Monday, June 18, 2012


Don't believe in fear
Don't believe in faith
Don't believe in anything
That you can't break
-Garbage, "Stupid Girl"

Biannca Lake has a fake tan that would make Snooki proud and a name that makes you think of spoiled Barbie Doll debutantes. She's 28 years old, attractive, and was in a girl group called Dice that was on the television show XFactor twice. She models now and was in a scandal recently when another XFactor alum named Frankie Cocozza made a tape of the pair having sex.

But then, Biannca claims she's had sex with almost 200 different men, and has no intention to stop.
'Some girls do think I'm a slut but deep down they want to be like me,' she said.

'And lots of girls are like me, but I'm upfront about it. I'm like, "I banged you, I banged your mate last night and I'm banging your mate tonight". I'm ruthless when I meet someone.'
Well, you are a slut. And I don't think most girls, let alone very many, want to have sex with hundreds of different guys. In fact, I'd say there's something deeply wrong with you personally and it shows in your sex and drug-fueled life style.

But here's the punchline in the story:
Morally, she does not believe what she is doing is wrong because she uses condoms.
Because, presumably, it would only be immoral if she didn't use condoms. Why? How is that immoral? If having sex with hundreds of different guys without a shred of relationship or interest in the man isn't immoral, why would it become so without a condom? It would be even more unwise than her present behavior, but why immoral?

For that matter, how would the person writing the story present this as immoral, or how would most people? Morality isn't defined by pragmatism. Something's practical value or use does not make it good or ill. From a certain perspective, all that sex with all those people (doubtless all handsome, fit, and young) is attractive. So where is it wrong? How can anyone say what she's doing is wrong with modern culture's ethical perspective?

Nobody was "hurt" by this in an immediate, easily measured way, at least. It was between consenting adults, or mostly adults, at least. It was something private that they do which does not immediately and obviously impact anyone else. It's not something that causes damage to the social treasury. So how is it wrong?

I ask this because I think pretty much anyone who hears about this thinks "that's wrong." But do you really understand why it is? Do you really know what it is that prompts you to this reaction? Because you really ought to. You should know what is right and wrong and why in order to be an adult and a productive member of society. Just flying by the seat of your pants means that when confronted you won't have an answer and will tend to then erode your basic moral stance and figure it must not be all that bad.

Which means your moral perspective is based not on right and wrong, but the latest outrage and the most persuasive voice that explains it. And that inevitably leads to greater permissiveness, greater corrosion, and step by step into territory you would have considered unthinkable just a short time ago.

Quickly now, I'm a bad guy for calling her a slut, right? Because that's just mean spirited. We should avoid those kinds of names, it might hurt someone's feelings and hurt us politically.

And you, Biannca. Happy, are you?

No comments: