why does shaggy hate women so much?

Sexist/chauvinist/misogynist - what are the differences? Which words get overused?

But is Shaggy solely responsible for the use of the word Boombastic?

Shaggy of course is also v. anti 'batty boys' - if he;s misogynist as well then it implies he hates everyone who might possibly want to shag him. Some pathology!

The problem with the distinction is that it's what Shaggy himself would probably suggest - no I love women me, thats why they're in my videos etc.

anyway, my most hated part of the "luv me luv me" video is where he "freezes" the woman uncrossing her legs - then looks up her skirt.

Shaggy's just another boring popstar who expects female compliance and gets it. For now, anyway. I hope one of the crack hoes in his videos marries him, sleeps around, and makes off with all the money.

Wha'? That's crazy talk. I sometimes like going along with radical feminists and agreeing that all men secretly hate women (for my own self-flagellating reasons - you don't want to go there). But really, this is a load of old crock, innit? Lack of respect ≠ hate. There are plenty of people I work with/for that I don't respect, but I sure as hell don't hate them.

which could be a little harsh, but i dunno. can you truly LIKE someone that you have no respect for?

Well maybe I should point out that in my book not liking ≠ hating either.

I always thought of misogyny as sexism for intellectuals.

Well i don't actually think that all men hate women, i'm not sure if you were implying that i do think that, i am NOT a radical feminist. I would just like to clear that up.

But really, this is a load of old crock, innit? Lack of respect != hate. There are plenty of people I work with/for that I don't respect, but I sure as hell don't hate them.

There are plenty of people that i know that i don't respect, but don't necessarily hate. but i was just wondering really, if you display a lack of respect for a whole group of people, is it different from the lack of respect you might have for an individual? i would say 'yes it is'. and perhaps I was suggesting that if your lack of respect extends to a whole group of people ie the way shaggy's seems to extend to all women (if we take his attitude towards women as being that which is exhibited in his music videos, but i realise that this may not be a manifestation of his real attitude towards women as a music video is a big show designed to sell a product) then it must be a very strong disrespect, possibly equatable with hatred. how do fellow ILE'rs opine on this?

objectifying someone doesn't mean you don't respect them. i would say, if you are consistantly objectifying in a way or in ways that reinforce particular stereotypes, then that constitutes disrespect. if we use the shaggy example, and the way he always has DOZENS of women as his concubines in his videos, and he gets to do whatever the hell he likes to them, freeze them, look up their skirts, while they are all rail-thin and dressed in next to nothing, reinforcing the stereotype of women as passive idiots who only exist to serve and titillate men.

add to this the fact that this is the plot of most mainstream music videos, and you get a bunch of women getting offended at being misrepresented on TV. why does it matter? because even if you think you are above it all, even if you are the kind of person who watches a music video and says to themselves "this isn't reality, this is a product of blah blah blah, i reject this", there is only so much of it you can reject, because of the barrage of this shit one is bound to take it in on some level, be it conscious or unconscious.

>>are there particular qualities which it is better or worse to respect people for?

this is a knotty one. i'm not really sure where you were headed with this question in relevance to the "shaggy and objectification" issue. however, in my own life, i would say yes, there are qualities (maybe not abstracted from our particular context) which are more worthy of respect than others. it is knotty though. eg do we respect a woman for being selfless, or we do we not respect her for being a pushover?

your missing the fact that in "it wasn't me", he's not actually singing about having learnt his lesson, hes actually bragging about cheating. and calling a woman an "angel" is fraught with problems too.

What is comes down to is that while our assumption -- that that role is demeaning and unacceptable to women -- is confirmed by the women surrounding us, his assumption -- that their women are willing and eager participants and thus not "disrespected" or exploited -- is confirmed by the astoundingly large number of women who are willing to play along with these objectifying gender roles and not complain about them. The "game" concept is, I think, urgent and key insofar as how this situation is reflected in American r&b and hip-hop: every "bring the booty" video is countered by Destiny's Child asking for men to pay their bills, TLC slagging off men who can't afford cars, Missy Elliot demanding sexual stamina, or Blu Cantrell repaying infidelity with credit card fraud. (And note that the male-dominated music industry doesn't hear much from the women who gladly play into the man's-money, woman's-ass framework posited here, but a top-down view could surely reveal nearly as much monetary exploitation of men as sexual exploitation of women. Difference = monetary exploitation of men still seen as acceptable, thanks this time to men clinging to archaic gender roles of gift-giver, provider, or big-money roller.)

It's essentially a cultural adaptation that's hugely cynical on both sides, in that it subjugates the ideas of love and respect for the clearer purposes of self-satisfaction. The root impulse is not so different from prostitution: the male sees that he can obtain sexual gratification because women want his money, the female sees that she can obtain money because men want her sexually. The odds are even, thus both parties have to be extra-cynical and extra-ruthless about things to make sure they get their end of the bargain without giving up too much of what the other wants.

Note especially that I don't think these attitudes are quite as prevalent among actual people as they are in music, where projecting extreme cynicism and ruthlessness are par for the course. If we assume that plenty of people listened to "Fuck the Police" without even dreaming of actually killing cops, we can also assume that plenty of people listened to "Just Don't Bite It" but actually cared quite deeply, in private, for their girlfriends. Probably more so the latter, in that far more men enjoy imagining themselves as masters of sex than violence.

Whew.

What acts? The most I can infer about Shaggy is that he is interested in having sex with women, which is only "hostile" in the Dworkinite sense. And surely we can't expect him to have such pathologically low self-esteem that he views women being sexually available to him as an "evil." If Shaggy were keen with rhetoric, he would probably argue that you are the one subjugating these fictional women by deigning to decide for them which sexual roles they should accept or reject.

No, what you are getting at has fuck-all to do with Shaggy or even misogyny, and your vast oversimplification of Shaggy = misogynist completely skirts the very real problem you're hinting at and moreover does nothing at all to address its actual complexities. Not to mention the fact that Shaggy is completely ridiculous as an emblem of that problem.

Nicole - the thing is though that if the "grand scheme of things" is itself harmful, so too surely are its components?

Fi! It's easy. I do it all the time. "Hello Angel" I say, in pathetic tribute to Morrissey's old greeting to Sandie Shaw. My mum's called Angela too, so I'm all in favour of calling people Angel. And what about women calling men 'Angel' (Aretha, Madonna et al.) Calling someone Angel doesn't have to mean you have some kind of virgin/whore complex. Does it? It's just nice.

