Stop Acting Like Two Wrongs Make a Right, People-- They Don't. Katy Perry.

[Anon-ymous1]

This shouldn't take too long.

This was, in a way, inspired by a post I saw recently featuring Katy Perry kissing some dude on TV, on a game show or whatever. The post was aimed at feminists... or something. It was asking "where's the outrage?" The point was that there was little-to-no reaction in media or online, allegedly, at Katy Perry kissing this dude, "forcibly" or some junk, even though he was on a game show and knew something like that would probably happen (they probably even talked about it ahead of time backstage; there are no actual surprises on TV guys... it's all been planned out). Here's the video: He's leaning in for a kiss and then she pecks him back. That's it.

Here is the post claiming that... something was wrong? I guess?

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/girls-behavior/q3006370-why-katy-perry-forcible-stealing-a-man-s-first-kiss-went-unpunished

So... the author makes the point that, were gender roles reversed, and it was a slightly older or even significantly older male giving a quick or a serious peck to a younger female, that THE INTERNET WOULD BE UP IN ARMS AND EXPLODE and "THE MEDIA" (whoever the hell that's even supposed to be) WOULD CRUCIFY HIM. Right? And, actually, she may be right. Many of the stupids of modern society, both male and female, view male sexuality as something inherently perverse or dangerous, and so when we see instances of an older guy "forcibly" (notice the air quotes) kissing a younger girl, HE'S A MONSTER KILL HIM WITH A SHOVEL. And the author, under the premise of wanting to keep things "fair" or something, suggests we should do the same to Katy Perry.

Even though... as you can see... it's on a game show and he almost certainly knew what was about to happen.

^ As you can see, Picard's head hurts. My head hurts.

So let's string her up! Fuck Katy Perry!

Except... let's not. When are we going to learn that two wrongs don't make a right? The author of the post, asking "where's the outrage," suggests that the way to fight (stupid) outrage by bored Interneters about a theoretical (stupid) issue is to have MORE (stupid) outrage about OTHER (stupid) issues. Um... why? How is that going to help? Wouldn't we just be better served as a people by just realizing that inane issues don't actually matter, and important ones do? Who is being served by this response? Isn't the *better* choice to... acknowledge that none of this crap is a big deal? Whether the gender roles are like they were in the Katy Perry thing, or reversed? Telling all of us that Katy Perry sucks for this (she does suck, but for her music, not for this) is just as disingenuous and does just as poor service to the future poor bastard who does the same thing if the gender roles are reversed. The author's point is that people need to be uniform in their outrage for their outrage to matter, and she's right about that. But maybe we should just, you know, be mad about things that are actually fucking important.

THIS is what grinds your gears? Really? Katy Perry giving a dude a kiss?

Not mass pollution? or poverty? or urban sprawl? or overpopulation? or war? or marching? or mass shootings in America due to unhealthy gun culture? or balancing the federal budget? There's exactly one reason and one reason only why this clickbait continues to be shared: Because it's easy. It is the lowest common denominator in the cesspool of digital skullduggery. Stupid shit gets views because anyone with half a brain can make an opinion about it; more substantive matters are harder. That is not to say that romantic, sexual, physical attraction, etc. topics cannot or should not be talked about, or aren't important-- they can be, they should be, and they are.

But calling a bullshit thing like ^ the Katy Perry thing important leads credit to all the bullshit #metoo stories that are actual bullshit. ^ This is not a #metoo or "#mentoo" issue-- spare me sis, you don't speak for me. Sexual assault is a very serious issue and needs to be taken as such, and comparing THIS drivel with serious stories is crap. It's hack work. It is no different from any #metoo story that is similar which claims it's doing something for a good cause. Save the serious stuff for serious stuff... this isn't serious. And bullshit outrage is bullshit outrage, no matter if the genders were swapped or not.

Thanks for reading.

[linds34]

It was a fake scandal, created by writers who knew they could get a lot of clicks and attention by making up a controversy about a big star.

