Above I wrote, “Stormy Daniels is nothing more than a slutty whore that gets paid to have sex with loads of different men”, I stand behind that statement 100%.
Slut: a woman who has many casual sexual partners.
Whore: work as a prostitute.
Prostitute: a person, in particular a woman, who engages in sexual activity for payment.
Using the word whore to describe Stormy Daniels is not hyperbole, it is literally accurate. She works in porn, she literally gets paid for sexual activity with loads of different sexual partners. Even though the terms slut and whore are offensive to people they are 100% accurate and I’ll continue to use them to describe Ms Daniels and any other woman that chooses to sell her body for money in the porn industry and I’ll not apologize for the usage.
Be back in a few days.
You make this too easy. Prostitution is illegal. Porn stars aren’t considered prostitutes by the law, so if whore means prostitute as you say, then you can’t say porn stars are literally whores.
The fact remains that the words have been used as marks of contempt in this thread, not for any other purpose.
Have a nice break.
Nope. If the implication is that Stormy’s game is to sleep with billionaires she feels are repulsive—as she has claimed regarding Trump, describing that as prostitution is neither unreasonable nor unfair. The legal definition of prostitution is jut one of many.
I think you are better than this. “Whore” and “slut” should never be used in polite conversation. There are better words people — I know that you know them. And Chris, please stop stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot.
You all sound like children fighting on a playground. And Jack, you’re not helping.
Taking a step back and reading this thread as a whole, I do think there is some female-bashing going on here in general. Why all the focus on Ms. Daniels? Yes, she is a porn star — or at least an actress, I don’t follow porn. Yes, she sleeps with rich men — lots of women do. But now ask yourselves why these women exist? (I would not call her a prostitute, FWIW — extortionist is a more apt term.) They exist because of men. Period. No other explanation needed. So, to bring my playground analogy full circle, if she’s a slutty whore, what does that make Trump? A slutty pimp? A slutty John? Do using those phrases and stereotypes somehow advance this conversation in a positive way?
We can have discussions without using salacious language. And if you feel the need to use such language, ask yourselves if you’re giving the men and women in these relationships equal disdain. Because if you are just blaming the women, then you need to question why.
Jack’s post itself isn’t Daniels-centric though she’s a main character. It’s about the attempted destruction of a US President with hints towards the unintended consequences of the collateral damage to the US System.
“But now ask yourselves why these women exist? (I would not call her a prostitute, FWIW — extortionist is a more apt term.) They exist because of men.”
Nonsense.
Slutty men and slutty women exist independent of each other…they just happen to fulfill each others imbalanced and unhealthy cravings.
Michael — my overall point is that I do not see the same disparaging language used toward the men in these relationships. It is incredibly lopsided. Why?
And if we are looking at straight up prostitutes, they tend to be women (and girls) who were raised in Hell and have few options — many are there unwillingly and could be murdered if they attempt to leave. I think there is a 0% chance that these women would be “sluts” but for men. I will agree that there are naturally sexually promiscuous women, but I think they are fewer in number then as evidenced by the sex trade.
“Slutty men” and using the term “slut” to apply to men is uncommon, and it’s pretty transparently only being used in this thread to apply to men now in order to justify the previous woman-bashing. That the term is used to enforce a double standard between men and women is inarguable.
Thanks for bringing this conversation back down to earth, Spartan.
Nope, we fairly regularly talked about “male sluts” in college when we were referring to good-looking guys who were “players”
But the fact that you even have to attach the word “make” to it shows that the word is traditionally used to refer to females, no?
*male
Yes, Chris, same as I might call an obnoxious guy an asshole, but an obnoxious woman a bitch, or might use genitalia-specific terms to refer to people I found objectionable, i.e. calling a guy who acts like a jerk a dick or a prick, but a nasty woman a cunt. For some reason it’s ok, if rude, to refer to the male genitalia when angry or insulting, but to do the same with the female genitalia sends feminists to their fainting couches.
I use asshole interchangeably, but don’t use any of these other words.
None of these are words I use in front of my grandmother. Asshole is permissible in front of my family (but rare); none of the others are fit for conversation, locker room or no.
