Snapshot of the new workplace: Karen Owen’s PowerPoint

Karen Owen should never have admitted authorship of this ppt when some blog reporter called her. I guess creating this was self-empowering and she was a bit proud and defensive (at the time). Hence her initial attitude of “guys have been doing this, so why can’t girls?” But admitting it was truly her work gave this story legs it otherwise would not have had. And now she regrets it. She should have lied and said it was a fake. Honestly no one could ever have proven otherwise, and I doubt any of the parties mentioned in the ppt would have been inclined to contradict her. None of the major outlets would have picked this up if she said it was fake.

This is kind of where I wish the words class and dignity still had the same kind of weight as “brand recognition” does.

Sure, Karen’s proven she can be witty and for whatever strange reason half the Internet will read about sex regardless (duh…) but getting attention is only a critical factor for certain jobs. If her career goal was marketing matchmaking sites, or running a celeb gossip blog, she’s probably done well.

For others, being taken seriously is. So if her goal was to become an academic or policy analyst or lawyer, not such a win. Although I’m pretty sure she was burning off stress and not trying to come up with a career strategy.

“So middle-aged men are often alone, day after day, with single, hot young women. When has this happened in history? At this point, there is a culture of men being smitten with young women, and young women feeling empowered enough to leverage that without actually giving in.”

When has it happened in history? When HASN’T it happened in history? The only thing “new” about the interactions you’re describing is that they take place in a work setting–and that isn’t all that new any more, either. But the overall dynamic of older-man-pursuing younger-woman-holdout is pretty much timeless.

Also, I’m dismayed by the idea that sleeping with lots of people inherently equals empowerment. Empowerment is being comfortable with your sexuality, and that’s an individual determination. But an awful lot of people seem to feel that hookups are inherently empowering. Maybe sometimes they are, but an awful lot of the time, they reveal pathology rather than power.

Real power comes from taking considered actions–and knowing when not to take them. There isn’t one particular combination of those two that defines empowerment. It depends on what makes YOU strong as a person. And that will vary.

I went to her website and was impressed with her logo. It is original and plays up her name. If it’s a bug make it a feature.

I think it is funny to suggest that men are afraid of women. There is no more fear there than of other men.

I checked out the PPT and thought it was kind of boring and not terribly clever. I didn’t see where she was using PowerPoint in a “revolutionary” way. So she had a bunch of hook-ups with jocks. Did this only get so much attention because she’s a woman ranking random sex with men? And I’m with deadhedge’s comment on Excel — “Excel, not power point, is the real male tool. If Owen had developed an excel model that would allow her to input male characteristics and it would calculate that guy’s fuckability, then I would have been impressed.”

Not to sound too misogynistic, but here are the reasons why the male commenters keep on insisting that Ms. Owen will have a hard time finding a “good” man to become her husband.

1. She’s “promiscuous”. Despite what the TV box with the moving pictures suggests, the majority of American men (from the creme de la creme to the stereotypical porn-consuming loser) can count all of their lovers without stooping to remove their socks. Barring the quasi-sociopathic (as in serial rapists, uber-entitled trust fund kids/suburban spawn and most Internet-style PUAs), sexual libertines (such as swingers, BDSM lifestylers and the various types of hipsters) and celebrities (from the most minor of musicians and sportsmen to the men who can earn a production studio or recording company in excess of nine figures by simply attaching their names to a project), most men “top out” below double figures (pre-marriage). By naming and giving direct pictorial evidence of thirteen lovers, she’s managed to exceed the mate/hook-up count of most American men with very little effort (in comparison to the amount of effort through wooing and demonstration of provider status that all but the most gifted men are taught to undergo.) In one fell swoop, she’s managed to make herself persona non grata to every insecure, socially conservative or chauvinistic man in the English-speaking (and many non-English speaking) parts of the Internet. And seeing as how she’s been featured on television, her ride is far from over.

2. She told too many details. For the men who aren’t conservative (“slut” accepting, for shorthand), who aren’t insecure (because they’ve hit their double digits or have ego enough to assume that they can “tame” her) and who aren’t chauvinistic (enlightenment takes on many forms), she’s now the postergirl for self-centered indiscretion. Every man who’s managed to date more than one woman in his life has crossed paths with the woman who tells her girlfriends everything. And by “everything”, I mean everything (penis size, lovemaking prowess/skills, kinks/fetishes, etc.), things that she’d literally blow a gasket over if the tables were turned. And there’s nothing that annoys a man more than having a dinner with friends who he doesn’t consider “close/intimate enough” to know details, yet who have no problem with making comments that reveal his secret life (the drunkenly blurted, “You like those heels and that skirt? I thought that plaid skirts and Mary Janes were more your style oops!” come to mind.) Her “pedestrian” details were far more graphic than anything that you’d hear from a group of the world’s most sexually insecure/assured men. And the details were backed up with pictures of the men in question and a verifiable time frame for the hook-ups, leaving little to be verified. So, in essence, she’s also managed to turn off the vast majority of men who are left over who also value discretion (after all, if she’s this blase about strangers, who knows what she’ll say about her husband, bragging or otherwise?)

{Personal admission which I will add because I don’t have readily identifiable information: I had a former girlfriend who’d always invite me out for ice cream when her friends were at her apartment. Apparently, my ice cream consumption style was in some way titillating to their oral sex-deprived eyes. Yes, we aren’t together, and I haven’t spoken to her in three years.)

3. She’s either opportunistic to a fault or a blithering idiot. Any grown person who honestly believes that their sexual life (in modern times) isn’t or couldn’t be turned into gossip fodder at the slightest hint of outre behaviour either has the social intelligence of a sloth or a disturbingly low level of respect for the intelligence of others. Using her status as a Duke graduate alone, a sensible man is forced to two conclusions: She’s either blindingly intelligent or has high-level connections. An intelligent person (barring shut-ins, homeschoolers or utter outcasts, of which she is neither) would have enough sense to separate their sexual life from their public life. A person who grew up with the level of connections needed to gain access to the halls of Duke would have been raised or indoctrinated with the idea of keeping a clean “face”. By not only making her sexuality the focus of a research project, but actually translating her sexuality into an easily accessible/transferable/researchable form, she’s shown herself to possess the mental acuity of a Facebook-blessed middle-schooler who’s just discovered that kissing is “fun” (except with extra treatises on cock size and the pleasures of rough sex.) Men can and do like women who make them look and feel smart, but we aren’t in the market for blithering idiots.

In summation, we have a woman who’s given herself a reputation of being “slutty”, “loud-mouthed” and “ignorant”. On top of that, we also have a woman who’s most obvious personal ambitions would have to include (if nothing else) a man who’s either near or at the top of the “mountain” (because Duke graduates aren’t known for marrying Waffle House waitresses or binmen.)

What high-level businessman or financier is going to attach himself to a woman who’s brazen enough to allow her sexual exploits to be broadcast online? (Indiscreet and stupid enough to ignore the indiscretion aren’t good attributes for the wife of a man who holds millions of dollars of other peoples’ money in his hands on a daily basis.) What doctor, engineer or is going to risk his reputation by attaching himself to a “brazen slut”? For many careers, the difference between languishing in middle-management and becoming the top dog is having a sterling reputation, and her current “reputation” is enough to drag down almost anyone. So men who are trying to climb the corporate/etc. ladder will probably pump and dump to avoid the baggage.

For the men who are willing to look past that, they’ve attached themselves to a woman who was able to attend Duke without outlaying a dime of her own money (IOW, a woman who’s accustomed to a certain standard of living.) They’ve also attached themselves to a woman for whom they’ll always have to set up a good “defense” (from a professional and personal standpoint. There will always be a man around to insult and/or attempt to seduce so-and-so’s wife because she literally put herself out there as being “promiscuous”. That’s a major bale to tote for many man. Additionally, if her main goal in life is to find herself a six-figure moneymaker, she’s quickly going to be dissatisfied with a husband whose career has been derailed by his wife’s “reputation”. Six-figure salaries allow for expenses such as new luxury cars every year and expensive trips every summer, things that even a high-five-figure husband would be hard-pressed to maintain. And if his lack of upward mobility can be traced in any way, shape or form to her presence in his life, eventually sparks will fly.

