Kate or Megan?? | Imamother

Log in / Sign Up

List of Forums + New Post Recipe Box Usergroups Following My Posts Bookmarks

Private Messages Advanced Search Rules New User Guide FAQ Advertise Contact Us

Forum -> The Social Scene -> Chit Chat

Kate or Megan??

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Who do you like?

Kate Middleton

84%

[ 185 ]

Megan Markle

15%

[ 35 ]

Total Votes : 220

Fox

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 11:24 am

Amarante wrote:

I am not naive in terms of how Hollywood worked as I was an entertainment attorney for many years. I worked for record companies as well as television and motion picture companies. I was involved with production and casting decisions insofar as I did agreements for single appearances (I.e. movies) as well as for series. Some of my good friends are casting directors as well as development executives.

I am many things but I venture to say I have a much better idea of the inner workings of the "business" than you do. Do you know how many stupid unfounded vicious lies I have heard told about people in the business.

You spreading salacious unfounded rumors - however you sourced those rumors - is really not nice. And did it ever occur to you that less successful classmates (if those are your source) are spreading gossip because it feels good to bring down someone successful.

Sigh. You're correct. I shouldn't have given into the temptation. And thank you for correcting me in such a measured, appropriate way.

That said, and despite your many years in the entertainment business, you appear to have no idea what I'm talking about, and I see no benefit to elaborating on a frum site.

No one is accusing Meghan of using the casting couch or directly trading intimacy for money. That's not how it works.

I find it kind of odd, though, that you seem to think this is nearly the worst thing that could be said about a woman. I shared it because I thought it was kind of funny. Obviously the values aren't ours, but I thought that was clear. I guess not.

Alternative

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 11:29 am

Sebastian wrote:

I don't know why you're getting worked up at Fox. Marrying into the British royal family basically ensures that you will forever be gossiped about.

If we can't gossip about Meghan, who can we gossip about?? LOL.

There is a limit even for gossip..we can gossip about her fashion sense or her past marriage, but hinting what was hinted here is above and beyond.
I dont understand. If she were Jewish, you would all say lason hara, right? So just because she's not, there are no limits?

Fox

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 11:34 am

Alternative wrote:

I considered speculation about her family relationships and her non-famous relatives to be pushing the limits far more than my comments.

Alternative

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 11:34 am

Fox wrote:

That said, and despite your many years in the entertainment business, you appear to have no idea what I'm talking about, and I see no benefit to elaborating on a frum site.

No one is accusing Meghan of using the casting couch or directly trading intimacy for money. That's not how it works.

Why the need to be condescending when refuting?
How are we supposed to feel, after having been characterized as a bunch of country bumpkin, charmingly naive frum women who have no idea?
I have not worked in the entertainment business, but I thought it was obvious that you were saying Meghan (and Harry) were used to being in relationships where 'support' was offered for s@x.
(And I have to echo Amarante, I cant imagine either of them needing this arrangement).

ETA - If thats not what you meant, either we all have problems with reading comprehension or you need to explain better. Or we are hopelessly naive.

Sebastian

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 11:46 am

I'm sorry Fox. I should've just pmed you.

Amarante

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 11:50 am

Sebastian wrote:

Accusing a woman of being a wh*** and her husband of using pimps to procure them is not the kind of gossip decent people indulge in.

flowerpower

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:00 pm

Since Meghan joined the family all I see on the covers of the gossip magazines are how she is causing fights in the family. As I was on line waiting to pay at Target this morning I saw 2 different magazine covers with her in the limelight once again( in a bad way). She is anything but classy and genuine like Kate.

SixOfWands

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:10 pm

flowerpower wrote:

I've also seen umpteen announcements of Jennifer Anniston's pregnancies (she'd have more kids than Angelina by now if these were all true, but, alas, she's childless) and her reconciliation with Brad Pitt.

Not to mention the various Martian invasions and alien babies.

I wouldn't believe those tabloids. Which have had plenty of rumors about Kate as well.

Fox

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:11 pm

Alternative wrote:

Clearly I should have either been less cagey or simply not shared anything at all, which would have been the better option.

If I am being condescending, it is not because I think Imamothers are a bunch of country bumpkins, but because it was made obvious that I was being targeted for political views unrelated to this thread -- not because anyone is suddenly concerned about Meghan's honor.

The practice in which Meghan was accused of participating is currently referred to as "yachting," though there have been other names, too. Attractive young women, usually actresses or models who've already achieved a modicum of success, are hired as "hostesses" for weekend parties given by and for wealthy and/or high-profile men. The pay is usually in the low five figures, and while they are not explicitly required to engage in s-x, there is the expectation that they will make themselves available for consensual encounters.

The arrangement allows the women to put away a nice nest egg while still maintaining some control over the situation. It also gives them an opportunity to meet men they wouldn't normally meet, and occasionally such contacts lead to marriage or even other career prospects. The men, of course, get no-strings encounters, but more often than might be expected, they find someone who is smart, funny, ambitious, and whom they feel a genuine connection with, and it leads to a more serious relationship.

