Grimm Forum

Royalty was paying Adalind for her services as a lawyer, besides being the mother of a real blood girl.The relationship with Eric was by sex besides that inform him about Sean.
But I think he had it only as a companion, I do not think he would be interested in giving him the title of "wife" and new queen " because he would have more ambitious plans.

When she came back to Portland she told Sean she was working for Eric. When she ran into the guy from her old firm. He even said she had taken a position with another firm. To which she acknowledged it was true. Now that could have been a cover. It was never stated what the actual arrangement was.

(04-16-2018, 11:18 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:No, you are the one that doesn't seem to understand what prostituting oneself means. Sex can be it and also part of it not just IT. Man, learn to frekin comprehend the meaning of words. Do you need an explanation of this part of the definition?

2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : DEBASE - prostitute one's talents

I understand you position. But your position only applies to the show if you equate the activity to your definition.

here is an example. are sex scenes in movies prostitution. If you use the strict definition the two actors are being paid to have sex. But I am sure you will never see the GOT directors charged with pimping or pandering. The thing in your point of view that you are missing is context and intent.

that is why "2 : to devote to corrupt or unworthy purposes : DEBASE - prostitute one's talents" does not apply to any of the characters in Grimm. Even Adalind, she may have used sex to enact a spell, but because it was a means of delivery your definition would not apply. With Juliette, like i said her value was not the sex it was her magical abilities. It is all about the context and intent.

Lets use another example. You date someone they buy you things. that is not prostitution. even if you brag about how good you are.

---

You keep riposting the definition as if that proves your point. Make a coherent argument to support your position.

I make a statement and use the definitions to support my statement. That is the "coherent argument to support My position" And I have to re-post it because it doesn't seem to sink in to your mind set. This is why now you are arguing about the argument.

This is how you concede defeat. You aren't capable to admit it so you change the argument, deflecting. How is that analogy of your 'writers intent' that you are probably unaware of. See, I can be clairvoyant too.

---

---

(04-16-2018, 02:49 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Juliette; If I'm gonna be working with the Royal Family, you need to have a very clear understanding of just how valuable I can be.

Dicappatore did you really not understand that scene. You do not really think Eve, Adalind, or even Seans mother's value to the Royals was for sex. They are hexenbiest with the ability to perform magic. Just like when Juliette was with Sean and she said this is going to really hurt, she was being sarcastic. That scene was not even that deep. Yet you only see it from a literal point of view.

Do you really think that Clair,Bitsie, or Breee would play a part where the female character was portrayed as being objectified. In interviews you never hear them complain, it is about how the writers show the women as being empowered. Yet you constantly try and find negativity in the female characters. Like I pointed out before you took the statements of going on dates and her grandmother warning about back sets, as proof of Juliette having sex. Now you are taking a sarcastic statement as proof of prostitution. Juliette leaves Nick and sleeps with Sean. She leaves Sean and sleeps with Ken, By definition that is being monogamous, yet you want to say it is being a slut.

What is even funnier is You never make a coherent reply. You only call names, or spout some irrational reasoning by posting some meaning of a word, or none related dialog. Just once show you have the intellectual ability to provide a coherent answer.

So when she says that line and lays on top of him, and the camera pans away, she was going to preform some magic? Is that what the "writers intent" was about that whole scene? I been watching GoT. Du you think if Grimm was produced in the same manner as GoT and the camera did not pan away, you really think she was going to preform magic? Maybe where you live it is called "Majique" (the cat or as referred to a baby cat) no pun intended. Where I come from it is called Found Under Carnal Knowledge -ING

When Nick comes back to the house and sees his bed unmade it wasn't due to some magic Juliette preformed, it was scrunched up due to plain old unadulterated SEX. Yes, it was literally SEX. But I have to tip off my hat for your clairvoyant ability to be able to read minds of the actors Clair,Bitsie, or Breee. You are just an amazing "legend in your own mind". (just in case you miss-interpeted tha last sentence, it is SARCASM) This is a fantasy TV show, not a subject for someone to study for their thesis for a PHD or Doctorate. Are you capable to comprehend MY "writers intent"?

---

---

(04-16-2018, 04:08 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-16-2018, 12:57 PM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKc_018S_Eg

(Laughs) Just to burst your bubble here, I have never looked at any of these goofy youtube inserts you seem to delight in sharing. At the same time, I have yet to read any comments about them. That tells me no one else is looking either.

But if that's all the better you can do to spend your day is peruse youtube in order to insult, it just goes to show that once again, you really are a bully. 10 minute wonder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOpl1nptAxA

---

---

(04-16-2018, 05:52 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]The vast majority of conversations in which I see or hear the words, "bastard," "prostitute," "slut" or "whore" used today are about political office holders.

