IDBillzFan Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Those poor girls.Yeah, it never does. 865882[/snapback] Nothing makes you feel good about yourself more than having Paris Hilton publically defend how you conduct yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Combined IQ of Lindsy, Paris and Jessica =43 865622[/snapback] Oddly enough, that's also their combined weight... That's the problem I've got - most of these girls today are too damn skinny. I like thin, but healthy thin, not boney. Hard to find anyone whose ribs/shoulderblades don't stick out. On the flip side, some of the girls who aren't too skinny are too buff. I like toned, but I don't want to be with some girl who looks like Arnold and could bench press my car - to me that's also unattractive. What ever happened to femininity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Audrey Hepburn...now THERE was a woman! 865614[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodBye Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Woman are going to dress (especially younger ones) the way they think guys will notice them ... and when they do the guys post threads with links to many pictures of them nearly naked. So its no wonder why (in your words) "society is going to hell in a hand basket" 865656[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I am going to side with the new skanks, as I did not get to see any of the 3 older gals working and ridin some dudes johnson on video 865624[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 Nothing makes you feel good about yourself more than having Paris Hilton publically defend how you conduct yourself. 865885[/snapback] I was thinking the same thing. It ranks right up there with Michael Dukakis giving you the thumbs up sign during a debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 (Can't believe I'm about to do this...) Lohan, Hilton and Spears are celebrities -- not actresses like Grace and Audry were. Lohan is borderline. So, on that level alone it's not a fair comparison. A better one would be (off the top of my head): Grace and Audry compared to Natalie Portman (as someone just pointed out) and Hillary Swank. Real actresses and celebrities. But more than that, comparing the celebs of today to those of the old studio system is entirely unfair. Grace, Audry and Jackie all lived and worked in a very different "entertainment" business than the actresses of today. Studios used to control everything, including stars images. They protected them. They controlled the press. The tabloids were nothing more than a publicity arm of the studios. Audry and Grace were allowed to keep their dignity because they didn't have to deal with 100s (and I mean 100s) of Paparazi with telescopic lenses following their every move. There was no internet. There was no 24 hour a day celebrity news cycle. There was privacy. And that's the key word. And something that is sorely lacking from our society as a whole today. I assure you that if you transplanted Grace and Audry into this era, they too would be splashed all over the tabloids. Sorrid details of their romantic encounters, what outfits they chose to wear, and probably hundreds of compromising photos would haunt these women just as they do the celebs of today. So, the question to me isn't so much "is society degenerating" so much as it's whether society is just adjusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I am going to side with the new skanks, as I did not get to see any of the 3 older gals working and ridin some dudes johnson on video 865624[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 great post!!! Bravo!!! (Can't believe I'm about to do this...) Lohan, Hilton and Spears are celebrities -- not actresses like Grace and Audry were. Lohan is borderline. So, on that level alone it's not a fair comparison. A better one would be (off the top of my head): Grace and Audry compared to Natalie Portman (as someone just pointed out) and Hillary Swank. Real actresses and celebrities. But more than that, comparing the celebs of today to those of the old studio system is entirely unfair. Grace, Audry and Jackie all lived and worked in a very different "entertainment" business than the actresses of today. Studios used to control everything, including stars images. They protected them. They controlled the press. The tabloids were nothing more than a publicity arm of the studios. Audry and Grace were allowed to keep their dignity because they didn't have to deal with 100s (and I mean 100s) of Paparazi with telescopic lenses following their every move. There was no internet. There was no 24 hour a day celebrity news cycle. There was privacy. And that's the key word. And something that is sorely lacking from our society as a whole today. I assure you that if you transplanted Grace and Audry into this era, they too would be splashed all over the tabloids. Sorrid details of their romantic encounters, what outfits they chose to wear, and probably hundreds of compromising photos would haunt these women just as they do the celebs of today. So, the question to me isn't so much "is society degenerating" so much as it's whether society is just adjusting. 