My real answer to all this = close to Nitsuh.

Or to put it a third way - I don't think Shaggy's offensive. But "No it's just shit" is a pretty feeble response to somebody saying something's offensive, no? (Also untrue - "It Wasn't Me" is good!)

Of course. It's just that there are so many artists with a misogynistic aesthetic that I don't see what makes Shaggy particularly remarkable in that respect.

Sorry if this isn't making much sense, have had 3 hrs sleep in past 48 hours. I am not really thinking things out too well this morning.

I'm interested in knowing how Shaggy's love/hatred of women affects his sales. Of course it is part of culcha to put bikini babettes in the videos, but surely it's also a specific marketing device as well. Who are more likely to buy Shaggy's singles due to female presence? Males, females, both, neither? It's tempting to say males, but all of the Shaggy fans are girls it seems.

Is that my formal title now? Why thank you. ;-) I think Nicole also has a very good point in that perception is key here -- Shaggy being seen as fairly lightweight, it's a very understandable reaction to ask, "Why worry about him?" Of course, flip it around and you can say, "It's precisely because he is so inoffensive/mainstream that these poisonous ideas can get through"...

Nitsuh's example regarding the NWA songs I thought was pretty damn brilliant, actually. Though I'd argue it isn't so much one of direct acknowledgement and then rising above the lyrics as it is bypassing them -- though that's my own particular stance. ;-)

Also, examine the lyrics to Angel -- they're no different than any other goofy love song which elevates women waaaay up virgin/whore-like & in fact advise to stay faithful and pay attention &c. to yr. angel. Shallow? Yes. mysogenist? Hardly.

Also, to respond to something way up, there is no general societal stereotype of women as stupid pretty things (except for blondes...) but rather even mysogenists recognize that women are more complicated than this. They just consider it a pain in the ass.

i. Yes he is funny (at least in the GRATE "It Wasn't Me", which in terms of way-to-go is like the Cheech and Chong guide to Dynamic Business Practice, ie it is meant to be silly rubbish and he is laughing at himself — it's not just "quite poor advice", it's self- evidently ridiculously terrible advice which only the dupe in a comedy duo would ever consider taking)
ii. Yes he is a bit sad. (Not meant in a sneery way...)
iii. Excuse me if THIS is a threat to feminist liberation then feminism is in a POOR WAY INDEED. (Point to note: Mary Whitehouse got B.Hill banned, *NOT* feminism. I know no one here is arguing that Shaggy be banned.)
iv. I've argued before that I think the Rad- Fem line "Male = Essentially Evil" and the nu-lad Men-Behaving-Badly syndrome are VERY CLOSELY INTERRELATED. I still think that, even though I rather doubt that Shaggy can tell his Shulamith Firestone from his Kate Millet. I am not suggesting anyone here is taking this Rad Fem line.

Except Ronan obviously.

Seriously: is it really so damn painful to distinguish between "Shaggy hates women" and "I don't personally believe that Shaggy's worldview affords women the proper degree of respect or self- determination?"

The question - to my mind still unanswered - is to what extent is what Shaggy gets up to "destructive" to women rather than "disrespectful to" them? i.e., as we discussed way upthread, is Shaggy a misogynist or a sexist? And if you think there is no difference then why not? I think that "hate" is or should be more than a "suitable rhetorical device", I think it's a word with a powerful meaning whose overuse cheapens it.

What's bugging the hell out of me is your repeated assumption that the "degrading" part is intentional and universal and not open to differing interpretations by both you and Shaggy! A better analogy would be if you made a video about how much you loved eating vegetables, and Shaggy came along and called you a vegetable-hater.

But it certainly doesn't imply any particular antipathy toward cows, either, which is precisely why I like the example. Eating a hamburger implies a belief that it's natural for animals to try to catch and eat one another. Certain mentalities, possibly including Shaggy's and those of the women he interacts with, make a similar assumption that it's natural for men to try and have sex with women and for women to try and ally themselves with wealthy men. It's not "hate," it's just a competing worldview, one that's not at all diminished merely by scoffing at it.

But now, Slick Rick's "Treat Her Like A Prostitute" -- does that prove he hates women? When a later song on the album bemoans lost love not at all gender-specifically? When he only speaks of treating girlfriends as prostitutes, and only for the span of time you're not sure if they'll leave you? Much more interesting discussion, I think.

Example (c) "hates" women; example (b) shows a striking and deplorable "disrespect" for women; example (a) is, at worst, criminally deluded in his conceptions of what women are actually like, but probably accurate just enough to reinforce his behaviour.

does he direct his own videos? they still seem to me closer to speedy-up bikini-girl bitz in benny hill = shaggy is still 10 yrs old = he is oppressed also

he is not eminem

i am not an eminem hata, because i think eminem thinks interestingly about hate, but hate really is an element in what he does, and who he is (tho oddly enuff i don't feel that DISRESPECT is an element in what eminem does and is)

shaggy thinks about gags: some of them are funny (the story in IT WASN'T ME) and many of them are tiresome, because he is afraid not just to be just a goofy safe clown

Improved substitute for hamburger analogy, if you really want one: the fact that I wanted the Bears to win Sunday's game does not imply hatred of the Vikings, even though the Bears' win necessarily involved the Vikings loss.

I personally don't think misogyny or hate is the appropriate term here, after my fabulous definitions of sexism/mis/chauvinism above (a long, long way above). Outright misogyny and denial of women's rights as understood via human rights discourses aren't a problem for feminism; it's these knowing slippages into the replaying of ossified gender roles (with either an 'ironic' wink or the kind of cynicism that Nitsuh referred to) that present a more intransigent problem. Again, as I guess Nitsuh is arguing, dissolving these kinds of subtleties into the fixed positions implied by calling someone a 'misogynist' is unhelpful IMO.

Where I part with Nitsuh is in re the NEd's Irreducible RElativism aspect. There is of coures loads of fun to be had playing with the idea of loads of free-floating signifiers up for interpretative grabs, and here Nitsuh's suggesting (I think; if I misread forgive me) that Shaggy's ladies are just such another signifier. IF they make me nervous, if they affect the way other people relate to me, that's just my personal take. Similarly, if the choices of others to play the gender role game straight for whatever rewards it appears to offer, then ok. It just seems to me that the shared material, social and cultural world that anchors these interpretations and in which I have to act with or without the Shaggy aesthetic is just absent from this kind of reading. None of these actions or interpretations take place in a vacuum; my 'personal' interpretation doesn't come from nowhere, any more than Shaggy's attitudes do.

