It’s interesting what other people are saying about the whole ordeal last night. If anything, this might just make Russell Brand a household name in the USA. If not, then at least it’ll make Jordin Sparks – I still don’t understand how she’s famous, who she is and why she exists – a well loathed/misunderstood/liked moron of American teen (not so) beauty. There are some people who praise Jordin for her words, while other people are downright insulted by it.
If you didn’t watch, or live under a rock, here is what the holier-than-thou, promise-ring-wearing wannabe diva have to say about those who don’t wear promise rings, or choose to wait until marriage:
“I just have one thing to say about promise rings. It’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not everybody – guy or girl – wants to be a slut.”
Okay, first of all, no guy in this society is ever called a slut (unless said guy is a homosexual and he called himself that, not that there’s anything wrong with that). Secondly, did Jordin Sparks just call me a slut?
Break the quote down: “It’s not bad to wear a promise ring because not everybody – guy or girl – wants to be a slut.” There’s a fallacy in this quote, I can’t remember which one because I took logic when I a freshman in college and it’s now about five years since that class, so let’s turn it into a fallacy whose name I do remember. The complex question is one I remember so let’s use that. First, let’s go back to the trusty text book and let that explain to us what that is:
An informal fallacy that occurs when a single question that is really two or more questions is asked, and a single answer is applied to both questions.
Now how am I doing to do that? How will I change Jordin Sparks’s statement of promise rings to a complex question? This will be a poor poor example because my brain is fried. “Do your parents and friends know you’re a slut because you don’t wear a promise ring?” Answer yes to that and you admit you’re a slut. Answer no, and you admit you’re a slut but neither your parents or family know about it. That’s a bad example, I know, but at the time it’s the only thing that I can think of.
Okay, let’s go the route of Hasty Generalization which “is a fallacy that affects inductive generalizations.” This might make a better generalization. And for this, I will create a hypothetical niece because I can and she now exists and will be moving in with my brother in a matter of days. So my hypothetical niece, let’s call her Debbie, is a 15-year-old, typical high school girl. You have her image in your head? Good. Okay. Taking the Sparks quote, I shall now use it to prove it to be a fallacy that it already is:
Jordin Sparks – whoever she is – says that promise rings are a good thing because it keeps young adults – both guys and girls – from being sluts. My niece Debbie doesn’t have a promise ring. Therefore, my niece wants to be or is already a slut.
That’s also bad, and I might come back to correct it when I’m in the right state of mine, so let’s start off from there. Now, I know for certain that my niece Debbie isn’t a slut because a) I just made her up, and b) she doesn’t really exist. However, if she were real and she didn’t think a promise ring was necessary to maintain one virginity until marriage, she still would be considered a slut under the Jordin fallacy.
What amuses me the most is that despite their promise rings, the boys are still whored out by the very music entity that created them. You may not see it as such, but anyone with eyes who wanders into the magazine stand at their local Wal-Mart will see tons upon tons of pin ups of these boys and, quite possibly, Jordin Sparks, on every cover of the teeny bopper magazines. I already noted this on the first post that had a similar title here in my blog. So despite what the abstinence only people think, these kids are already pretty much sex symbols to every girl and gay boy out there. This is no win, but, as my friend from a forum would say, an “epic fail” on the part of their modern day David.
The true problem wasn’t the fact that Brand “made fun” of ones choice to save oneself, but the fact that his sort of comedy isn’t understood, or well loved in this country. Jordin Sparks probably didn’t get it, so she got pissed off and made a hasty comment that condemned every one who has ever had sex before marriage. Way to go, Jordin, you just alienated some of your fans that is if you have any.
However, don’t let my words fool you. It’s been a proved fact – by Mormons, of all people – that sex before marriage with a long term partner is “extremely destructive power.” It’s sad how people consider their own faults – I’ve met a few people on the forums who have convicted everyone who has smoked, will smoke, or smokes pot as a total bum, a loser and is never successful (ahem, Bill Clinton, anyone?) – as universal truths with everyone else. If you had sex outside of marriage bonds and it left you broken, then that’s your deal. I’ve had sex with three different people in my life, all outside of marriage. Now besides a bad back – completely unrelated to my premarital sex, I hope – I’m an okay guy.
Now I’m not saying it’s right to go and bash someone for choosing to be a virgin, because that’s wrong. It’s also not right to make fun of other’s beliefs. However, you’re still going to get the assholes who will and you have to be the better person and suck it up, rather than calling your fan base, most of the United States’ youth, and quite possibly all of The Hills viewers, a slut, because that just makes you ignorant. Besides, if you can’t laugh at yourself, then you’re only letting the heckler’s win. The next thing you know, you’re going to be saying some very derogatory words on stage and having to apologize on David Letterman before you vanish into obscurity.