[jacquesvol]

Of course

[bethshepherd]

@jacquesvol lots of wannabees and those who dream of becoming famous hire publicity agents to help to make them more famous with such stories. It happens all the time and the pubic usually falls for it all. then when they become famous they hire them to deflect attention and stop people from knowing all of their business - the fact you are all talking about it means it worked - so the publicity agent gets another twelve month contract and a pay rise

[Servus09]

Where's your proof that the whole story is fabricated? I'm not saying you're wrong. You could be right for all I know. I just think if you're going to say something like that you should provide evidence.

[linds34]

@Servus09 I mean the event really happened but it was in a TV show, it wasn't inappropriate or anything.

[LegateLanius]

"digital skullduggery" - That just became my favorite phrase of this week.

[Anon-ymous1]

Thanks.

[Servus09]

I recall reading about this in the news. From what I recall, the guy did not want to kiss her. He even stated after the show he was disappointed his first kiss wasn't with someone he cared about.

So yeah, I do agree there is a double standard at play. There are guys telling him how lucky is to have kissed Katy Perry, and zero media outrage, or calls for Katy Perry to be removed from the show.

And if a 33-year-old man kissed a 19-year-old girl who didn't want to be kissed the #MeToo movement would eat him alive, no matter how dreamy you may think he is.

[Anon-ymous1]

Yeah... which is retarded.

[dandee55]

It doesn't really matter if the judges had planned it, Benjamin didn't know it was coming, and that is what's important. It's just like with sexual harassment, it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks; it's if the person felt that they were harassed, THAT'S what makes it harassment. And it depends on what HE said about it that matters. So, here's what he said afterwards:

The kiss made him "uncomfortable."
He wanted to "save it [1st kiss] for my first relationship."
"Would I have done it if she said, 'Would you kiss me?' No, I would have said no. I know a lot of guys would be like, 'Heck yeah!' But for me, I was raised in a conservative family and I was uncomfortable immediately. I wanted my first kiss to be special."
However, he also said, "I'm glad she did it because it's a great opportunity to get my music out."

So, I guess the reason there wasn't such an "outrage" is that it turns out he wasn't that upset about it after all.

[Anon-ymous1]

... There's no way he didn't know it was coming. His faux-surprise is just that-- faux. Fake. There is nothing on TV that has not been planned out. He knew. He was acting. That's what people on TV do.

[dandee55]

Wow, you assume way too much. It's one thing to be cynical, but now you're calling him a liar. But I guess you'd say: So what? It's not as bad as pollution or poverty... I'm glad you're not American. We don't need more people like you.

[Anon-ymous1]

Yes I'm glad that I live in India. Except, you don't know where I live, do you? This is an anonymous Internet profile. And yeah, I absolutely said ^ so what, basically. Thanks for reading.

[rjroy3]

Honestly, if it was a young girl and it was Ryan Reynolds on stage and it was a peck in that environment. I think it would be overlooked as well. Especially if it was an eager participant. There would be more talks about women wishing they were the little girl on stage, just like there were probably a lot of guys saying they wish they were that kid. Not saying you're wrong in principle, because it's an obvious double standard that exists. I just think this was a poor example, because I could see the reverse going unnoticed if it's the right people.

[Benedek38]

"Keep calm any carry on" I guess, right? You must be British.
Well, here's a trade secret from a country that was gangraped by Mongols, Turks, Austrians, Germans and Russians - fight back. Don't keep fucking calm. Fight fire with fire.

Honor is a nice thing to have in a fair fight. But the opponent doesn't play fair. They appeal to emotion, they twist the facts, they lie whenever comfortable. But you pulled a Joker. Why shouldn't you fucking use it? If a #metoo scandal starts about Katy Perry, and all the supporters of it will back away, that will just reveal their hypocrisy. It's not like Katy Perry will go down - she is one of the faces of the whole movement, as a female celebrity. FFS, everyone forgot about Lena Fucking Dunham's paedophilia scandal, too, because she doesn't have a penis. The more this movement is exposed for the misandrist, envious, entitled bullshit it is, the better.