This isn't an adequate counter to Nitsuh's arguments (damn his rigorous and elegantly argued thoughts!), but I'm not happy with the political implications of NEd's Radical Subjectivism. I need to think more, and more loosely, about this.

*NB I'm using the name 'Shaggy' (and 'Ned' too, come to that!) to indicate the bigger things this threat has mutated into a debate about; any similarities to actual persons living are by this stage too complicated to retrace.

i am faintly suspect ground here as i believe i have only seen the kid-friendly short version of ANY of shaggy's videos, but i still think we SHOULD stick to him, because it's in the schlubby is-it-isn't-it zone that something difficult to separate is actually happening

erm i. who here thinks shaggy respects MEN? ii. is "respect" an attribute which improves comedy? (is comedy ITSELF degrading?) iii. would the world actually be less prey to destructiveness if benny hill had attempted a well-rounded portrait of women (and men)?

I'm not sure I'd want to see or hear — given my known views on eg WHAT'S GOING ON? or A LOVE SUPREME — Shaggy's attempt to portray other aspects of womanhood. I think they'd be trite, sentimental and, well, all- round unhelpful. I guess what I'm broadly getting at is, I think Shaggy presents women as silly, men as silly, sex as silly AND sexism as silly. And it's when you select some of those as unacceptable but don't at all deal with the others that the discussion starts to spin off towards political generalisations.

(Sorry, this is my specialist obsessive topic, politics and comedy: readers who remember my massive letter in Sight and Sound taking A.Medhurst to task for his lazy piece on same will me amused/alarmed to learn that the orignal uncut letter would not only have FILLED the letters page on its own, but extended it to TWICE it's usual length.)

I *so* wanted to get my accounts done tonight.

No, you raise a good point, Ellie, and I'm not minding being thrown around here (well, not literally, but such is not the case).

I think I should make clear -- one extensive debate with Phil being the exception so far -- that I've tried my best to limit (!) Ye Olde Radicalle Subjectivisme inasmuch as it is my stance towards specifically music and to a less well explored degree Art in General. An oversimplified corollary can be read this way -- what someone enjoys is *not* automatically a sign of what they are, in that one cannot pin down appreciation of a piece of music as a clear and unequivocal sign of personal ethics. The example I've used before is the case of Nazi death camp commandants liking Mozart, which while extreme I think makes a certain point. On a more immediate level, my own experience has demonstrated that I know people whose politics I agree with that I think enjoy utterly horrible music, while others have political stances completely opposite to my own but share musical opinions with me. I responded well to Nitsuh's own example re NWA in that it makes sense with my own experiences and the way I have interpreted them, eg not everyone who *has* heard "Fuck tha Police" has tried to take them out, etc.

I understand this isn't quite the 'political' sense you're addressing here, or rather perhaps isn't quite that, I'm not entirely sure. Personally, I think what Shaggy is doing in the video, to take it all back to the start, is pretty damn lame. *thinks for the right words...* Mm. This is very hard for me to elaborate in terms I'm satisfied with, so forgive me if I'm groping a bit here, but I don't see your stance as different from mine too much, because I think we're looking at the same problem from different angles, and the problem is one of interpretation. *taps fingerly angrily* Meh, this is bugging me more and more, especially since I need to be somewhere and I refuse to leave this thought unfinished. If I have to boil it down, it's that I agree the shared world exists, but that said shared can itself be in a vacuum of a sort, can be free-floated rather than tied down. I will leave it at that for now.

Additionally: Please don't think I'm taking the Radical Subjectivist take so far as to argue that it's acceptable for people to jointly agree on ossified gender roles -- my point was more that it's ridiculous for Maryann to flounce along and take only one of them to task for it by assuming his intentions are malicious. Prostitution is again a good analogy; even when a man and a women are both engaging in this transaction for what they perceive as their own benefit, and without malice toward the other, most of us would still agree that it's not at all a positive development in either of their lives. So please don't think I'm trying to give Shaggy a free pass. I think the best we can do, on the large scale as well as the small, is to come up with compelling arguments for why women and men both should reject those roles, arguments significantly more compelling than "Shaggy hates women," which has a missionary-type quality to it - - like walking into a culture where people have agreed on certain workable roles and then telling them that they have it all wrong. This sort of missionary position never succeeds; you're better off being the Peace Corps, and trying to demonstrate by example or powerful argument that there is, indeed, a better way to handle things.

Mark: you're right -- comedy is, of course, key to this, particularly with regard to Shaggy. But it's worth noting that the vast majority of pop and hip-hop misogyny is presented in what purports to be a humorous light. And humor is, curiously, directed largely at the men - - the women are portrayed as silly, but it sounds as if in this particular video, the butt of the joke is really Shaggy's all- consuming interest in what's beneath the skirt. (And I imagine that there are women who find this hugely amusing, in a "boys will be boys" kind of way.) Bringing comedy into it makes this almost unbearably complex, though, so I'm not going to encourage you.

Related question: is it possible for large numbers of music videos to portray entirely positive behaviour in a manner that's appealing to young people?

Oh, and Ellie: despite my now being in love with you, I will sort of defend this part of the argument. I think what I'm saying is that you can deplore the influence of the Shaggy video on the shared world all you want, but you will never have any sort of moral authority to command that the women in it do something more constructive with their lives. Back to the hamburger, really: their actions may influence you negatively, but that's neither deliberate nor necessarily understood on their part. They could just as easily argue that our criticisms of such videos affect them negatively, insofar as our criticisms endanger the gender-culture that they're currently pouring their energy into exploiting.

I.e., "Shaggy" and "women" are making a private deal, with they both view as acceptable. Your complaint is not so much that (a) you feel the deal is unacceptable, but rather that (b) you resent the public impression being given that the deal is acceptable, because it's not to you, and you'd like that to be clear. But if you don't have the authority to stop them from making that deal, the most you can do is to try and fill just as much public space with the opposite message.

as for ronan, are you nuts? do you seriously believe that only what you call "quality" should be critically engaged with? if so, then you must think that if we on ILE don't pay attention to shaggy he will disappear. WRONG! it doesn't matter whether or not I think hes shit, which i do, but the fact is that people in the world enjoy his music so it should be critically engaged with. thats called cultural criticism, ronan, and if you think its silly, then go bury your head in the sand.

