About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 120

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 7:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In the first Predator flick, Jesse "The Body" Ventura proclaims himself a "sexual Tyrannasauras Rex." He faced down a fierce alien in that movie -- but he hadn't yet met "THE SEXUAL POWER OF WOMEN."

Since Alec won't define exactly what he means by " the sexual power of women over men" and he won't offer explanations for how such an animal would be the result of "natural influences" and not the result of "irrational influences" in our culture, I'll try to clear this up -- to address what has been a  recurring chauvinism in Western culture since even before St. Paul upped the ante with his misogyny.

The following definition for "sexual power of women over men" has been the standard meaning for millennia and, it appears, is the meaning Alec ascribes to it.

(1)  The capacity (and need) to get men to do things they do not wish to do by prohibiting and/or reducing their access to sex with a woman -- to further the woman's values.

What this would mean is that women metaphysically have the power (and must use it) to make men who are attracted to them do the woman's bidding, whether the man likes it or not -- evidently because the man's hormones make him far more "sex-driven." (Has Alec not read Jennifer Iannolo or Kelly Elmore?! :-)) This obviously flies in the face of volition -- and, of course, Objectivism.

As most of us know, there are forces of nature that seem to push us in some directions: careers, sexual preference, etc. And pursuing each of those would be rational -- because it would align with our natures and our values. It would further our lives.

But since women already have reason, what would be the need of nature imparting a "sexual power"? It would further nobody's life, so it could not be "natural." All women can attain their rational desires via reason. They can tell bad suitors to kiss off, and they can allure the men they desire. The man, of course, then has the ability to acknowledge the woman's come-hither look or disregard it. If the man accepts and the woman then tries to get the man to do things he doesn't want to do (playing on his alleged greater desire to bed her), the rational man can also say, "kiss off." He is not violating some "natural" need to do her bidding, as he would be violating a natural tendency to be hetero or homo.

If one party in any sexual situation wants sex more than the other party, the more-desirous party does not somehow relinquish his volition and surrender to the demands of the less-desirous party -- any more than a desirous buyer surrenders his volition when a seller wants more than the buyer wishes to pay for a product. The buyer simply walks away or the seller lowers his price. There are no rational conflicts between rational parties -- sex or otherwise.

What Alec has been witnessing in our culture (and erroneously jotting down as "natural") is the perennial irrational interaction between women and men, in which rationality has been chucked out the window and the two most obvious backup power positions (man's physicality and woman's sexual attraction) are overemphasized. And underlying all of this (in America especially) is the puritanism of religion, which sullies the sexual experience and makes women be primarily the object of conquest instead of the object of admiration. When a woman knows that her suitors are out for conquest, instead of love (or lust), she will use one of the best weapons she has against such brutes: sexual power.

But that weapon is used volitionally and in the context of an irrational culture -- not because of some fallen-angel natural inclination to rule over men.

I'm afraid the Amazonian lady leaders would've had a chuckle at Alec's expense in this matter.

As would Jesse "The Body" Ventura.

P.S. I'm amazed that Solo homos have not yet called Alec on the alleged "defiance" by gays of the natural order of Mother Nature!


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 121

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 4:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David,

Much of what you say is nonsensical (i.e., that somehow I said that women, given their power, "must use it", and your continuous insistence that natural influences are "anti-volition"). If you doggedly refuse to understand what I'm saying, even though it has resonated with a large number of sanctioners, that's your prerogative. If you choose to ignore such an obvious phenomenon as the overbearing mother, because you can't define it to yourself, that's also your prerogative. But the funniest thing is that your conclusion is almost exactly the same as mine.

"What Alec has been witnessing in our culture (and erroneously jotting down as "natural") is the perennial irrational interaction between women and men, in which rationality has been chucked out the window and the two most obvious backup power positions (man's physicality and woman's sexual attraction) are overemphasized."

So, you're admitting that these backup power positions exist. (Which contradicts your nonsense earlier in the post about that power not being “natural.”) Which was precisely my point when I brought this up: that because they exist, and because the explanation for every sexual conflict can be traced down to them, the importance of *rationality* is emphasized.

Although I think it's rather foolish and a product of wishful thinking to believe that the "perennial irrational interaction" (which is hardly confined to Western Culture) has nothing to do with the often overwhelming nature of the “backup” power positions. The point about such persisting confusions as the sexual harassment fiasco is that women dressing sexily to work *don't realize* the extent of their power, the affect they're having on men, the signals their sending. So they go all shitwire when a guy hits on them. I certainly think that with most women, the problem is a *lack of awareness* rather than an intentional abuse of their power. The power comes through without people knowing it – even more reason to *acknowledge* and thus deal with it rationally.

So to an extent we agree; you’re just too startled to realize it. The extent that we disagree is laughably characterized in your rationalistic comparison of a buyer in the house market with a buyer in the sex market. If you truly believe the actions of the two are exactly the same – that the sexual field and the real estate agency are tantamount – then I’ve got a shack I’d like to sell you.

And, yes, gays do defy Mother Nature – as do priests, nuns, prostitutes, and a great many artists. And I agree with Paglia that they should be commended for it. Mother Nature is looking out for the species, sometimes at the expense of the individual. For example: Mother Nature wants grandchildren, despite the fact a great many individuals simply don’t. (Prosperous populations are receding as a result.) A defiance of MN is commendable because it often constitutes a stand for individuality.

Alec

P.S. I guess your accusations of “misogyny” and “chauvinism” prove that knee-jerk name-calling is not merely the tactic of the PC Left, but a more naturally-inclined response of humans when faced with unfamiliar views.


Post 122

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 5:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
David wrote:

P.S. I'm amazed that Solo homos have not yet called Alec on the alleged "defiance" by gays of the natural order of Mother Nature!

Alec *is* wrong about that. Homoesexuality is part of nature, & gays are simply honoring *their* nature. "Mother Nature" has no self-conscious purpose or Grand Plan, in any event.

That aside, these gender issues bore me witless. Yet they're clearly the ones that get folk most rarked up. Each to his own, I guess.

Linz


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 123

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Alec,
If I understood you correctly, I will disagree on what is, perhaps, one minor point.
I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of women who dress sexily in the workplace (or
school or many other places), know quite well what they are doing.

How many women dress that way without looking in the mirror before they leave for work?
 Do they not, then, say to themselves some equivalent of 'Ha, this oughta raise a few sleepy eyelids.'

I'm not arguing here whether their behavior and thinking is right or wrong, rational or not. Simply
that it is not unaware, typically. To the contrary, they know exactly what they are doing.

And, in their candid moments, they will tell you so.


Post 124

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 7:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I won't argue with you, Jeff. I had more in mind the situations in which problems arise. For example, I don't think that the conscious woman is the one who screams harassment. (Although I've seen plenty of similarly devious women around me.) I think the root of confusion is much more often ignorance, as promoted by a pathetic college education.

Alec

Post 125

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 8:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Continuing the tangent that Jeff made in post 123...

Regarding dressing up & female grooming: I've heard again and again (with citations to studies) that woman primarily are concerned with impressing other woman and not men. This always seemed a bit hard for me to believe, but because of the contexts where it came up and the various sources, I did not chalk it all up to extreme P.C..

Does anyone have any references on this? It is some kind of urban legend or what?


Post 126

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 8:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think it may be less a case of impressing other women, and more a case of one-upping them.  Better clothes, better hair, smaller size -- it's all a sick, twisted game that is rooted in some odd sort of insecurity.

Spend a day on midtown Manhattan's sidewalks and you will see it in full bloom.  It's hilarious.  :)

If you want to see an analogous trait exhibited in men, head to your local gym.


Post 127

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fascinating hypothesis. That might explain why so many women wear suggestive clothing
and then complain when they get a suggestion.

By the way, I didn't start the tangent; I was responding to Alec. It's all his fault!


Post 128

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 6:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jennifer you are right in your post #126. That is why it is important on valentines day for the flowers, gifts etc to be delivered *at* work, so they can be shown off to the other women. One woman I know was pissed that her man gave her (an extravagent gift ) at home, and that all the other women received theirs at work.

Post 129

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
EXACTLY, John.  Woe unto the man who makes such a mistake.  Ha!!!!  :)

Post 130

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 8:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm amazed that Solo homos have not yet called Alec on the alleged "defiance" by gays of the natural order of Mother Nature!
I think Alec has not being taken to task for it because everyone from SOLOC 4 knows that he absolutely adores gay men :-)


Post 131

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 4:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I absolutely adore *you* Marcus, if that means anything...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6


User ID Password or create a free account.