[Anon-ymous1]

Uh, bullshit is bullshit, no matter which particular way it rears its head. Fighting bullshit with more bullshit is... stupid. And everyone loses as a result.

[SC4321]

Planned or not, it's still a completely valid point to point out the hypocrisy here. If one of the male judges did that to a young girl they would have been absolutely ripped to shreds on Twitter and by the media. It's just like the Roseanne situation. Had she tweeted something of a similar nature about President Trump or one on his staff, she wouldn't have been fired and probably would have been praised by the media. There is just very clear bias and hypocrisy in the media, and whether or not it's important in the big scheme of things, it's still completely valid to point out.

[Anon-ymous1]

"The media." Ah, yes. Whoever the hell that is. You know... literally everyone is a part of media, right? If you have a Facebook page, and say a thing about a thing, then you are a "social medium" and you are contributing to the cultural conversation and *you are media.*
This has nothing to do with Roseanne, dunno why you brought her up, but she was fired because people would have stopped watching her show and it was bad publicity for ABC, the parent company. "Media" (whoever the hell that's supposed to be, like I said) did not get Roseanne fired and the show cancelled-- ABC did that. They owned the show, and they didn't want that publicity. It's really pretty simple.

Yeah, hypocrisy is bullshit. So is paying too much attention to bullshit that isn't important. The point I'm making, again, is that two wrongs don't make a right-- don't get mad at Katy Perry for this just because the opposite would have made news... the opposite making news is equally stupid. That's the point.

[SC4321]

You can ask "who the hell the media is" all you want, but I think you know in this case it's the left-leaning mainstream media personnel (CNN, MSNBC etc.). They are the ones that give coverage to all these feminist causes like #metoo, which has tarnished some male celebrities reputations over accusations of sexual misconduct with no proof. However, something like this happens with the male and female roles reversed and no outrage.

I bring up Roseanne because it's another example of the left-leaning media's hypocrisy. The media did play a part here, there were many cries on social media calling for the shows cancellation, and ABC did within hours. ABC was well within its rights to cancel the show, I'm not arguing that, but they are a part of the same TV family that employs Keith Olbermann, who has openly called President Trump a nazi. I mean they aren't even trying to hide their hypocrisy. So again, it's completely valid to point it out.

[Anon-ymous1]

Oh man... you're one of those.

I'm sorry. Good luck to you.

[SC4321]

Not sure what you mean by "one of those." Unless you mean someone who just points out facts, because that's all I'm doing.

[bethshepherd]

lots of wannabees and those who dream of becoming famous hire publicity agents to help to make them more famous with such stories. It happens all the time and the pubic usually falls for it all. then when they become famous they hire them to deflect attention and stop people from knowing all of their business - the fact you are all talking about it means it worked - so the publicity agent gets another twelve month contract and a pay rise

[Mrbrainsyck]

I'm curious why you care so much to right an article about it instead of tackling those more important issues? This post just seems like the other equivalent. Writing about stuff that no one cares about, and would otherwise be dropped had you just moved on.

[Anon-ymous1]

Except it wouldn't. Writing to the contrary of popular opinion, if the popular opinion is stupid, needs to happen.

[Mrbrainsyck]

What ever you say.

[SaskiaBlueRaySoul]

hi, for me it was nothing at all... is there was there really a response to this?

[Anon-ymous1]

No, and that's the point that the author of the other post made-- that because if a guy had done it to a girl, there WOULD have been a response. And my point is that both of those paths are equally bullshit.

[SaskiaBlueRaySoul]

i agree with you it was barely a kiss whether it had been a man or a woman xx

[Anon-ymous1]

Right.

[Logorithim]

Well, it really wasn't that big a deal, even if they hadn't planned it in advance (and I tend to think that you are correct in suggesting they did).