I agree, but have their root meaning changed or just being liberally applied?

The root meaning of a word doesn't change, but as usage of the word evolves, its role becomes relegated to an archaic origin reference in etymology dictionaries.

(04-17-2018, 11:50 AM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]The root meaning of a word doesn't change, but as usage of the word evolves, its role becomes relegated to an archaic origin reference in etymology dictionaries.

Ok so why would someone call someone else a 'bastard'? He is trying to put that person down by calling him a derogatory term, as to insult. And why is it insulting to call someone a bastard? Because what you are saying in one single word is, "that person was conceived out of wedlock". Now you can debate the more common reason for the usage since in the past it was used to just mean a person conceived out of wedlock.

Just because the usage of the word 'bastard' has evolved to be used more often to people that were not conceived out of wedlock doesn't change the archaic meaning. If I am going to call someone a bastard, what am I saying to that person? Basically he was a mistake, born out of some that did not want them, a mistake.


Here is a longer defenition from Colins and others; Enjoy.

(English) bastard (bæstərd ) Word forms: bastards
1. countable noun,
Bastard is an insulting word which some people use about a person, especially a man, who has behaved very badly.
[offensive, vulgar, disapproval]

2. countable noun [oft N n]
A bastard is a person whose parents were not married to each other at the time that he or she was born. This use could cause offense. [old-fashioned]

COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

---

bastard in American (ˈbæstərd ; basˈtərd) noun

1. a person born of parents not married to each other; illegitimate child
2. anything spurious, inferior, or varying from standard
3. Slang,
a person regarded with contempt, hatred, pity, resentment, etc. or, sometimes, with playful affection ,
a vulgar usage

adjective
4. of illegitimate birth or of uncertain origin
5. of a size or shape that differs from the normal or standard
6. that is not truly the designated thing but that closely resembles it gneiss is called bastard granite
7. not genuine; sham; inferior

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

---

Derived forms bastardly (ˈbastardly) adjective
Word origin of 'bastard' ME < OFr < bast- (also in fils de bast) (< ? Goth bansts, barn) + -ard, -ard: hence, one conceived in a barn
bastard in British (ˈbɑːstəd , ˈbæs-)noun

1. informal, derogatory
an obnoxious or despicable person

2. informal, often humorous
a person, esp a man lucky bastard

3. informal,
something extremely difficult or unpleasant, that job is a real bastard

4. old-fashioned or offensive
a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate baby, child, or adult

5. something irregular, abnormal, or inferior
6. a hybrid, esp an accidental or inferior one

adjective (prenominal)
7. old-fashioned or offensive
illegitimate by birth

8. irregular, abnormal, or inferior in shape, size, or appearance
9. resembling a specified thing, but not actually being such

a bastard cedar
10. counterfeit; spurious

Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

---

---

Defenition of 'prostitute' prostitute (prɒstɪtut )
Word forms: prostitutes countable noun
A prostitute is a person, usually a woman, who has sex with men in exchange for money.
He admitted last week he paid for sex with a prostitute.

COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

---

prostitute in American (ˈprɑstəˌtut ; präsˈtəto̅otˌ; ˈprɑstəˌtjut ; räsˈtətyo̅otˌ)
verb transitive
Word forms: ˈprostiˌtuted or ˈprostiˌtuting
1. to sell the services of (oneself or another) for purposes of sexual intercourse
2. to sell (oneself, one's artistic or moral integrity,etc.) for low or unworthy purposes

adjective
3. Rare - given over to base purposes; debased; corrupt

noun
4. a. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual activity for pay; whore; harlot
4. b. a man who engages in such activity, esp. homosexual acts, for pay
5. a person, as a writer, artist, etc., who sells his or her services for low or unworthy purposes

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

---

Derived forms prostitutor (ˈprostiˌtutor) noun
Word origin of 'prostitute' < L prostitutus, pp. of prostituere < pro-, before + statuere, to cause to stand, akin to stare, stand

prostitute in British (ˈprɒstɪˌtjuːt )
noun
1. a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money
2. a man who engages in such activity, esp in homosexual practices
3. a person who offers his or her talent or work for unworthy purposes
verb (transitive)
4. to offer (oneself or another) in sexual intercourse for money
5. to offer (a person, esp oneself, or a person's talent) for unworthy purposes

Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

Derived forms prostitution (ˌprostiˈtution) noun
prostitutor (ˈprostiˌtutor) noun

Word origin of 'prostitute'
C16: from Latin prōstituere to expose to prostitution, from prō- in public + statuere to cause to stand

In modern usage, the definitions based on bad behavior or devoting one's talents to low or unworthy purposes seems to have become the more common usage. I would guess that this is because today's society no longer views activities such as sex outside of marriage, sex with multiple partners and even sex in exchange for money as badly as it does dishonest or corrupt behavior, especially on the part of elected officials.