That being said, there are plenty of men who won’t give half a shit about her “reputation”, and more power to them (IMO). After more than a dozen seasons spent in Europe, I’m well-acquainted with the mind-set of the Euro-style “liberal” person (sexual peccadilloes included.) Thirteen guys in 4 years, hell, they’ve fucked thirteen girls in a good summer! A Powerpoint presentation, well, a geeky/kinky cute chick who knows her way around computers doesn’t just fall from the sky! But (there’s always a “but”), those guys almost always fall into two categories: uber-discreet or flamboyantly deviant.

If she meets the former, she’ll find herself married to a man who’ll probably be too nervous to anything more than “vanilla” for fear of finding himself subjected to another “art project” or “dissertation” at the hands of his wife. When the sex becomes boring (and it will if the man in question doesn’t want or is afraid of letting her know his “sexual secrets”), their marriage will deteriorate as quickly as meringue left in the sun.

If she meets the latter, she’ll find herself in the same place she is now, famous for her relatively minor (but culturally outrageous) sexual exploits. Given the fact that she’s essentially removed herself from the public sphere due to embarrassment, it’s difficult for me to imagine her finding “eternal happiness” with a man who chooses to marry her because she’s “already shown everyone that she’s a ‘freak’.”, a thought process which leads to some very non-Church-sanctioned activities. If she can’t handle the idea of being known for the “unforgivable” crime of having sex with thirteen people, I doubt that she’s going to grin and bear it if her husband dangles her prior history in her face while brandishing tickets to Hedonism. Or if he tells her that his boss is “a big fan” of hers when promotion time comes around (wink wink on his part. After all, noone misses a slice from a cut loaf.) And if her “research” was supposed to be her “unmentioned” college experiences (something to enjoy, remember and ultimately deny), having a spouse who’s continually trying to return her to “the good old days” is going to chafe more than iron armor.

I refuse to draw negative judgment against her carnal behaviour. However, I’m unable to ignore her lack of tact and (potentially) libelous conduct in framing her experiences for consumption. At the very least, she could have blacked out the eyes of her paramours, referred to them with initials and attributed the Powerpoint in question to an assumed name. If the “thesis” had been written by “A Duke University Knock-Out”, featured men such as “Mr. 10” and “Saucy Aussie”, and the pictures of the men in question were taken by her in less identifiable circumstances, the entire thing could have been avoided. Instead, she took the easier and (as Owen’s friend revealed through an indiscretion of her own) sleazier way to glory. And like Monica Lewinsky (a woman who’s essentially marriage-bane despite her own academic pedigree), she’ll be the worse (romance-wise) for it.

Thank you for your article/post and thank you for your information you gave me…
thank you(:

I think its sad that she got used by so many emotionally unintelligent men, although I think in this case, a 10 doesn’t date a 1, in the sense that I feel she was being unintelligent about it too.

Its one thing to have a lot of sex with a lot of people. And I wouldn’t ever call her a slut, because I hate the word and the gender inequality associated with it, but I do think its sad that she rested her self esteem on BAD sex.

She claimed the “conquest” identity (historically reserved for men) as her own, and this is somehow meant to be “empowerment” yet she never stopped to realize that a) she was having *terrible* sex, so was probably getting more from the idea of lots of sex than the sex itself (which is not empowering) and b) as men are getting more emotionally intelligent through learning better social skills (i.e. empowering themselves) and they are moving away from resting their self esteem on “endless conquests”/ “being a player”. Just because this is a mans world doesn’t mean the men do the right thing.

Its totally fine with me to have sex with tonnes of people, but there has to be some *introspection* involved to guarantee quality sex, and to make sure all parties feel respected and valued as human beings.

This matters whether you have 1 or 100+ partners over your lifetime.