866152[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted December 14, 2006 Share Posted December 14, 2006 I'll give you Grace Kelly & Audrey Hepburn... but I've seen those paparazzi shots of Jackie Ho naked on Ari's island. 865634[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 (Can't believe I'm about to do this...) Lohan, Hilton and Spears are celebrities -- not actresses like Grace and Audry were. Lohan is borderline. So, on that level alone it's not a fair comparison. A better one would be (off the top of my head): Grace and Audry compared to Natalie Portman (as someone just pointed out) and Hillary Swank. Real actresses and celebrities. But more than that, comparing the celebs of today to those of the old studio system is entirely unfair. Grace, Audry and Jackie all lived and worked in a very different "entertainment" business than the actresses of today. Studios used to control everything, including stars images. They protected them. They controlled the press. The tabloids were nothing more than a publicity arm of the studios. Audry and Grace were allowed to keep their dignity because they didn't have to deal with 100s (and I mean 100s) of Paparazi with telescopic lenses following their every move. There was no internet. There was no 24 hour a day celebrity news cycle. There was privacy. And that's the key word. And something that is sorely lacking from our society as a whole today. I assure you that if you transplanted Grace and Audry into this era, they too would be splashed all over the tabloids. Sorrid details of their romantic encounters, what outfits they chose to wear, and probably hundreds of compromising photos would haunt these women just as they do the celebs of today. So, the question to me isn't so much "is society degenerating" so much as it's whether society is just adjusting. 866152[/snapback] So what you're saying is it's the medias attention to these skanks that make them skanks, not their skanky behavior that just happened to be caught by the skanky media? Go ahead, you adjust, I'll stay just the way I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 So what you're saying is it's the medias attention to these skanks that make them skanks, not their skanky behavior that just happened to be caught by the skanky media? Go ahead, you adjust, I'll stay just the way I am. 867351[/snapback] Not at all. What I am saying is that the tabloid media is out of control and there is no privacy left. If 100 reporters followed you around, taking pictures every minute of the day for 3 weeks when you were 21 years old, what sort of stuff would they have seen? I'd wager they would uncover some pretty scandelous stuff -- for us all (not calling you out specifically). Still, your whole argument to me isn't valid because Audry and Grace can't be compaired to Lohan, Hilton or Spears. Not in career, not in personality. And that isn't just because "they don't make 'em like they used to". You think there weren't skanky women in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s? Of course there were. Plenty of them. And there were plenty of skany women that would have strolled around half naked or filmed themselves having sex if it meant a boost in their celebrity status. The difference between then and now is that there was no outlet, no 24 hour celebrity news cycle in which to document these trollops back then. Now there is. Technology, the media, and the human apatite for the absurd give these women a platform that other women have never had. For better and for much, much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 Not at all. What I am saying is that the tabloid media is out of control and there is no privacy left. If 100 reporters followed you around, taking pictures every minute of the day for 3 weeks when you were 21 years old, what sort of stuff would they have seen? I'd wager they would uncover some pretty scandelous stuff -- for us all (not calling you out specifically). Still, your whole argument to me isn't valid because Audry and Grace can't be compaired to Lohan, Hilton or Spears. Not in career, not in personality. And that isn't just because "they don't make 'em like they used to". You think there weren't skanky women in the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s? Of course there were. Plenty of them. And there were plenty of skany women that would have strolled around half naked or filmed themselves having sex if it meant a boost in their celebrity status. The difference between then and now is that there was no outlet, no 24 hour celebrity news cycle in which to document these trollops back then. Now there is. Technology, the media, and the human apatite for the absurd give these women a platform that other women have never had. For better and for much, much worse. 867380[/snapback] Here's the big difference. Yes there were skanks back then but they were not considered celebrities, they were considered skanks or trollops as you said using the terms from those days. These skanks are !