This, allegedly, is how Meghan came into Harry's orbit. I don't consider it an insult to either Meghan or Harry and never considered that others might see it that way. Like I said, I found it kind of funny. Do I approve of the kind of promiscuity that underlies the whole thing? Obviously not. But if we're going to start clutching our pearls over the level of promiscuity in the world, we're all going to need new sets of pearls -- ours will be worn out.

If you want to disapprove of Meghan, her penchant for serial hypergamy makes a more valid reason than the set of circumstances by which she came to Harry's attention.

Fox

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:22 pm

Amarante wrote:

Accusing a woman of being a wh*** and her husband of using pimps to procure them is not the kind of gossip decent people indulge in.

I just re-read my post, and while I can be slammed for being too vague, I certainly didn't accuse anyone of so crass an arrangement.

It seems that you jumped to the most salacious possible interpretation -- but then, your first post responding to me made it clear that this has little to do with Meghan.

I find it curious, though, that you consider it "decent" to dissect how someone has treated family members but are up in arms over comments about someone's s-x life. To me, it seems like the very opposite would be true, particularly when the family members are not public figures.

SixOfWands

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:26 pm

Fox wrote:

She was married once before, to Trevor Engelson. Hardly "serial hypergamy." There were, of course, tabloid rumors of another marriage, but that's pretty much been determined to be a lie.

When they met, Engelson was a struggling producer, and Markle was a struggling actress.

And I wonder how you would feel if someone claimed that one of your daughters met her husband by "yachting" (ie, being a wh0re). Would you find it funny? Would you think its an insult? Or would you be proud of how enterprising she was? Or is that only reserved for others?

In any case, there's a real difference between having relations with someone because you want to have relations with him (or her), and doing it for money.

And this has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with basic human decency.

SixOfWands

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:27 pm

Fox wrote:

You accused her of accepting money to attend parties where she would be expected to have relations with guests. That's called being a wh0re.

Fox

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:42 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

And I wonder how you would feel if someone claimed that one of your daughters met her husband by "yachting" (ie, being a wh0re). Would you find it funny? Would you think its an insult? Or would you be proud of how enterprising she was? Or is that only reserved for others?

You're asking me to put myself into the mindset of a completely different culture.

Of course, there are many parents whose daughters have these opportunities for various reasons and the parents work tirelessly to protect them. Still others keep their daughters far, far away from acting or modeling precisely for these reasons.

But while I might disapprove in a general sort of way, I don't personally judge the women who do this. Most have their reasons.

Listen, I have a cousin who will only redt shidduchim for her children to people who are wealthy. One of her children ended up in a horrible marriage because of her insistence on only "marrying money." Is that much better? If I'm going to be appalled by people trading domestic arrangements for money, I can start a lot closer to home.

SixOfWands wrote:

And this has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with basic human decency.

Perhaps, but that's not what Amarante's post indicated.

Fox

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:46 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

You accused her of accepting money to attend parties where she would be expected to have relations with guests. That's called being a wh0re.

I guess I just see more shades of grey. And even if she engaged in full-on pay-for-play, I would probably give her the benefit of the doubt and figure she had her reasons.

ectomorph

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:49 pm

I always assumed that what Harry and Meghan had in common was leftist anti-semitism

he used to dress up as a Nazi and she supports BDS

trixx

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 12:50 pm

Meghan cannot seem to wear clothing that actually fits and so for that reason alone Kate gets my vote.

Alternative

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 1:16 pm

Fox wrote:

If you want to disapprove of Meghan, her penchant for serial hypergamy makes a more valid reason than the set of circumstances by which she came to Harry's attention.

I am not looking to disapprove of Meghan (why would I?)
But her serial hypergamy? Defined as marrying a person of higher caste or social class? Why would that bother me? First off, it wasnt serial. Second, I am no proponent of the Indian caste system, or of keeping the royal bloodline pure of commoners.
Marrying up or down is not taboo in my eyes.
And anyway, Kate was a commoner too. She could be accused of the exact same thing.

sequoia

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 1:27 pm

ectomorph wrote:

I always assumed that what Harry and Meghan had in common was leftist anti-semitism

he used to dress up as a Nazi and she supports BDS

He dressed up in a Nazi uniform *once*, many years ago, when he was young and stupid.

Meghan had a non-Orthodox conversion before her marriage to Trevor Engelson.

There is no indication that either of them are anti-Semites.

syaem

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 2:41 pm

Twice divorced Hollywood actress is hardly marriage material for member of royal family. That being said, I didn’t have a personal opinion of her before she married Harry. However, when I watched her interact with people and especially with Harry, she comes off as overplaying it. Her demeanor does not come across as genuine even that constant belly holding. She already broke several royal protocols, something that Kate never did.
Kate has much better sense of style and carries herself as a true royal.

ectomorph

Thu, Dec 13 2018, 4:43 pm

sequoia wrote:

young and stupid is not an excuse it still shows that he doesn't have a disgust for it and she does support BDS

Page 4 of 5

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next