Excellent post and thank you for your stoic response and asking for clarifications instead of rushing to judements (like the Italian press did to Amanda). I'm glad to see you view this topic and my responses to it in an intellectual way and not an emotional one.
U.R., I agree with you that this case and cases like it give a lot of people outlets for their prejudices, anger, hatred, misogyny and sexual frustrations. In the first couple of years of the case, there were probably hundreds of thousands of posts on the internet labelling Amanda with the whole spectrum of gender-specific derogatory monikers, including "whore."
Absolutely. Even Amanda's sister couldn't visit her in jail without reading "Amanda is a whore" written on the table.
(I don't agree with you that women are the most likely to call another woman a whore, but I can't offer the statistics to support my belief.)
I'll admit, this is my own belief based on personal experience of hearing women discuss their personal lives. They often use the word "whore" in many ways, lots of time as a term of endearment.
I want to believe you when you say you are only observing how Amanda may be perceived by some members of the public. On the other hand, your posts are a little inconsistent -- it's hard to know where your objective description stops and your subjective opinions begin.
I appreciate the feedback and asking for clarifcations.
Would you clarify whether you, personally, are calling Amanda a "whore?"
No, and thanks for asking for clarification. If you'll look, contextually, I never called Amanda a "whore."
...the world knows [likely perceives] your daughter as a whore has got to be a fathers worst nightmare. I'm sure they'll be some people who are passionate about the topic who'll say different. Which is fine, as I said, everyone is entitled to his or her own opinsion. But thank you for asking me and not rushing to judgement (like the Italian press did to Amanda.)
What is your definition of the term "whore?"
My definition? Like most people, I use the term loosely (no pun intended). I don't use term to suggest some sort of deviant or excessive sexual behavior (most people don't either), which is why I find people citing studies to be laughable. The term is used dynamically, meaning one can be a complete whore one time and eunich another. There is no operational definition, it's not used in science like some allude to. It's just an opinion, and opinions change.
Why does Amanda often get branded a whore while other girls who have engaged in much more sex don't get branded the term?As I mentioned,
it is the disclosure of the sexual information which will make one be described as a whore. The cashier girl at McDonald's could've had sex with 6 dudes in 4 days, but you don't have this information so you wouldn't tell your friend you're at McDonald's with "ugh, she's such a whore." People familiar with the Amanda Knox case have much information on her sexual behavior available to them, so,
they will pass judgement.
Would you clarify whether you, personally, have anything against those you describe as whores, or are you using that term only to refer to the way other people use it (that is, to have a pejorative connotation about a woman's sexual behavior)?
Excellent question and no, I don't have anything against people whom I describe as whores (if I do, I elaborate.) As I mentioned, the term is often used
in a reference to a recently disclosed sexual encounter. When chatting with my gf, I might allude to a sexual encounter I had in college and she'll say "you were a whore in college I know you were!" I am not the least bit offended. Her dad calls "cochina" when she says she might be pregnant. Of course, no feelings are hurt.
Finally, the one I'm most curious about -- how do you define "uncommitted sex?" What are your feelings about it?
I also use the term a bit loosely (again, no pun intended.) I usually refer to it as sex with a partner with whom one has not verbally committed to. But you can have uncommitted sex with someone you are verbally committed to and committed sex with someone you aren't verbally committed to. Or, I'll refer to it as,
while having sex with someone, one would attempt to engage in sex with someone else within a matter of weeks. (The weeks is my arbritary definition.) My feelings about uncommitted sex are about as liberal as they come. If a woman is feeling a surge of libido and she has no steady, there is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging in casual sex (as always, as long as both parties are consenting and don't get hurt.) The thing that will either brand her a "whore" or not is
if, how, and to whom she chooses to disclose this information This is absolutely pivotal to a woman's reputation (which they tend to protect). Some women aren't as socially savvy as others and can't control their reputations and will be branded a "whore" just by how she describes her romantic life--College studies on sexual behavior notwithstanding.
eta: you can also have uncommitted sex with someone one night and committed sex with him/her the next. Often ONS's lead to "I really like this person." Anecdotal evidence suggests a lot of relationships form this way.
Does the concept of uncommitted sex conflict with your core values?
Absolutely not. I am slightly amused at the idea of me being a misogynist or have anything against uncommitted sex. It's just further proof (as if more was needed) that people are quick to pass judgement on others without acquring all pertinent information.
Thanks, and may we have some good quality discussion!
Thank you and thanks for not joining the "I have to be indignant about something" crowd.
