Quote:
Originally posted by spookyfish
This makes me think of something that was the topic of a recent discussion. I don't know how it didn't make my radar before (probably because I've never heard occasion of it actually being used), but a woman can sue for defamation on the basis of a lack of "chastity", but a man can't. I assume from your comments that you think that is an appropriate double-standard?
Have you ever heard of someone actually suing for that reason?
PJ -- just to be clear, I'm not challenging your position on the subject, I'd just like to hear your opinion on it.
|
No, I'm dead against allowing someone to sue over defamation for implying a lack of chastity--my whole point is that a woman being sexual should be viewed exactly as positively as it is for a man, so I won't support anything that implies that a double-standard is acceptable.
And Sebby, I'm with Anne Elk on the "c-word." Just like street harassment, it's often used as an implied sexual derogation and threat of violent action. The "d-word" simply doesn't have the same connotations and is generally used as a milder insult in milder situations. It's sexual, but just not used quite the same way.
p(suddenly thought of the implications if the boss walked in to notice a bunch of graphic sexual terms all over my computer screen)j