Crude, but accurate, surely...though is it more control of the gender culture or the products of that culture or that feed into it? Not trying to be flippant here, I'm just wondering where exactly the control manifests itself most directly.

well, i think one leads to the other. but that doesn't have to be deterministic. we can find ways to challenge things, the difficulty is finding ways which are more effective than the "preservers of the gender culture" (i put this in quotation marks because i don't believe there are a bunch of people who sit around conspiring to keep the gender culture afloat, but that the whole thing is more sunconscious than my vocaulary can be bothered with right now.)

errmm, nitsuh, sorry for being so patronising and knee jerk with that. i was just getting a bit frustrated, feeling that people had read things into what i had written that weren't actually there. and i do think that the complicity of women in the oppression of women is a sorta obvious thing to point out, but i shouldn't have taken it out on you. my sincere apologies. hopefully no hard feelings?

(a) I have indeed not seen the video, but from what you describe, I offer the following analysis. It is URGENT AND KEY to realize that the moral lapse in the video's premise has to do with thinking it's acceptable to do things secretly, while time is stopped, that it's not acceptable to do in real time: it would be equal undesirable for Shaggy to snag twenties from the till while it's frozen open, or read people's diaries, or sneak into other pop stars' studios to get sneak peeks at their material. Sex and gender enter into it because the video assumes that Shaggy can think of nothing more enjoyable to do with his powers than peek up women's skirts. As with Sinker's Benny Hill example, or Chuck Jones's tongue-unrolling zoot-suited wolf, the joke is squarely on Shaggy, isn't it? In a boys-will-be-boys way, yes, but he's the one thinking with his prick, and that's being presented very much as an unflattering male stereotype.

The question of sexism/misogyny enters like this: the fact that it is supposed to be funny that Shaggy peeks up women's skirts implies, essentially, that no serious harm is done by his using his powers to break our moral codes of privacy, etc. -- or that's it's harmless enough that we should still be able to laugh about what a funny little horndog Shaggy is for doing it. But it's very, very hard to make an accurate call on what that implies vis-a-vis women. Shaggy is in essence committing a peeping-Tom-ish crime, but it's a slight leap to assume he thinks that's okay specifically because the victims are women. I'm guessing Shaggy and the video's creator would find the frozen-time till-plundering just as funny, which would mean that their moral lapse is completely unrelated to gender. This point is a weird one and I'm not sure I can adequately explain it, but I think that the fact that his violation is aimed at women has less to do with a belief that women don't deserve respect and more to do with the horndog joke -- that Shaggy is more interested in violating the sanctity of the crotch than the sanctity of the cash register. Does that make sense? Point is, maybe we should reserve judgement insofar as we can't tell whether the Shaggy character lacks moral compunction about violating women specifically (sexist) or just lacks moral compunction in general (stupid).

(b) Incidentally, I don't buy that men have any more control over gendered culture than women do -- you assume that men shape the culture and that women are shaped by it, when in reality everyone contributes and everyone receives. Videos like Shaggy's teach men to objectify just as much as they teach women that they are objects: the little boys watching them are being no less indoctrinated than the little girls. The fact that men by and large have control over the content of such videos doesn't necessarily mean they're able to get those deep-down ossified gender roles out of their heads, or even that they'll realize they're there in the first place -- it is another way of seeing the world, not a deliberate program for the subjugation of women. It is important to remember that loads of men and women probably find the video "normal" or "funny" or "fun," and I think that's as much the cause of the video as the result.

(c) I see such attitudes as constituting "sexism" -- a belief in differing roles and standards for males and females -- but not so much misogyny and not at all "hating women." Similarly, I'd say that 19th-century slaveholders were "racist," but not that they necessarily "hated blacks."

(d) "Objectification" is a totally vexed, vexed term, and I'm embarrassed to have even used it seriously. As a general rule, men like to see women's bodies and have sex with them. It needn't necessarily imply anything about their attitudes toward women or their roles or their intelligence or their capabilities or anything else: sometimes it only means that men want to see women's bodies and have sex with them. "Objectification" in the negative sense only takes place when those desires crowd out the understanding of women as intelligent, capable human beings with rational needs and emotions. I think we all know this happens all the fucking time, but it's just so damn hard to actually track down when it is and when it isn't.

I dunno -- I have real trouble sorting out these issues to my own satisfaction, so please don't take any of my arguments here as reflecting any deep beliefs. I am terrifically unsure as to what sorts of arguments actually improve the situation.

And by the way, Di, please don't ever read Nicholson Baker's The Fermata, which is largely about the whole "moral complexities of stopping time and undressing women" issue. Or maybe read it, I dunno. You will probably be revolted, but then again Baker fully expects and agrees with that revulsion, and, unlike Shaggy, is writing specifically to grapple with that point.

Then my work here is done.

(Although I may think some more about Shaggy when my real work is done).

ILE asks the questions that count!

Also, I'd be curious to see how many IL* dudes don't get at least a little kick out of a fantasy of stopping time & looking at women. Rilly.

Objectification both ways: certainly. Certainly. Do Di and Maryann get any mileage out of the idea of stopping time and undressing fanciable other folks? Maybe at least a little? Straw poll I conducted while reading Fermata indicated that roughly half of women I know find the idea equally entertaining, as daydream material.

Really quite key, here, to separate his abuse of stopping-time powers from the thing he abuses those powers to accomplish, which is an I think completely understandable desire to peep the booty.

i posted this earlier. have you read any of my posts???

getting on to what ellie said regarding free-floating signifiers up for grabs, i would agree with you nitsuh that they are not fixed and self-explanatory, but like ellie said, that doesn't mean there aren't dominant meanings that circulate, due to our context. guess what those dominant meanings are. and (if you'll excuse you for saying so in the age of the "Death of the Author"), i still prescribe to the idea that authors intentions play a small but not insignificant role. we know what shaggy is trying to say, not exactly but we can a get a fair idea, we live in the same time frame and society as he does. and that makes a difference to how most people interpret his music and videos.

for fux sake i'm getting really pissed off at being portrayed as a Dworkinist. read my fucking posts.

(b) Your interpretation is obviously bent to suit your argument, as evidenced by your characterization using the word "concubines" and your later the word "violated." I haven't seen the video, but it sounds as if either you aren't even clear on what role they're meant to be occupying or you just made up the "concubine" part because it sounded good.