[BriMaan]

She asked him if he had ever kissed a girl and liked it he said no because he wanted to save his first kiss for a girl he cares about.
She tricked him by asking for a kiss on the cheek then turned her face at the last moment to steal his first kiss.
THAT is what was wrong.
THAT is sexual harassment/abuse.
And that if it was a man and a girl, people would have thrown a fit.
So why don't they care about boys?
As a woman it makes me mad because it would be bad if it had happened to me.
As a mother of a young man, I'm mad because I would kick her ass if it was my son that she did that to.

[Anon-ymous1]

Yawn. My point is that it would be retarded if people threw a fit were the genders swapped, too. Maybe you didn't read the Take.

[BriMaan]

I was clarifying to you what the whole point was from the beginning as you did not sound like you're aware of the whole story.
I then gave you my opinion of why it mattered.

[Anon-ymous1]

I'm aware of what they said was the guy's story, and my point was, that it was likely a lie. Nothing on TV is real outside of the news. It has been planned out in advance to get as much attention as possible.

[Anonymous]

Why is this such a big deal? I'm surprised so many people seem to care so much.

[Anon-ymous1]

No offense, but did you read it? The author of the other post's point was-- almost no one does care. She's saying that if the gender roles were reversed, then people WOULD care because people treat male sexuality differently from female sexuality and believe it's inherently wrong or dangerous or something. And my point is, no one should care either way; both instances would be fuss-ups over something that doesn't fucking matter at all.

[OldS0ul]

I like Katy, but she is incredibly cringe-y on American Idol.

[Kiran04]

Only they're right. If the genders were reversed, whoever was in Katy Perry's shoes would be out of a job and trending on twitter. I don't care if they "talked about it". There would still be massive outrage.

[Anon-ymous1]

And anyone with an IQ above single digits should and would hopefully tell as many "outraged" people as possible that they're stupidly fuming about a stupid stupidity that means nothing.

[Kiran04]

And yet people don't do that. They pander to those idiots instead. That's how we get gigantic franchise bombs like The Last Jedi and Solo and ad campaigns against the scourge of men sitting with their legs open on the subway. Anyone with an IQ over 2 can see that companies, corporations, and even governments have spent millions of dollars on that "nothing" you speak of.

[Anon-ymous1]

I am... not sure now about the point you're trying to make.

[Kiran04]

The point is, bitching and moaning about stupid shit is now a proven tactic. You play the game as it is, not as you'd like it to be.

[Anon-ymous1]

Fair enough to that, I suppose. Well if it's a proven tactic, then shouldn't there be uniform bitching?

[Kiran04]

There is, to some extent. The fact that we're even talking about Katy Perry shows that the bitching is slowly starting to equalize as both sides of the isle start to employ the tactic more regularly. It's not uniform yet, but it's getting there. Back in 2005, no one would have batted an eye at this.

[Anon-ymous1]

Maybe. Personally I wish people wouldn't bat eyes about bullshit one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

disagree the guy said he didn't like it and was upset that he didn't get his first kiss with someone that he actually cared about

[Anon-ymous1]

I don't believe it for a second; nothing on TV is real. They knew that people would get irritated by it, and that's why they did it.

[MarketData]

I think it makes a difference that it's Katy Perry. There is a big difference between being smooched by Katy and being slobbered over by Harvey Weinstein.

So basically, I guess I agree.

[Landshrk0068]

If it was a young girl kissed by a guy, you would see everyone's head fuckin explode. It's just another example of the double standards that exist in our society.

[Anon-ymous1]

... And the point is, that's fucking stupid.

[TuMeManques]

Ugh I just think Katy Perry gets more cringe everyday.

[Anon-ymous1]

Okay... not really the point of the post, but I don't disagree.

[CubsterShura]

I'm not here to read this myTake. I'm here to read the comments.

[Anon-ymous1]

Uh why not do both?

[CubsterShura]

I did both but the comments are more hilarious

[Jayson101]

No one cares idiot. It is just a kiss it don;t matter

Get a back bone

[hasrett]

Okay. So go and write a take on urban sprawl now.

[Anon-ymous1]

Okay.