I take it your grandmother was not from a “shanty Irish” or other working class background. Some matriarchs I knew who were could work bluer than a winter Navy uniform if the situation called for it. My objurgational powers, as I guess everyone knows by now, are quite formidable, but I also wouldn’t use any of that kind of talk in front of my mom or either of my grandmothers in life.
Would just like to second Steve’s point here as I almost feel like it was ignored to talk about what words are acceptable in public discourse:
“es, Chris, same as I might call an obnoxious guy an asshole, but an obnoxious woman a bitch, or might use genitalia-specific terms to refer to people I found objectionable, i.e. calling a guy who acts like a jerk a dick or a prick, but a nasty woman a cunt”
I would not call Donald Trump a slut, among any company. A pig? Fuckboy? Womanizer? Prick? Shithead? absolutely, and at least in mind mind they are all male gender specific negative words, some of which have about the same connotation and power as slut in my opinion.
I’d like to keep this from turning into the much broader discussion of systematic sexism and double standards or whatever you’d like to call it because it just sends the whole thing down the toilet, but I suspect it has already gone there.
I think there is no doubt that men, by nature, have a naturally increased sex *drive*. But that doesn’t make us sluts. It’s the willingness to engage in sex with little regard to it’s collateral attachments – societal norms, emotional health, etc…that makes an individual a slut.
Gotcha. So all men who cheat on their wives are sluts? All frat bros who try to hook up at parties are sluts? Are you willing to say President Trump is a slut?
(I think many of you are not willing to say that. And, if you’re being honest, the first image that comes to mind when you hear “slut” is a promiscuous female.)
Sure, Trump’s a slut.
Happy?
And yes, cheaters are sluts and frat boys out for hook ups are sluts. How is this even a question?
But the purpose of the post is that all this has nothing to do with sluts and promiscuity and everything to do with the Republic-imperiling Get-Trump-At-All-Costs Resistance.
“And, if you’re being honest, the first image that comes to mind when you hear “slut” is a promiscuous female.”
As a matter of fact… no it is not.
The first image is one of guys from college, freshman year, who never stopped jabbering about his “triumphs”. To this day, he’ll post some great accomplishment – material or professional – in his *still single* life on facebook…and my first thought has nothing to do with “great job” it’s “yeah ok” combined with some derogatory thought about his promiscuity.
I was not singling out you.
No one here has ever called Trump a “slut” unprompted; the only reason they’re doing so now is to pretend there is no sexist double standard from those who have been calling Daniels a whore and slut in this thread.
“the first image that comes to mind when you hear “slut” is a promiscuous female”
Uhhh, no… Michael covered this well.
Uh-huh. Everything everyone has ever written here demonstrates otherwise.
I answered personally, and was vague. My apologies.
YMMV about others her at EA
And “societal norms” tend to be judged differently depending on gender.
Then they are not societal norms. But that makes no sense.
There *are* societal norms, whether or not we generally follow them and whether or not the sexual revolution is frantically trying to tear them down.
You know, Chris, you specialize in the obtuse.
The point of this post was not whether Daniels is a woman of questionable moral standing the community or someone to hold as virtuous. It certainly was not about the legal/surgical distinctions between “whore”, “slut”, “prostitute”, “pimp” or “john”, or “adult performer” or whatever quibbling, nitpicking atom-splittings that may or may not be attributed to the cast of characters. It is about whether this news story is worthy of the wall-to-wall coverage on the news shows. CNN holds Daniels up as a cultural icon; Fox News holds her up as a fallen woman and Trump as the savior of the Republic (why, I have not a clue, but . . . ).
Pre-President Trump had a pre-presidential tryst with Stormy Daniels and she took hush money from him. Unseemly but not illegal, and maybe not even unethical (though my wife would have a different take, but hey . . . ). Jack’s point was the Anti-and’Never-Trumpers have flogged this poor, dead horse beyond the point of relevance in order to “get” Trump and damage his presidency. That is the ethics issue but you like to distract from the point with minute distinctions and distractions/deflections, and self-righteous moralize and preaching about other commenters’ word choices. It is all quite boring.
jvb
We are talking about the comments, not the original post. As I mentioned, I don’t quibble with Jack’s post.