(c) If you'll read my posts as well, Di, you'll see that I do indeed GET IT. I understand that he freezes women in the video and exercises control over them. My first point is that he could just as easily freeze time and violate men, or violate cash registers, or violate Picassos -- the fact that his violation is directed at women is essentially a joke about Shaggy being a total horndog, not necessarily a message that women are any more acceptable as targets for this sort of treatment than cash registers are! My second point is that this joke doesn't imply anything about his views toward women -- it only implies that (a) he likes to see their bodies, and (b) given the opportunity, he'll break conventions of privacy to look at them. Until we know what he wouldn't break conventions of privacy to look at, we can't conclude whether his treatment of women in particular is any worse than his treatment of men or art or fountain pens.

I think what's bothering you is essentially that you believe this argument, and you see what it implies: that Shaggy's defense here has nothing to do with women as people, insofar as he's treating them basically as vehicles for what's under their skirts. I'll agree with any argument you care to put forward about the general awfulness of that attitude. But I don't see it as "hating" women or being "hostile" toward women or anything at all about women: video-Shaggy is being in most senses oblivious to the existence of women as individuals, and that's the problem, not that he has any active antipathy toward them!

E.g.: Wouldn't this joke still work in a gay context, where gay Shaggy freezes men and peeks inside their Speedos? That'd still be funny in exactly the same way, right, as in "Funny little horndog is excited to peep?" Wouldn't the joke still work if Destiny's Child were at the pool and froze wet sexy men and then appreciatively caressed their musculatures? Isn't the joke used constantly with teenaged boys peeping at the girls or just as often boys across the street? And so doesn't all of that imply that the crux of the issue is not violation of women but is just that society in general doesn't find sexual peeping very threatening in any case?

"he looks up their skirts. this is not dissimilar to sexually violating a woman while she is drugged or asleep": hang on, di — yes, it is quite dissimilar, because he is SHOWING THE WORLD himself as he claims he wd behave if he had this power: ok it is not a MY CONFESSION: I AM A PHILANDERER AND THUS A WORTHLESS TOAD (which even if it was wd be a kind of sly boast), but instead Shaggy showing himself Shaggy to be a prick-driven 10-yr- old, ie a clown. It's an exposé of of male behaviour: a comic critique. Maybe it's a shallow and self-serving critique (I think the men-behaving-badly shtick is about getting women to say, Oh let them get on with it, they're all just kids), but I still don't buy your "similarity". If he's saying "I wish we had this power", he's saying "How lame am I? [grin]" and if he's saying "If we had this power we would use it to look up women's skirts" he's saying "How double-lame am I? [grin]" — it's not about hatred of women, it's about hatred of men, or rather, of himself. It's about saying "I am a kid and an idiot, hooray!"

OK it mayn't *just* be about these — it depends of course on the actuality of the video and the song and their interplay, and yes I haven't seen it — but the role he gives himself, and the fact that he is letting us see him be this, misbehave thus, are surely major parts of the equation here. If someone shows himself doing or being something and everyone (everyone who isn't 10) thinks what a foolish comical fellow, then it's acting as a reinforcement of this judgment, isn't it? Not undermining it? If I did this I would be a fool too...

Yes I suppose it might encourage 10-yr-old boys to look up adult women's skirts (as if they didn't already), but isn't what you're saying, "It all but represents date rape, therefore it encourages it"?

To *me* the likely problem here (yes it would surely help my case if I had seen the video I know) is that what I'm kinda outlining as "Shaggy's Defence" actually maps ONTO Dworkinism, ie it/he disrespects and/or undermines the nature and worth of MALE desire IN ANY FORM.

For what it's worth my legendary haha essay on porn which I planned to write in reply to you and maryann — but as usual never did, though i did reread a whole lotta books i did i did — would have taken a not dissimilar line: responding to maryann's much-pushed idea of "degradation", by arguing that male consumption of porn was — majorly — about self-chosen SELF-degradation, esp. in the 70s, when the industry exploded, amking the sex a bit crappy and yucky and quicky (because the fact of admitting desire was and is guilt-stained and distored) and that the gay male refiguring of the "sadness", so- called, of masturbation, from AIDS onwards, has genuinely added new conflicts and dynamics to this argt.

(The Village Voice review of IT WASN'T ME gave it an inadvertent queer reading, because of a misheard or ambiguous word: sadly I forget what it was… my misheard word far above on thread was genuine, I really did think he was singing that, so maybe all this î is all about my projection of what Shaggy would be if he was singing for me.)

short version: shaggy's problem is that his best attempt at a defence on comedy grounds of what he's doing — as supplied by me — makes HIM the dworkinite in this discussion, not di; ALL readings which do not start with fact that he is professional funnyman doomed to turn into their opposites

2 I am done with the misogynist vs sexist disrespect argument.

3 Do women objectify? Yeah, but like Di said, within different underlying (and general) relationships of power. That’s an answer so broad as to be effectively meaningless, I know, so on the specific point:

[You can't get through The Fermata without admitting to yourself, at some point, that you would indeed like to peep, unnoticed… Do Di and Maryann get any mileage out of the idea of stopping time and undressing fanciable other folks? Maybe at least a little? Straw poll I conducted while reading Fermata indicated that roughly half of women I know find the idea equally entertaining, as daydream material. ]

I got through _The Fermata_ without admitting that to myself. I get no personal mileage out of this (however effective I thought it was as a literary device), and that’s truly not a cleaned-up-for-the- purpose-of-the-moral-high-ground version of my psyche. This is inevitably going to sound sanctimonious, but I don’t have a lot of interest in body parts stripped (however temporarily) of their human inhabitant. It’s not the way attraction works for me. Second, the thought of being actually or metaphorically or in someone’s imagination stripped and looked at viscerally horrifies me. Actually really. Badly*. Both in the general sense of it being predicated on my passivity and without my consent, and more specifically in the sense that it represents the final and absolute intrusion into my consciousness of a culture’s determination that I internalise physical standards and norms that I can’t live up to. I wonder, even, if the idea of being looked at and found wanting (and being powerless to hide or dissemble or explain) disturbs me more than the principle of being looked at without my consent.

