Generational morality: The illusion of women of the past...
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
I see the 'thot' bashing daily, always read the memes, listen to conversations on this and read posts on here about modern women not living up to the standard that women of the past set. But I have to remind some folks that those women were forced to dress conservatively, had no rights or not as many nowadays, forced to conduct themselves certain ways publicly but they did sneaky shyt...the same type of shyt that women of today do openly...
We still had sexually expressive women of the past...
There were no paternity tests for fathers.
Women could easily set men up back in the day (fukking men who are similar looking - race and skin tone) and get pregnant from affairs and flings and the husbands had nothing to go off of, especially if she covered her tracks.
There was no internet (like we see everything put on blast and exploited today).
Around the mid to late 80s is when we got the talk shows.
Things were more discreet then but those women still engaged in trifling behavior..
Still promiscuous, experimenting with drugs, neglecting their kids, affairs..married multiple times, everything.
Folks always bring up the 90s women as the GOAT but are we forgetting Freaknik, Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake, etc? Music videos getting malt liquor tossed on them? Topless in the videos (but censored), or how the uncut/uncensored versions of the videos even existed?
I've shared this with some people here but in the 90s my mom's best friend (who didn't dress hoeish, wasn't perceived to be a ho) slept with my father while he was with my mom. She plotted on my mom and was basically a grimey bytch and called my dad over to her place, answered the door naked and they had sex. Then had sex again another day. He didn't confess it to my mom until after they got married in the 2000s. But that whole time my mom was naive and didn't know it was going on behind her back. That was a 90s chick. Outwardly wholesome, but it said nothing about what she was as a woman and translated anything about her soul.
The only way something was put on blast was if it was featured in the newspaper, but media outlets have grown since then and that's why everything seems so emphasized and exploited now. But it's always been like this.
Personally from my own family, I know of some instances where there's grapevine chatter on how certain kids (now grown/ grand parents themselves) who look nothing like their fathers (and barely their mothers) and how there are rumors of other men potentially being their fathers. My great grand mother had like 17 kids and claimed all of them to have two different fathers only, but none of the kids look alike except like 3. Ranging in skin tone to feature to heights/body sizes. One has green eyes and her supposed father doesn't have them and neither did my great grand mother. My other great grand mother had almost that amount of children...again, majority of the kids do not look anything alike....This isn't to bash either of them. They were beautiful women and took care of their kids and suffered trauma. I love them. But we have to just take their word for if the children all belong to the selected men they claim.
But I notice people love to put women of the past on a pedestal for the standard and prototype for what a woman should be, but you don't know what all those women were doing behind closed doors. Their illusions may have carried more mystery and "class" but what they were actually doing is all in the same....
Women of older generations were still exploring their sexualities, being mischievious, carrying on traumas from rapes/sexual abuse. They just had less access to voice it and express it on platforms openly.
(nsfw - 1980s men's magazine cover)
2000s men's magazine cover.
The difference is Amber has a bigger platform....
The difference is Kakey (bottom photo) has tattoos, a tongue ring and 1 million instagram followers. Vanessa Del Rio doesn't.
It's all about respectability politics.
*I know it's a long read*
So my questions are - since this is based on illusion/respectability politics:
1.) Would you rather modern women of today ('instagram thot age') be more "classy" publicly and in aesthetic (how she dresses) /outwardly but still hoeing and sleeping around on their men/ sleeping with other women's men/dyking, etc...? (they're gonna do it anyway) Or would you rather see a chick for what she is?
2.) Can you really sum up a woman's proclivities and tendencies based on how she dresses or what she likes to do sexually? Or is it measured on what she knows and what she does based on what she knows?
Yall are so used to these respectability politics and illusions that you give women who live up to the 'natural hair', 'no makeup' and conversative fashion choices (which are for some reason associated with generational morality/'old school' traits) the benefit of the doubt when it doesn't say anything about actual "class" or morality.
I've said this many times but hoes don't always wear makeup and they do in fact wear sweat pants and look bummy/homely. They don't always have surgery. They're not always strippers or escorts or attention whores. I always think of Erykah Badu & Lauryn Hill when I think of the pedestal of modern day [Black] women who are crowned "Queens" for what they aesthetically represent and what they show people, despite us all knowing that they don't have it together. What they show the world and tell the world is pretty though. But it's not the reality of who they are. Erykah and her baby daddies and also using sex/selling sex herself but still embraced as being a Queen. Lauryn Hill, another talented woman, who is viewed as a heroine, however she got involved with a married man. Another is Alicia Keys (who is another talented woman) but who didn't face much ridicule for stealing someone else's man because of what she represents (gimmick).
I'm certain that if things were fixed how they are today for women of the past, they would've been just like the women that yall constantly drag/bash on the regular. They wouldn't have been so sneaky about it and restricted from even doing it. The only difference then from now is the bodies were a little more natural, excluding the girdles/body shapers and padding they wore. There were no advanced cosmetic surgeries.Now women are able to capitalize to new heights off of sex and looking sexy. But selling sex itself is nothing new. Sorry. We're just seeing shyt more for what it is, with all these platforms and opportunities to reach the masses. Most people love the idea of women being SEEN/objectified and not heard, so now that they're being seen (and possibly influencing people because of their platforms), it's an issue?