Chris wrote, ” You make this too easy. Prostitution is illegal. Porn stars aren’t considered prostitutes by the law, so if whore means prostitute as you say, then you can’t say porn stars are literally whores.”
The definition does not change because something is legal or illegal, you idiot! The legality of the action can change at the whim of law makers, in fact, prostitution is legal in some counties of Nevada.
You’re argument not only shows your ignorance of the English language, not good for an English teacher, but it shows your complete lack of logic.
Chris wrote, ” The fact remains that the words have been used as marks of contempt in this thread, not for any other purpose.”
First and foremost *CST; that is not the only way the terms have been used. You are again intentionally misrepresenting others with your constant hyperbole, unethical extrapolations, and utter BS – typical troll activity.
Second; so what if they are used as marks of contempt? The terms are fair game to use because their definitions are 100% accurate as nouns that perfectly label of the action performed by the individual. Peel off that faux snowflake facade and join reality.
*CST: Henceforth CST will be defined as Chris Shameless Troll.
*CST,
Where is your public apology?
*CST: Chris Shameless Troll.
Check out @MichaelAvenatti’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/MichaelAvenatti/status/995284542058631169?s=09
Okay folks there are parts of this conversation that have veered off so far into the mentality of snowflake absurdity, politically correctness gone stupid, anti-Trump piles of intellectual feces, political wet dreams of the delusional resistance, etc, etc. that it approached farcical. You can’t write the kind of spontaneous craziness that emanated from the collective hive-mind; it’s Salem Witch Trial School of Thinking.
Prostitute = Hooker = Whore = Courtesan = Ho = etc, etc.
What do these nouns have in common, they share the same basic definition which just happens to be “a person who engages in sexual activity for payment”. That is exactly what Stormy Daniels does in her porn career, deny it and you are literally lying to yourself and others. Just stop it people, you’re looking damned foolish. When your bias forces you to detach from reality in such a way that you literally attack others for properly calling a whore a whore shows complete moral bankruptcy and your morals may be a permanent lost cause.
The evidence points to the fact that Stormy Daniels is an active courtesan, yes a whore, pimped out to rich and famous men. I am not a betting man, but I would bet my freedoms that money changed hands for Donald Trump to get the opportunity to bed Stormy Daniels, would any of them actually admit it under oath, not likely. The money might not have been put directly in her hands by Donald Trump himself but the likely hood that Trump didn’t pay either directly or indirectly for the act is zero. Stormy Daniels is a slutty whore and Donald Trump was one of her slimy Johns, accept it.
I’m quite sure that the only reason that some people in this thread don’t want these contemptuous nouns used to label Stormy Daniels is they want to build up her position in the public eye, essentially white washing her immoral character so it’s easier to use her to attack President Trump. It’s damned obvious that this is all ends justify the means BS.
Do any of you anti-Trumper’s have the personal integrity to acknowledge these observations or are you going to remain hiding behind your immoral justifications?
I’m quite sure that the only reason that some people in this thread don’t want these contemptuous nouns used to label Stormy Daniels is they want to build up her position in the public eye, essentially white washing her immoral character so it’s easier to use her to attack President Trump. It’s damned obvious that this is all ends justify the means BS.
True.
And there may be a technical distinction between someone who engages in sex for money, called “a whore” or “prostitute,” and a porn star who is paid to have sex on camera—the payment is coming from a different party, and objective is the entertainment corruption of others. But pretending that the distinction is material is dishonest. Porn stars do not warrant any more respect than the girl leaning into car windows asking “Want a date?”
This link shows you just how respectable Stormy is. WARNING! This is obscene stuff, and I resisted the previous urges to post the link here (a link which took me 3 seconds to find, and which I viewed myself for less than that.). But it does place this latest resistance plot–I think it’s Plan L, but I have to go back and check, in perspective.
WHO CARES what Trump did 12 years ago as a wealthy private citizen. That’s between him and his wife. The porno wh0re and her ambulance chasing lawyer are being bankrolled by THE SWAMP. And she should have to pay back the $130G plus. No president has had to deal with the fake news and 24/7/365 negativity towards him like #45 has and it’s disgusting.
I am pretty sure this is not the previous Warren, who abandoned the blog some time ago…