NB I *know* that's not relevant to the 'private peeping in full view' representation in teh Shaggy video.

i couldn't finish the fermata: isn't nicholson baker SMARMY? In the taking sides, it's shaggy all the way: at least he doesn't make to distance himself from his own imagination

I don't think it equates to misogyny to want to be sexual (the "stereotypical male fantasy" as it were) without having to, in the words of Lumiere from Beauty and the Beast, "make promises you don't intend to keep" (the "stereotypical female fantasy" of forever-love, the return of the archetypical father-protector, and so forth). I just think that for whatever reason it's something exhibited far more, or at least far more openly, by men. Is sexual desire without love "wrong"? Would Shaggy exist, and would his fantasies have any purchase, in a society where sex and love were not conflated to the degree that they are now, and in which both genders were encouraged to become sexually active and to experiment at a young age? (This society would of course require the absence of VD and the presence of perfect contraception.) What do the Swedes think of 'im? Do you subscribe to the Victorian stereotype that Nasty Men are brutes looking for nothing but sex, and that Virtuous Women, the Fair Sex, need to play a complex mating game in order to ensure that they stick around after the fact? Does the "no sex without love" demand originate in women's innate (?) desires, or is it a subtle way of discouraging promiscuity/polyamorousness? Or do we need to "reeducate" men to only want to have sex with women (i.e. one woman) whom they love? Does objectification = wanting to have sex with someone without particularly caring about them? Is it ever OK just to want to fuck somebody based on how they look? Is it disrespectful to do so?

Shaggy *doesn't* look under cash registers' skirts or fiddle with men's Speedos. He *does* look up women’s skirts.

I completely understand what you're getting at here, but I still think it's a separate issue. He peeps at women rather than stealing money or peeping at men because it is supposed to be funny; peeping at women rather than stealing makes the joke funny only insofar as we've already assumed, based on stereotypes of men, that Shaggy will be more interested in women's bodies than money. That is a joke about men, no matter how you cut it. For Shaggy to steal money wouldn't humorously confirm any unflattering preconceptions we have about him (unless this were somehow a very racist video); for Shaggy to peep at men wouldn't be funny to lots of heterosexual men because they are homophobic, but would be entirely funny within a queerer context. (Recall the old Saturday Night Live beer commercial parody, in which Adam Sandler and Chris Farley find their pool transformed into a hunky-man party, and react basically the way I imagine Shaggy reacting in this video: kid- in-a-candy-store mugging, yes?)

The simplest reading I can give is this: (1) Video-Shaggy is a man. (2) Our culture contains a stereotype that men are primarily driven by their desire for sexual gratification. (3) Video-Shaggy develops time-manipulation superpowers. (4) Video-Shaggy confirms the stereotype by immediately using his superpowers to obtain sexual gratification. That is a joke about men.

Imagine if I made a video where a woman developed time-manipulation superpowers and used them to watch Oprah all day long. That would be a rude joke about women, wouldn't it?

The Oprah-joke about women a) wouldn't be funny (but you already knew that?) and b) wouldn't rest on assumptions about male sexual stereotypes to do its joke work.

In other words, the old "Why did the chicken cross the road" joke uses the road as a prop in the same way Shaggy uses women as props. I don't think that joke is necessarily saying anything bad -- or anything at all -- about roads. It's only when the culture consists entirely of jokes about chickens doing things to roads that we begin to get upset at the lack of a road-perspective. That is a damned poor analogy, but . . . I just don't want to turn a singular gag into an allegory for the whole world; it's only the accretion of such gags into a "whole world" that makes the problem evident. I can't blame Shaggy for not taking women's perspectives into account in this one instance -- it's only when he displays a long patterns of never considering those perspectives that we can start to accuse him of malice toward women. And note that he hasn't displayed such a pattern: wasn't he the one who sang that song about the woman whose boyfriend ignores her, so she goes to Jamaica to find an "island lover?" Or something along those lines? (The male "island lover," being, incidentally, a prop, and what's more a sexual one -- it's just that this doesn't bother us in one instance because there's no greater risk of men at large actually being reduced to sexual props in the culture as a whole?)

Hopefully that explains the admittedly minute distinction I'm trying to make. And I think the Oprah analogy still stands, although I don't feel like parsing it right now, except to say that in both cases, "women" or "Oprah" are both just props symbolizing what men or women supposedly want out of life. (And no, it wouldn't be funny, it would be tacky, but it still makes sense as a joke.) I dunno -- would it be better if we removed "women" as props and just had Shaggy chasing an animated vagina? Or just drooling and chasing a caption that says "sexual gratification?" The gag's just clumsy if it doesn't admit that women are, for a heterosexual man, the source of that gratification.

By the way, The Everlasting Story of Nory is the one really great thing Baker's written apart from The Mezzanine. It's way better than The Mezzanine, actually -- not smarmy at all.

Perhaps clearer would be "sex for its own sake, not for the sake of something else."

WRONG!

i am quite for casual sex. what i am against is women being deprived of their ability to consent.

i am also against the stereotype of women as passive idiots who only exist to serve men. and newsflash, phil, that stereotype is for real. many men have tried to put me in it. from my chemistry teacher at high school who felt he had the right to rub himself against me in class, while whispering to me about how hot i looked, and when i glared at him for it, all of a sudden my chemistry tests would be marked inaccurately and my sixth form grades were messed up, to most of the men i have slept with who refuse to listen to me when i give them directions on how to please me when they are getting it wrong, because they can't stand to let a woman be a human and have an opinion, be smart, have a self. so in conclusion, if a man wants to have casual sex while treating a woman as a human being, cool, but i don't actually know many men who CAN have casual sex with a woman and treat her as a human being.

and like ellie, i don't really get off on the idea of forcibly removing a mans clothes against his will to have a look. because i like people. i am not shy about my body either, i have no insecurities about it, and i am repulsed by the thought that people would want to invade my personal boundaries without my knowledge and consent. i think this is quite different from role-playing rape and stuff in the bedroom, because that kind of stuff is completely about trust (well it is for me personally) and consent.

and i would like to ask - how many times can a joke be repeated and remain a joke? when does an overdone joke turn into an acceptable idea in society? and, if its even relevant, if fantasizing about depriving women of the ability to consent in a world where a quarter of all women suffer rape is a joke, then its a pretty sick one.

Unless you were replying specifically to Phil, in which case why the "newsflash" tone, when what you're saying is in absolutely no way exclusive of what he just said?

I just want to point out, though, before I sort of put this one off to irreconcilable differences, that I completely agree with most everything you've just said; where I disagree with you is a really subtle point that I'm not sure we've been able to isolate well enough for both of us to discuss it at once.

and yeah, what i said just immediatelt prior to your last posts isn't on the topic of whether shaggy is misogynist or not, because i figured it wasn't even worth talking about anymore. but thats okay, if you think i just imparted a whole bunch of really personal shit for nothing, i can handle that. and actually, i agree to some extent with most of your finer points.

some of what i wrote was in response to this from phil. he was saying the stereotype doesn't exist, i was saying it does.

other parts were in response to mark's take on it as the "boys are horndogs" joke.

others were in response to your questions as to whether women fatasize about doing the same thing to a man as shaggy does to the women in the video, and i was just saying that i can't really speak for other women but i wouldn't.

i think we have two disagreements here - one is on the usage of the word misogynist. the other is probably on the extent to which the meaning of the video is up for grabs. funny that... perhaps that seems so raw because the fantasy portrayed is aimed at men, and as a woman i feel its a double slap in the face firstly for my gender being used in such a disrespectful manner, and for my exclusion from the intended audience of the fantasy.