Only a post as intellectually bankrupt as this gets cosigned 46 times on "thecoli"
Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
CapitalforCapital
Banned
Nothing wrong with being a thot in theory. But it's just that the hoes these days don't want to sleep in the bed they made for themselves.
at this song.
CapitalforCapital
Banned
What the real comments should beKakey not blonde anymore????
Lemme do some research
Hacksaw Jim Thuggin
Superstar
I see the 'thot' bashing daily, always read the memes, listen to conversations on this and read posts on here about modern women not living up to the standard that women of the past set. But I have to remind some folks that those women were forced to dress conservatively, had no rights or not as many nowadays, forced to conduct themselves certain ways publicly but they did sneaky shyt...the same type of shyt that women of today do openly...
We still had sexually expressive women of the past...
There were no paternity tests for fathers.
Women could easily set men up back in the day (fukking men who are similar looking - race and skin tone) and get pregnant from affairs and flings and the husbands had nothing to go off of, especially if she covered her tracks.
There was no internet (like we see everything put on blast and exploited today).
Around the mid to late 80s is when we got the talk shows.
Things were more discreet then but those women still engaged in trifling behavior..
Still promiscuous, experimenting with drugs, neglecting their kids, affairs..married multiple times, everything.
Folks always bring up the 90s women as the GOAT but are we forgetting Freaknik, Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake, etc? Music videos getting malt liquor tossed on them? Topless in the videos (but censored), or how the uncut/uncensored versions of the videos even existed?
I've shared this with some people here but in the 90s my mom's best friend (who didn't dress hoeish, wasn't perceived to be a ho) slept with my father while he was with my mom. She plotted on my mom and was basically a grimey bytch and called my dad over to her place, answered the door naked and they had sex. Then had sex again another day. He didn't confess it to my mom until after they got married in the 2000s. But that whole time my mom was naive and didn't know it was going on behind her back. That was a 90s chick. Outwardly wholesome, but it said nothing about what she was as a woman and translated anything about her soul.
The only way something was put on blast was if it was featured in the newspaper, but media outlets have grown since then and that's why everything seems so emphasized and exploited now. But it's always been like this.
Personally from my own family, I know of some instances where there's grapevine chatter on how certain kids (now grown/ grand parents themselves) who look nothing like their fathers (and barely their mothers) and how there are rumors of other men potentially being their fathers. My great grand mother had like 17 kids and claimed all of them to have two different fathers only, but none of the kids look alike except like 3. Ranging in skin tone to feature to heights/body sizes. One has green eyes and her supposed father doesn't have them and neither did my great grand mother. My other great grand mother had almost that amount of children...again, majority of the kids do not look anything alike....This isn't to bash either of them. They were beautiful women and took care of their kids and suffered trauma. I love them. But we have to just take their word for if the children all belong to the selected men they claim.
But I notice people love to put women of the past on a pedestal for the standard and prototype for what a woman should be, but you don't know what all those women were doing behind closed doors. Their illusions may have carried more mystery and "class" but what they were actually doing is all in the same....
Women of older generations were still exploring their sexualities, being mischievious, carrying on traumas from rapes/sexual abuse. They just had less access to voice it and express it on platforms openly.
(nsfw - 1980s men's magazine cover)
2000s men's magazine cover.
The difference is Amber has a bigger platform....
The difference is Kakey (bottom photo) has tattoos, a tongue ring and 1 million instagram followers. Vanessa Del Rio doesn't.
It's all about respectability politics.
*I know it's a long read*
So my questions are - since this is based on illusion/respectability politics:
1.) Would you rather modern women of today ('instagram thot age') be more "classy" publicly and in aesthetic (how she dresses) /outwardly but still hoeing and sleeping around on their men/ sleeping with other women's men/dyking, etc...? (they're gonna do it anyway) Or would you rather see a chick for what she is?
2.) Can you really sum up a woman's proclivities and tendencies based on how she dresses or what she likes to do sexually? Or is it measured on what she knows and what she does based on what she knows?
Yall are so used to these respectability politics and illusions that you give women who live up to the 'natural hair', 'no makeup' and conversative fashion choices (which are for some reason associated with generational morality/'old school' traits) the benefit of the doubt when it doesn't say anything about actual "class" or morality.
I've said this many times but hoes don't always wear makeup and they do in fact wear sweat pants and look bummy/homely. They don't always have surgery. They're not always strippers or escorts or attention whores. I always think of Erykah Badu & Lauryn Hill when I think of the pedestal of modern day [Black] women who are crowned "Queens" for what they aesthetically represent and what they show people, despite us all knowing that they don't have it together. What they show the world and tell the world is pretty though. But it's not the reality of who they are. Erykah and her baby daddies and also using sex/selling sex herself but still embraced as being a Queen. Lauryn Hill, another talented woman, who is viewed as a heroine, however she got involved with a married man. Another is Alicia Keys (who is another talented woman) but who didn't face much ridicule for stealing someone else's man because of what she represents (gimmick).