(04-17-2018, 04:41 PM)FaceInTheCrowd Wrote: [ -> ]In modern usage, the definitions based on bad behavior or devoting one's talents to low or unworthy purposes seems to have become the more common usage. I would guess that this is because today's society no longer views activities such as sex outside of marriage, sex with multiple partners and even sex in exchange for money as badly as it does dishonest or corrupt behavior, especially on the part of elected officials.

Well on this position I totally agree with you. I also apply both of those words to current politicians on all sides every chance I get and since we are talking about words meanings, what is a politician?

politician in American (ˌpɑləˈtɪʃən ; pälˌətishˈən)

noun
1. a person actively engaged in politics, esp. party politics, professionally or otherwise; often, a person holding or seeking political office
frequently used in a derogatory sense, with implications of seeking personal or partisan gain, scheming, opportunism, etc. see also statesman

2. a person skilled or experienced in practical politics or political science

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

---

politician in British (ˌpɒlɪˈtɪʃən )
noun
1. a person actively engaged in politics, esp a full-time professional member of a deliberative assembly
2. a person who is experienced or skilled in the art or science of politics, government, or administration; statesman

3. derogatory, mainly US
a person who engages in politics out of a wish for personal gain, as realized by holding a public office

Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers

---

Now, let us look at the subject in hand which this forum is based on, the TV Show, Grimm. I see plenty of politicians in the show practicing politics. The ones mostly come to mind are the Royals. I think we can agree to that. Maybe they weren't running Austria, directly but they were steering its politics, for sure.

And whom was Juliette dealing with in the end of Season 4? Later on we see another Royal, Sean run for mayor, so we can agree, he was a politician and I am eager to apply both the new uses of 'bastard and prostitute" to Sean, the politician and named as the "Bastard Royal" not by me but by the Royals themselves..

Lets put aside Sean for now, since, most likely we can easily agree to this. Lets talk about Juliette and how she was dealing with the Royals. Yea she had sex with Ken, a royal, but the bigger picture was what she did for those same Royals. By using your reasoning, not just mines, that others keep pointing out it is all about sex.

I am applying those words, as you claim for politicians, for her actions in dealing with those Royal politicians and what she did for them. She was planning to leave with them and become part of that political force. The only reason she did not get on that helicopter was due to Ken failing to kill off Nick.

Like I said, prostituting isn't just about sex, it can be but not limited to it. And by using your recommendations of the new usages of those words "bastard and prostitute", I have just shown you good reasons to apply BOTH terms to Juliette, the Hex, using your standards.

Quote:I make a statement and use the definitions to support my statement. That is the "coherent argument to support My position" And I have to re-post it because it doesn't seem to sink in to your mind set. This is why now you are arguing about the argument.

This is how you concede defeat. You aren't capable to admit it so you change the argument, deflecting. How is that analogy of your 'writers intent' that you are probably unaware of. See, I can be clairvoyant too.

That is not a coherent argument. A coherent argument is an explanation of why the event applies or does not apply. There have been a couple of us on her that have tried to explain to you. What you use as a definition no longer apply. The meaning of the words are an out dated notion. A coherent argument would be to explain why they are not.

Quote:So when she says that line and lays on top of him, and the camera pans away, she was going to preform some magic? Is that what the "writers intent" was about that whole scene? I been watching GoT. Du you think if Grimm was produced in the same manner as GoT and the camera did not pan away, you really think she was going to preform magic? Maybe where you live it is called "Majique" (the cat or as referred to a baby cat) no pun intended. Where I come from it is called Found Under Carnal Knowledge -ING

When Nick comes back to the house and sees his bed unmade it wasn't due to some magic Juliette preformed, it was scrunched up due to plain old unadulterated SEX. Yes, it was literally SEX. But I have to tip off my hat for your clairvoyant ability to be able to read minds of the actors Clair,Bitsie, or Breee. You are just an amazing "legend in your own mind". (just in case you miss-interpeted tha last sentence, it is SARCASM) This is a fantasy TV show, not a subject for someone to study for their thesis for a PHD or Doctorate. Are you capable to comprehend MY "writers intent"?