I think the behavior you described exists, but I don't believe that (within a Western, educated cultural context) it consistently happens for the reason you've given -- in that I don't think the people in question are generally thinking that "women are passive idiots who only exist to serve and titillate men". Rather, I think that, quite often, the people in the experiences described are INDIFFERENT to the well-being of the person on the receiving end. It's not that they think that women are such-and-such -- nothing that ornate and Machiavellian is necessary. I tend to see it as just another expression of the human tendency to gratify oneself at the expense of others; the root cause isn't so much institutionalized misogyny as simple apathy towards the well-being of others. You see it as misogyny when it happens in a sexual context, but I think a lot of the time that's just happenstance (that a woman is on the receiving end) -- I think that, had you and your partners been homosexual men, the exact same things might well have happened, because I tend to think they did what they did because they were wrapped up in egotism and were indifferent to your pleasure, and not because they had an agenda against womankind. You see it as a gender issue; I see it as a larger, human one.

This isn't to deny the existence of misogyny, etc., etc., etc. I just think that you're trying to pin a lot of things on it that really fall under the umbrella of individual assholery, rather than institutionalized misogyny.

Definitely! Did I give the impression otherwise?

I do think that a lot of people (women and men both, really) do hold the "no sex without love" POV. But I certainly agree that those that don't hold that POV will still often prefer to be sexual in the context of a relationship (or multiple simultaneous relationships), for tons of excellent reasons, such as the ones you gave. (I've been told that casual sex is usually pretty lousy; never having had true c.s., I can't say I know firsthand, but it makes sense to me.)

Okay, I feel slightly better now. And slightly worse, in that I apparently can't say in 10,000 words what Phil can say in 100.

Perhaps.

Two responses to this come to mind:

- The people I know of who are looking for casual sex are looking for self- gratification. Pleasing themselves is much more important to them than pleasing their partners.
- Pack all your stuff and MOVE IMMEDIATELY. It seems that the location you're living in now is teeming with assholes.

What's tricky is how often, for men, this "pleasing themselves" is wrapped up in stroking their own egos by either (a) pleasing their partners or (b) pleasing themselves at the expense of their partners -- so in general (c) feeling dominant over their partners (both "a" and "b" are different means of achieving this).

There are surely elements of this at play in even the healthiest and most positive-feeling casual-sex encounters, no? Just one of many base-level animal enjoyments human beings get that aren't, when it comes down to it, necessarily "nice?" But as soon as it goes beyond explaining the enjoyment to actually being the enjoyment, things go horribly wrong.

Here's the 411, yo.

ahh, yeah nitsuh. you've been discussing this with somebody who would rather shoot themselves in the foot than admit to being wrong. :)

as far as the misogynist vs sexist definition goes, i think many of us could agree that the shaggy video is sexist, that is, involves disrespect for women. my inner feeling though, is still that this is a troublesome definition. where does the line get drawn? (and please don't all bombard me with replies of "there is no line", this is a serious question.) what about in the instance of a rapist, for example, when do people start claiming that rapists aren't woman-haters, they just don't respect women? that rape isn't about women, its just about men "being arseholes". can you see why this would trouble me, that the impact of rape on women could become underestimated...

where do we decide that men cross the line between disrespect and hatred?

I hope it won't bother you that I don't think rape is, in and of itself, a sure sign that a person "hates women." Let me grant straightaway that in most cases that does seem to be the case. But I worry about equating the two directly, and my reasons for it would best be summarized by a man who rapes a woman, is put in prison, and then rapes his cellmate. This probably happens quite often, and implies that what's wrong with the person, while it was initially focused on women based on his "hetereosexuality," is not necessarily about women but is about a person who takes pleasure in the sexual abuse of others.

What your question implies, and I quite agree with, is that cultural trends of constant disrespect aimed at women -- even if they're not sexist or misogynist, but it just so happens that women are always the targets of them -- do indeed contribute to men thinking it's acceptable to disrespect women, and from there to men actively doing so (misogyny and sexism). Even the most harmless "lads behaving badly" jokes, even if there aren't even women involved, are a baby step in that direction, and that sucks. But saying "that's misogyny" is counterproductive, in that those lads will semi-rightly say "no, it clearly isn't," and completely disregard the argument; sometimes it's probably better to come at it from a truer angle, which is "this behaviour, while maybe not necessarily bad in isolation, is part of a larger trend which contributes to the general sense of etc. etc." (Which by the way -- if you'd said that about the Shaggy video I wouldn't have dreamed of disagreeing.)

An additional problem is that the further you get from outright hate, the more you get into "culture," where it accomplishes little to accuse things outright and accomplishes more to try and counter certain impressions. For example, many annoying things go on in the U.S. which aren't necessarily "racist," but are in that position of "contributing to an impression" that racist beliefs are valid. Saying "you're racist" gets you nowhere but ultra-detailed explanations of why the comment itself isn't necessarily racist (as we just had above). It's better to admit that the thing itself isn't racist, but in sum, it starts to create a weight of implications in a negative direction. The Shaggy video contributes to sexism but isn't sexist in itself, I don't think. (Unless we assume that the directors are deliberately contributing to sexism, but we're not telepaths and the fact that they think it's funny implies they don't have that much of an agenda.)

Dunno if that answers your question. I think I'm saying that the line between "disrespect" and "hate" is maybe not a necessary thing to figure out, so long as we can discern which direction people are walking in relation to it?

Whoa, last post!

I would totally have taken that dare

revive as a TS:

TS:
"Boombastic" (original version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOlg7TeK3nM
vs.
"Boombastic" (remix)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5i3O94XdAM

The remix was the one that MTV played and was clearly the one that caused him to raise to superduper stardom. But the original is so awesome!

The original is like quasi-industrial dancehall. Like The Bug or something!

It actually predates M.I.A. in its own weird way!

"in its own weird way"

Shaggy - Boombastic, 1995
MIA - Arular, 2005

What, was that 'Let's get it On' sampling mix the most famous version in the States or something? I've never heard it before! The original was a big hit here in Britain, on the back of jeans advert it was used in.