I'm certain that if things were fixed how they are today for women of the past, they would've been just like the women that yall constantly drag/bash on the regular. They wouldn't have been so sneaky about it and restricted from even doing it. The only difference then from now is the bodies were a little more natural, excluding the girdles/body shapers and padding they wore. There were no advanced cosmetic surgeries.Now women are able to capitalize to new heights off of sex and looking sexy. But selling sex itself is nothing new. Sorry. We're just seeing shyt more for what it is, with all these platforms and opportunities to reach the masses. Most people love the idea of women being SEEN/objectified and not heard, so now that they're being seen (and possibly influencing people because of their platforms), it's an issue?
didnt read a word.....
but based off the title...of course there were whores/sluts/thots....in the past...only difference is we live in a more open society and everyone has a camera and a computer in their pocket to record it all
im baffled by some women....their entire existence is either straight selling sex or the possibility of sex....and im not talking about amber rose or kim k or any of these IG 'models'
im talking about everyday run of the mill chicks we see everyday
its getting hot again and azz and titties are about to be on full display again....
chicks will be walking around in summer dresses with no panties on and azz jiggling all over the place....cleavage pushed up to her chin...selling nothing but sex...and be surprised that nikkas behave like wolves when they come around...
never ceases to amaze me
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 31,749
- Reputation
- 19,392
- Daps
- 120,148
- Reppin
- SOHH Icey HawkSet ByrdGang
so basically hoes been doing hoe shyt for a long time
can't believe it
can't believe it
life is fukked upTrebleMan
Superstar
This honestly needs to be addressed.
Really, why do some people feel bad about it? Because people have told them to.
Again, you have 80 years on this planet.Are you going to spend it worrying about what other people think or doing things "their" way?
Has anybody not learned people don't play by/really care about societal rules unless it gets them to where they need to?
Some things are worth respecting because they have ugly implications, but to care about the judgement from other people is a waste of caring. The latter will put you in a bad spot regarding the former.
tl;dr: The amount of dumb shyt people have done (that has even ruined their lives) because they're scared of someone else's words is astounding.
SeveroDrgnfli
Ain't nobody tryin to get indicted.
College level dissertation on generational morality.
This is too good for TRL.
I agree, women are no better or worse now than women of the past. I agree with your supporting evidence and I'm going to add language to the list.
The idea behind words like thot and slut are hundreds of years old. The criteria that defines a loose woman has changed over time but the idea has not.
It's fascinating to think about what other concepts we can apply that line of thought to.
I didn't know modern women were called the IG thot generation. IDGAF how a woman presents herself unless her reputation is associated with mine.
I like the illusion of perfection. It's a great safety net when dealing with the public in a professional setting. Basically, if I'm not working IDGAF.
I don't think most women are living that foul TBH, I know we all have impulses to do foul shyt, though most of the time we don't do foul shyt.
The idea of "seeing her for what she is" is a wonderful idea if it's coupled with accepting her for what she is. Acceptance and unconditional love are difficult things to give someone.
2. I base a woman's worth on what she does with what she knows. People are raised differently so I don't expect every girl to be the same or want the same things out of life.
Some girls want to be queens and others want to be trap queens. Those require two different skill sets. Those are two different girls.
This is too good for TRL.
I agree, women are no better or worse now than women of the past. I agree with your supporting evidence and I'm going to add language to the list.
The idea behind words like thot and slut are hundreds of years old. The criteria that defines a loose woman has changed over time but the idea has not.
It's fascinating to think about what other concepts we can apply that line of thought to.
1.
I didn't know modern women were called the IG thot generation. IDGAF how a woman presents herself unless her reputation is associated with mine. I like the illusion of perfection. It's a great safety net when dealing with the public in a professional setting. Basically, if I'm not working IDGAF.
I don't think most women are living that foul TBH, I know we all have impulses to do foul shyt, though most of the time we don't do foul shyt.
The idea of "seeing her for what she is" is a wonderful idea if it's coupled with accepting her for what she is. Acceptance and unconditional love are difficult things to give someone.
2. I base a woman's worth on what she does with what she knows. People are raised differently so I don't expect every girl to be the same or want the same things out of life.
Some girls want to be queens and others want to be trap queens. Those require two different skill sets. Those are two different girls.
- You may have mentioned it already but I don't believe that the outward appearance is an accurate measure of a woman's chastity, loyalty or whatever. I know there are women who cheat and everything under the sun but are very unassuming in their appearance. shyt, there are self-sufficient, intelligent women who get down and most people would never suspect them. In an ideal world, I would rather see a girl for what she is, but it doesn't really make a difference because homely or not, girls are going to do whatever they want. Navigating among them for a loyal partner who doesn't have a past is navigating a minefield.
- Elaborate on this...are you asking whether or not she is judged based on her sexual activity and style versus whether or not she knows about what it means to engage in sexual improprieties, (and as a consequence she acts on them)? Does "what she likes to do sexually" refer to a simple preference and/or does it refer to her wanting to engage in sex freely and openly regardless of whether or not she is in a monogamous relationship or her partners are?