@#$ing millionaires. It's not the fact that their skankiness is out there for all to see, it's that people let their 8 year old daughters sing their songs, dress like them and want to grow up to be like them. That's where society took a wrong turn. Back in the "good ole days" we held our celebrities to a much higher standard. And oh BTW when I was 21 I had just graduated from the best Chef school in the country if not the world and was working my way up through the ranks of a world famous hotel chain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Here's the big difference. Yes there were skanks back then but they were not considered celebrities, they were considered skanks or trollops as you said using the terms from those days. These skanks are !@#$ing millionaires. It's not the fact that their skankiness is out there for all to see, it's that people let their 8 year old daughters sing their songs, dress like them and want to grow up to be like them. That's where society took a wrong turn. Back in the "good ole days" we held our celebrities to a much higher standard. And oh BTW when I was 21 I had just graduated from the best Chef school in the country if not the world and was working my way up through the ranks of a world famous hotel chain. 867408[/snapback] I agree and disagree with this... First, yes -- Lohan, Spears and Hilton are certainly millionares. But they didn't earn their money by being skanks. If anything, being skanky hurt their careers. Lohan: Was a child actor who got had three huge movies before she was even 17 and certainly before she was considered "skanky". This launched her onto the scene, then she parlayed that into a (short) signing career. It was after that, when she was 18 that the tabloids got a hold of her and the wheels fell off. She still makes money, yes. But she is tabloid fodder for the moment, and will continue to be as long as she remains "skanky". Spears: Made her millions as a former mickey mouse club pop idol. Innocent yet sexy -- not skanky -- made her the celebrity that she was then. Once things got out of control with her, she lost money, lost deals and opportunities, and now her career does not look bright and shiney. Hilton: Is an heiress. She inhereted her money. Sure, she had a show on Fox that celebrated her ignorance (but hey, it's FOX) and a movie or two. But she became rich by being born. Not by being a skank. What keeps these three in the spotlight is the fact that they are sideshows. Freak shows. People watch them as they watch a car wreck. Why? Because the media won't let them fade away. People can become "celebrities" for being colorful, skanky, infamous...and that has always been the case. The difference now is that there is more of an opportunity with the expanding media outlets. But they can't become "Stars" in the sense that Hepburn, Kelly or Bergman were stars. None of these women are better off career wise because of their skanky-ness. If anything, it's hurt their long term futures in the entertainment world. Audrey and Grace are not fair comparisons. If anything, compare Grace and Audry to Portman, Swank, or Knightly. If you do that, I'll think you'll see that the movie stars of today are held to a pretty high standard. Even when they don't enjoy the same sort of privacy that the starts of yesterday received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 And oh BTW when I was 21 I had just graduated from the best Chef school in the country if not the world and was working my way up through the ranks of a world famous hotel chain. 867408[/snapback] As for this, this of course is very cool. And you know I wasn't trying to disrespect you, or your accomplishments, in an earlier post. But even though you were successful at 21, does this mean that if the paparazi followed you around 24/7 for a year, they wouldn't have stumbled upon you in some compromising positions? (No pun intended)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 So who do you blame, the guys for being the horndogs we are or for the women for slutting it up? Which came first? 865673[/snapback] Eve bit the apple first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 As for this, this of course is very cool. And you know I wasn't trying to disrespect you, or your accomplishments, in an earlier post. But even though you were successful at 21, does this mean that if the paparazi followed you around 24/7 for a year, they wouldn't have stumbled upon you in some compromising positions? (No pun intended)... 867421[/snapback] If they followed me arround 24/7 they would have found me with more than one straw up my nose. However I knew that being caught doing that would hurt my career. If I had paparazi following me I would make sure I was doing it where they couldn't see me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 And oh BTW when I was 21 I had just graduated from the best Chef school in the country if not the world and was working my way up through the ranks of a world famous hotel chain. 867408[/snapback] Hojo's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 15, 2006 Author Share Posted December 15, 2006 Hojo's? 867455[/snapback] No, restocking the vending machine at Motel 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts