RoR: Forum

Alec,

"By "sexual power over men," I was referring to the realm of nature and interaction, not politics."

I still have no idea what you could mean if you do not mean that men are not in control of themselves. Maybe you could explain. In the realm of nature, what I see is that people have volition and can make their own choices. In interaction, I see that volitional beings choose how to feel, respond, and behave in regards to others. What do you see that I don't see?

Kelly

Post 101

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 2:37pm

Linz, so long as *you* don't come back to bite me on the bum, I'll be fine.

Alec

Post 102

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 4:10pm

Don't knock it till you've tried it.

Post 103

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 4:15pm

Lance,

Well thank you! We don't actually have a date yet... it will be post-graduation in 2006 for certain, but he is going to law school, and we want to make sure that's set in stone. There's no rush... we're just glad to have found each other! (Every body say "awwww"... okay, that's enough. ;o)

As far as my knife and pepper spray, I have my mother and stepfather to thank for those. Some people get cars and trips to Europe when they graduate high school... I got weapons and training in escaping a rapist/kidnapper. My mom rocks. And I'm sort of proud of my knife... its a Smith and Wesson "Special Ops"... and my stepfather taught me how to use it... most important part! My mom still regularly ends phone calls with "Remember, don't get in that car! It's better to get shot then get in his car!" about my still imaginary kidnapper. I love my mom... even if she's a little paranoid. ;o)

Oh, and I learned to shoot at age 11. Was on a team and everything. Even learned how to use a crossbow... that was pretty neat.

Kelly,

I'm not saying that every guy is a rapist, or downplaying the fact that there are great men out there that help women... I was just making the point that the fact that guys get the brunt of that fear makes sense. Of course, Andrew and Alec are always welcome to come to Athens to skew the numbers back in the good guys favor! (I have many single friends here... ;o)

~Nicki T.

Post 104

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 6:59pm

Of course, Andrew and Alec are always welcome to come to Athens to skew the numbers back in the good guys favor!

Alec and Andrew only an hour away in Athens? Now there's a picture. 'Course they might need a knife and pepper spray...Not that they'd even stand a chance even with that...

Jason

Post 105

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 12:45pm

Kelly,

Natural influences shape our choices in many respects. For example, our natural hunger influences us to make choices that will lead to food.

Similarly, in the realm of sex, it's woman's to supply. So men must serve the demands of woman in order to get it. (cf. *pussy*-whipped) Of course, one can rebel against the natural order of *Mother* Nature--as gays and celibates do--but that's a defiance. That's why most men are subordinate to their wives. Also, man is born of woman. That's why most sons are subordinate to their mothers. (cf. "Mama's Boy" and "Daddy's Little Girl")

The overwhelming fact of overbearing mothers and overbearing wives--while certainly *avoidable* given enough male defiance and female wisdom--is a product of natural influences, which even the most rational of men cannot totally avoid.

Lance,

An artist can never sacrifice his artistic integrity for the sake of social comfort. Now, *you* might sacrifice humor for the sake of "benevolent" (in other words: comfortable, soft, non-threatening) social situations, but that's because humor isn't your art. Music is. Not so for me, buddy.

I can't conceive of ever sacrificing my art for the sake of witless, humorless social situations. Yes, there are consequences to that, but as Sinatra might say, that's life (thaat's laaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiife) ... sorry, can't ever say that without the Ray Charlesian chorus coming into my head ...

Again, it comes down to the greater cause that I'm implicitly fighting for in just about all my work. It's the sense of life issue, which I value above all others.

Nicole, if you promise me a "swingin" time, if you catch my drift, then I'm there, and I doubt Andrew's far behind.

Jason, no amount of skewing can result in what goes to your favor in the real Athens, which is, alas, 7,000 miles away.

And are you going to be in Chattanooga this weekend? You must be there, as you well know.

Say yes.

Alec

Post 106

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:00pm

While it's true that the younger a male/female duo is, the man always wants it and the woman less so (just statistically), it also seems to change a bit as both get older. Aren't women and men's sexual peaks at different ages? So that the dynamic might be different for an older man and woman at her peak? Grant it, I don't think women ever suffer the immediate, overbearing need for gratification that men do.

While certainly the stereotypes Alec outlines are true throughout history and in our current culture, I wonder if they might represent irrational tendencies and not the "natural" order of things. Meaning, a fully rational, independent couple would not have this sort of power struggle that seems evident in so many male/female couplings. I could be wrong, however, if it's demonstrable that men always tend to want sex more than women. (And people, I'm talking about human males and females here - please don't drag any stats about apes or other non-human animals into the mix.)

I'm just glad that things are the way they are. I wouldn't want men any other way than hungry, lusting testosterone-machines. Makes my job so much easier.

Jason

Post 107

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:36pm

I don't think women ever suffer the immediate, overbearing need for gratification that men do.

You think so, do you? Silly rabbit.

Post 108

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:50pm

Jennifer, I believe you're an exception in every respect. Well...I should hope *almost* every.

Jason

Post 109

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 3:43pm

Thank you for thinking so, Jason.

(Wondering what the *almost* is for, but hesitant to ask...) :)

Post 110

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 4:08pm

Jennifer,

I meant an exception to most women in every respect except one - I'm sure you've actually got the equipment. :-P Though I'm also sure that's exceptional.

Jason

Post 111

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:02pm

" in the realm of sex, it's woman's to supply. So men must serve the demands of woman in order to get it. (cf. *pussy*-whipped) ...most men are subordinate to their wives."

Oh, give me a break! What incredible pop psychology demeaning and disrespectful to men bullshit from someone not yet out of college and without the years of observation needed to draw such sweeping conclusions about the relationship between the sexes.

(And, no, you can't get it from books.)

Post 112

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:14pm

Philip,
I've been out of college for decades, and I don't think Alec is so far wrong.
Overstating perhaps, but not outrageously so. (There is an element of humor
in his style, after all.)

In the vast majority of cases, as common sense shows, where
women and sex are concerned it's 'a seller's market'. At least,
for unmarried/uncommitted men and women under the age of about 40.
No?

Sorry if you find that offensive.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 5/05, 9:27pm)

Post 113

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:55pm

Well Jeff, that's not exactly what he said.

Post 114

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 10:59pm

I think the lesson is never listen to exactly what Alec says. Just try to get the general idea. If you do that, you'll enjoy his writing a lot more. His style is caustic and biting and I love it! Defininetly not PC, but very effective at starting real and honest dialogue. Anybody who uses a 'grab the bull by the balls' approach is alright by me. It's not always the best way, but it does get attention, no?

Adam
www.musicatb.com

Post 115

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 12:08am

Phil,

Of course I'm putting it in extreme, fundamental terms. I mentioned that there are *exceptions*, but even those are within the context of the natural order. I personally don't think the natural situation has to be bad -- it's just often abused, to the detriment of all.

And I didn't learn these facts merely from books and art (those only affirm), but from observation of everyone I've ever known or known of. Evidence of the senses. And that evidence has been nearly unanimous.

I actually can't quite believe that any non-deluded person could disagree with this.

On the bright side, now I'm "demeaning and disrespectful to men," too. I guess that makes me a bisexist! Thanks for the balance.

Alec

Post 116

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 9:58am

Bisexist? Well, that's a step in the right direction...

Post 117

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 10:06am

"Thanks for the balance."

Glad to help. I knew you were getting flak from the feminists, so I thought you'd appreciate getting flak from the other direction :-)

Post 118

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 10:17am

Alec,

Your comments about “sexual power” being linked to “natural influences” are unsubstantiated. They are at best misogynistic and, at worst, anti-volition. I suspect they are the former, considering your “sense-of-life” sarcastic style and flippant discussion on this subject without getting to facts and examples. (Allusions and non-definitions are not facts and examples.)

Any rational man such as yourself surely must know that rational women do not attempt to use any kind of power over men – and any insinuation (to avoid argument, I suppose) that such a power might be “natural” is Catholic. I have been in a rational and loving relationship with Kelly for 5 years and know of others in such benevolent circumstances – without power brokerage. Your comments are demeaning not only to women (for suggesting that they are somehow modern-day Eves tempting men to take a bite out of a cursed apple) but also to men, who are seemingly powerless against some sexual tractor beam.

Perhaps you’ll give more thought to this subject and either change your views after reviewing the facts or at least try to truly substantiate your delusions.

To get to the fundamentals on this, re-read Kelly’s Post 80.

Post 119

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 1:23pm