You have a hang up about sex. I never said they did not have sex. I said that is not what their value is. Neither Adalind or Juliette was ever soon to be required to have sex. In all cases it was the female that initiated having sex. In all cases it was shown the females where having sex for the pure enjoyment of having sex. It was not as payment, or because it was expected. It is not about being clairvoyant, it is about listening to the actress opinion on how the characters are portrayed. You keep wanting to frame it as if the female characters are being sexually exploited by the men. I don't know maybe you can't conceive that women like and have sex no different then men. Gone are the days when women feel it is something men expect them to do. Now days women are the aggressors. Women are the ones to buy you a drink, and ask you to go home with them. And before you go there that does not make them immoral, lose, or any other derogatory word you want to use because in your mind it fits some definition. Like someone else said it is the 21st century get with the program. It is a new day for women.

The other thing that points out the writers where not using sex to gain leverage. Not one time was there sex with or for something gained. Even Adalind, she used it as a delivery method, but it was not the sex that was the tool.

(04-18-2018, 05:00 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I make a statement and use the definitions to support my statement. That is the "coherent argument to support My position" And I have to re-post it because it doesn't seem to sink in to your mind set. This is why now you are arguing about the argument.

This is how you concede defeat. You aren't capable to admit it so you change the argument, deflecting. How is that analogy of your 'writers intent' that you are probably unaware of. See, I can be clairvoyant too.

That is not a coherent argument. A coherent argument is an explanation of why the event applies or does not apply. There have been a couple of us on her that have tried to explain to you. What you use as a definition no longer apply. The meaning of the words are an out dated notion. A coherent argument would be to explain why they are not.

I guess you are ahead of the curve on Webster. The meanings of the words have added meaning without the disregard of ther previous meanings.

It is obviously you aren't capable of comprehending what is posted. If you refer back to the definitions I posted of the words 'bastard and prostitute' you would see that they, not only took on additional meaning but still retain their original meanings. If you claim what you just posted is correct, what do you call a child born out of wedlock in 2018? Is there a new word or is it still called a bastard. Just because the children born out of marriage is more accepting, a child born from an unmarried couple is still a bastard

Quote:So when she says that line and lays on top of him, and the camera pans away, she was going to preform some magic? Is that what the "writers intent" was about that whole scene? I been watching GoT. Du you think if Grimm was produced in the same manner as GoT and the camera did not pan away, you really think she was going to preform magic? Maybe where you live it is called "Majique" (the cat or as referred to a baby cat) no pun intended. Where I come from it is called Found Under Carnal Knowledge -ING

When Nick comes back to the house and sees his bed unmade it wasn't due to some magic Juliette preformed, it was scrunched up due to plain old unadulterated SEX. Yes, it was literally SEX. But I have to tip off my hat for your clairvoyant ability to be able to read minds of the actors Clair,Bitsie, or Breee. You are just an amazing "legend in your own mind". (just in case you miss-interpeted tha last sentence, it is SARCASM) This is a fantasy TV show, not a subject for someone to study for their thesis for a PHD or Doctorate. Are you capable to comprehend MY "writers intent"?

You have a hang up about sex. I never said they did not have sex. I said that is not what their value is. Neither Adalind or Juliette was ever soon to be required to have sex. In all cases it was the female that initiated having sex. In all cases it was shown the females where having sex for the pure enjoyment of having sex. It was not as payment, or because it was expected. It is not about being clairvoyant, it is about listening to the actress opinion on how the characters are portrayed. You keep wanting to frame it as if the female characters are being sexually exploited by the men. I don't know maybe you can't conceive that women like and have sex no different then men. Gone are the days when women feel it is something men expect them to do. Now days women are the aggressors. Women are the ones to buy you a drink, and ask you to go home with them. And before you go there that does not make them immoral, lose, or any other derogatory word you want to use because in your mind it fits some definition. Like someone else said it is the 21st century get with the program. It is a new day for women.

The other thing that points out the writers where not using sex to gain leverage. Not one time was there sex with or for something gained. Even Adalind, she used it as a delivery method, but it was not the sex that was the tool.

Gee-sus, man you have no clue on WTF you are talking about. When did the female cast became the writers and directors or the creative team?. Is this more of your confusion of claiming to know "writers intent" and then denying it. Is it your ability to be clairvoyant then denying you are?. Are you confusing what the female cast welcomed how their parts were written as opposed for them writing their scenes? I can not keep up with your confusions. Were you ever diagnosed with ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder)

You must be a real legend in your own mind to be able to claim that women are finally coming into their own by enjoying sex just like men these days. I guess, according to you, in the past women hated sex. According to you, say 50 years ago, women that cheated on men, did not initiate sex and did not seek pleasure in it. Pal, you have lots to learn about women today and in the past.