Ahahaha, I meant "predicts"

I mean I assume you meant presages, not predates, but even without being nitpicky it's not that surprising that a dancehall-influenced artist sounds like she is influenced by dancehall.

xpost

"Let's Get It On" was the big version in the states, yeah.

I remember i didn't even know the original version existed until i saw the jeans commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPhKpgYW66Y

I remember the original version much more strongly than the remix, but I also grew up in a big hip-hop market and watched a lot of The Box

it's not that surprising that a dancehall-influenced artist sounds like she is influenced by dancehall.

I clearly mean predicts the noisy, rock-centric, hip-hop-centric, lauded-as-sui-generis type of dancehall that M.I.A. plays, not just "dancehall."

And yeah, it's a great track.

I remembered it being faster, oddly

I like the remix actually. The original is better though.

fuk, I wish stitching strength were still a big selling point for jeans. My only pair just came apart in like four different places in the course of a month

totally stealing this from Tom next time anyone quotes Bill Hicks:

Or to put it another way - "Sorry Ronan, it seems to me you're trying to say something but I can't tell because your mouth is full of OVERRATED DEAD COMEDIAN DICK. Could you repeat?"

Ironically that comment sounds like something Bill Hicks would say.

"if seeing is believing then you'd better change your sex" = gratest weird sex-pol lyric evah (i know it's not quite what the shagster sings)

it's actually "change your specs" :(

shaggy loves women! he is a lyrical lover!

no-one said 'lol zoinks'?

yeah srsly

we were good and ready for MIA

take it to ILM, nerds

i thought this was going to be aboutn the cartoon dog tbh.

shaggy never seemed to show much interest in women.

must be those scooby snacks.

i bet he does it doggy style

but what would scooby do?

Shaggy... the cartoon dog...?

all right this is important yall so listen up. SHAGGY DOES NOT EAT SCOOBY SNACKS. Scooby eats Scooby Snacks. They are dog treats. Shaggy loves to eat, but he doesn't eat dog food. He eats, like, cheeseburgers and stuff like that. So he wouldn't do anything for a Scooby snack, or be any more interested in doggy style than anybody else, and all that. Please get characters straight when making Shaggy/Scooby jokes. THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER.

hence my post what would scooby do.

xxpost

Um, I hate to break this to you J0hn but in some of the mid-era Scooby Doo cartoons Shaggy does eat Scooby Snacks.

SILENCE YOU HERETIC

only because they contain cannabis resin. i believe dude likes to get high.

B-b-but I have seen these cartoons myself! It's not my fault dude is so high that he eats dog food.

I mean, that's really fucking high.

he was going to cook proper food

but then..

I wonder if, in the history of the world, any man has referred to his parts as "scooby snacks"

I'm really sorry that I wonder that

Um, I hate to break this to you J0hn but in some of the mid-era Scooby Doo cartoons Shaggy does eat Scooby Snacks.

-- HI DERE, Monday, February 4, 2008 3:03 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

^
exactly. i wouldn't put an innacurate detail about a cartoon character in a message board post. it's bad nerd-form.

Now he's eating Scooby Snacks, and we know why...

(XPOST WAU)

I know Shaggy is caught popping s-s's for comic relief sometimes but that's not the same thing as conflating his constant hunger with a specific desire for scooby snacks, which is my point

my very important point

Screw you all for reminding me of that stupid Fun Loving Criminals song.

of course Shaggy eats Scooby Snacks. Scooby keeps swiping his comically large sandwiches.

the episode where Shaggy tried to drop Scooby off at the pound to teach him a lesson about stealing the damn sandwiches, that shit was awesome

reah!

R-r-reuthanize?

Nurse denies disliking old people

One daft BBC News headline. Decided against creating a new thread, and there is no (point in creating) a rolling daft BBC News headline thread. So here it is.

Someone is hopped up on Scooby Snacks.

Ree-bee-cee?

Screw you all for reminding me of that stupid Fun Loving Criminals song.

Can I cosign this?

No.

Typical.

You guys are LOCO

IT'S MILLER TIME

Being reminded of Afroman was more distressing for me.

or at least it would have been, had I not...

TS: Scooby Doo vs Astro

There was a sandwich bar near me called "Scooby Snacks", but for legal reasons they had to change it to "Zooby Snacks". Then a couple of weeks later they went out of business. This all happened in the space of a couple of months.

I'm pretty sure there was a strain of bud called "scooby snack" in Amsterdam at some point however fuck that, just go to the place the Jamaicans run right on the water, much more mellow

That's weird, I've never heard the remix of "Boombastic" (I guess it was a hit in the US only), but the original version in the video sounds a bit weird too. Was there maybe another remix of it, which was a bit faster and had a fuller sound?

You're thinking of "Boom Boom Boom" by The Outhere Brothers.

No, I don't think I've ever heard that.

Fake Tuomas.

Okay, I listened to "Boom Boom Boom", and I have actually heard it, but it doesn't sound anything like "Mr. Boombastic".

I'm sorry, I meant "Boom Boom Boom Boom" by The Vengaboys.

I'm not gonna download that anymore.

this is a great side-by-side comparison of what a triple-digit post thread looked like here in 2001, and what it looks like in 2008.

are you sure you weren't thinking of "Boom Boom", by John Lee Hooker?

ruh roh Ric-Roc

I'm pretty sure there was a strain of bud called "scooby snack" in Amsterdam at some point however fuck that, just go to the place the Jamaicans run right on the water, much more mellow
-- J0hn D., Monday, February 4, 2008 4:26 PM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Link

I know when you suck up the ash from a pipe it's called scooby snacks

I imagine shaggy doesn't hate women but Thelma stunted his growth. SHe probably came on to him during the commercial break. Just picturing Thelma doing a wop striptease is enough to give the guy nightmares.

her name is velma, i don't know what the fuck a wop striptease is

I work at an office doing stuff on computers after they leave. Either way, for the longest time, this one woman's cubicle had a computer-printed picture of shaggy posted on it for quite awhile, until one day, it was replaced by another one, I, curious as I am about all matters Shaggy look and see not just one picture, but behind it a stack of at least 8 different shaggy printed out pictures pinned up behind it. Well, it was an odd experience.

I remember this interview with The Bloodhound Gang a few years ago where they asked if they hated women. One of them replies "No! We love women! We love their tits, their ass, their pussies..."