Can't turn a ho into a housewife, true or false?

In My Humble Opinion
41

Actually, that’s exactly the assumption as it’s Exhibit A, B, all the way through Z in the case against Kim Kardashian’s character, as it were.

It’s 2010. We’re a long way past the days of sexual liberation, and schoolyard & locker room joking aside, most men are comfortable enough with female sexuality to square the old “housewife” and “ho” dichotomy. Perhaps not Reggie Bush’s mother judging by gossip reports, but given the length of their relationship, Reggie Bush didn’t have a terrible problem with it.

But again, it’s not that Kim Kardashian had sex with at least one other man (who knows? Perhaps Ray J was the ONLY other man she ever slept with, it’s immaterial). It’s not that she made a private video tape of her having sex with Ray J.-- again, it’s 2010, we accept such behavior from the young and hip.

It’s the fact that the tape got out, and whatever initial legal wranglings that were made to stop the publication of the tape were long since forgotten, at least in public, by Kim Kardashian.

Remember the timeframe here: Paris Hilton and her were BFF. Paris Hilton got famous for having a sex tape she also “fought” to prevent being released. Tape got out, Hilton rides it for fame. With that kind of example, who would blame Kardashian for not putting up a decade-long fight to prevent her tape from coming out? Who would blame her for riding the wave of publicity/notoriety to get gossip-rag-caliber famous after the tape was released?

Which is precisely what she did. Or would all those defending Ms. Kardashian please point out the years of public shame and apologies for what came before? She obviously didn’t feel so bad about it-- and why would she? It’s the only reason any of us even know the woman’s name, let alone why this thread exists.

As a perfect counter example to all of this, I offer the Erin Andrews case. Yes, it’s different insofar as it was a creepy pervert illegally making the tape, but ultimately, it was a case of “Will I fight this with every last legal breath I have?” versus “Hmmm, maybe it’s not such bad publicity to have this out there.” Andrews went to court; her pervert stalker went to jail, and when she talks about it, she’s still noticeably upset about the whole situation.

Kardashian went to the pool and got her own TV show.

That doesn’t mean Kardashian is a “ho”. But in no way does it speak highly of her judgment (beyond her ability to leverage a sex tape into a career).

Occam’s Razor.

42

How about I dismiss you based on the absurd assertion that you get to decide whether Kim Kardashian has self respect?

43

Actually, there are a couple of differences: the Andrews case involved criminal conduct that was prosecuted by the government. Andrews’ agreement to testify was unnecessary; the crime could easily have been prosecuted without her cooperation. In Kardashian’s case, by contrast, I don’t believe that there were any criminal charges at issue. As you may be away, there’s a huge difference between the array of remedies available for civil complaints versus criminal conduct.

The other issue is that the Kardashian example is from years ago, while the Andrews one is from weeks ago. Who knows whether Andrews will, in a couple of years, be able to put it all behind her and act the way you’re criticizing Kardashian for acting now?

Ooh, burn! You got me. How irrational of me to expect that when you post an opinion about a legal matter that is fact dependent, you actually know relevant things like “the law” and “the facts.” I have certainly been schooled. See how ashamed I am.

But okay. Go for it – resort to examples and reports from the news to validate your claims. But remember – if you don’t have actual news about it (not puff pieces put out by PR flacks, but news) and if you don’t have analogous examples (remember: things that are the same, not things that are different), you can’t play.

Sure, that may be a “natural” assumption, but it’s also natural to assume that the earth is flat, because we can see that it is. Only, guess, what, turns out it’s not. So while I appreciate your assumption, you need to back it up with facts and the law.

Oh, dear. You didn’t watch the video, did you. Did you know that there are differences between UK and US law? So that’s not like the other thing.

Honey, it ain’t the time that’s the issue, it’s what you’ve apparently done with it.

44

Deleted. I just realized that I only repeated myself, only this time longer.

45

There is a serious difference between a ho and a slut. A slut is sexually loose. A ho is sexually loose and has long, fake nails.

Can’t turn a ho into a housewife.

46

The housewives living on either side of you could well be reformed Ho’s and you’d have no freaking way of knowing. You only know about Kim because Kim wanted everybody to know her name and she was quite successful at it. Unlike many other Ho’s, she didn’t use an assumed name or make any attempt to distance herself from her Ho-ness, since it was, in fact, the source of her fame.

In this, she is unlike most porn making Hos. Most use a stage name, and go on to lives where no one knows or cares about their former Ho-ness. It’s not like there’s a central Ho registry.

I remember being as young as you, I don’t remember being as immature, as you have demonstrated here. That’s why your ‘yoof’ is an issue. Grow up.

47

What do they mean “leaked”? Was the tape stolen from either Kim or Ray and then sold to Vivid?

48

There’s actually an interesting cause and effect with the Paris Hilton sex tape. She didn’t become famous due to the sex tape, but it was the tipping point that pushed her into the limelight for good.

Paris was already a model for years before the tape was released (even a year or two before it was filmed). Also, Paris’ tape was not “leaked”, but was specifically sold by her then-boyfriend to capitalize on the premiere of The Simple Life.

Who knows what Kardashian did, but Paris’ sex tape was released because she was already famous, not to get her famous.