Did it ever occur to you that I apply the same puritanical principles to men as I do to women? Are you practicing "selective clairvoyance"? When I made my list of the worse offenders (sluts) in sex partners indulgences on the show, I do believe I listed Sean on the top. Last time I looked, he was a male.

According to you, I have a hang up about sex because I believe Juliette was being a harlot for initiating sex just for pleasure and not for cheating, revenge and whatever else you seem to know more about me than I do. According to you, I see no issues with men enjoying sex with multiple partners but frown upon women enjoying the same? Must be that clairvoyance creeping out again.

Hey, I am Italian, for me, when having sex, one of my main objective is to make sure the woman has pleasure too, kinda guarantees 'repeat customer, for me, the same customer, capisce?

I guess, according to your great insight after I am done watching Games of Thrones, I will be blowing my brains out. ROFLMAO

(04-18-2018, 05:00 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:I make a statement and use the definitions to support my statement. That is the "coherent argument to support My position" And I have to re-post it because it doesn't seem to sink in to your mind set. This is why now you are arguing about the argument.

This is how you concede defeat. You aren't capable to admit it so you change the argument, deflecting. How is that analogy of your 'writers intent' that you are probably unaware of. See, I can be clairvoyant too.

That is not a coherent argument. A coherent argument is an explanation of why the event applies or does not apply. There have been a couple of us on her that have tried to explain to you. What you use as a definition no longer apply. The meaning of the words are an out dated notion. A coherent argument would be to explain why they are not.

Quote:So when she says that line and lays on top of him, and the camera pans away, she was going to preform some magic? Is that what the "writers intent" was about that whole scene? I been watching GoT. Du you think if Grimm was produced in the same manner as GoT and the camera did not pan away, you really think she was going to preform magic? Maybe where you live it is called "Majique" (the cat or as referred to a baby cat) no pun intended. Where I come from it is called Found Under Carnal Knowledge -ING

When Nick comes back to the house and sees his bed unmade it wasn't due to some magic Juliette preformed, it was scrunched up due to plain old unadulterated SEX. Yes, it was literally SEX. But I have to tip off my hat for your clairvoyant ability to be able to read minds of the actors Clair,Bitsie, or Breee. You are just an amazing "legend in your own mind". (just in case you miss-interpeted tha last sentence, it is SARCASM) This is a fantasy TV show, not a subject for someone to study for their thesis for a PHD or Doctorate. Are you capable to comprehend MY "writers intent"?

You have a hang up about sex. I never said they did not have sex. I said that is not what their value is. Neither Adalind or Juliette was ever soon to be required to have sex. In all cases it was the female that initiated having sex. In all cases it was shown the females where having sex for the pure enjoyment of having sex. It was not as payment, or because it was expected. It is not about being clairvoyant, it is about listening to the actress opinion on how the characters are portrayed. You keep wanting to frame it as if the female characters are being sexually exploited by the men. I don't know maybe you can't conceive that women like and have sex no different then men. Gone are the days when women feel it is something men expect them to do. Now days women are the aggressors. Women are the ones to buy you a drink, and ask you to go home with them. And before you go there that does not make them immoral, lose, or any other derogatory word you want to use because in your mind it fits some definition. Like someone else said it is the 21st century get with the program. It is a new day for women.

The other thing that points out the writers where not using sex to gain leverage. Not one time was there sex with or for something gained. Even Adalind, she used it as a delivery method, but it was not the sex that was the tool.

Syscrash, you make some valid points above but are wrong on a number of things in my opinion particularly involving Juliette and Kenneth.

Juliette didn’t have sex for the pure joy of having sex with Kenneth, It was clear Juliette slept with him to get back at Nick for him mistakenly sleeping with Adalind through no fault of his own. The show made it clear during that scene when she was with Kenneth he brought up the fact that Nick and Juliette's bed was where Nick and Adalind made their baby and she slept with him almost right away after that comment, then Nick came in after Juliette and Kenneth had gone and discovered the messy bed sheets, Juliette and Kenneth appeared to have purposely left it that way for Nick to see.

Script from 4x21

Kenneth- Let's have a look.
Juliette -And this was our bedroom.
Kenneth-And this would be where Nick and Adalind made their baby.
Juliette-It would.
Kenneth-Anything else? Juliette -Yes.
If I'm gonna be working with the Royal Family, you need to have a very clear understanding of just how valuable I can be.
Kenneth-It's secure.

Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk...ode=s04e21