[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 unread


Post 0

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 5:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings-

As I have not read this book- I would like to- I cannot justly comment on the work per se.  However, I would like to make two points:

1) Ayn Rand never developed a theory of beauty per se, but the theory of Nancy Etcoff's here summarized is in direct clash with the essentials of Rand's theory of art and sexuality; her Romantic Realism that above all emphasized aesthetic (and erotic) experience as a function of conscious and subconscious value.  Although Rand's residual sexism and general devaluation of the decorative arts prevented her from treating personal beauty in a serious fashion, I believe a Rand-influenced aesthetic of beauty would likely be far closer to social constructivist accounts than fashionable sociobiology, the precursors of which Rand called "the mysticism of muscle."  Again, I have not read the book in question, but I do think the essential premises of Ayn Rand and sociobiology are utterly incompatible.  This, of course, proves neither Etcoff nor sociobiology (nor Rand) wrong.

2) Despite the fact my own essential views are close to Randian romantic realism and Foucauldian constructivism, and very far from sociobiology, I would highly agree that the pursuit of beauty is a crucial social issue vastly disregarded by most modern historians, and I would agree in a loose and liberal value with the effective implications, if not the premisies, of most sociobiological accounts of personal beauty.  With that in consideration, the review passage here concludes thus:  "Moreover, if we come to understand how the desire for beauty is innate, then we can begin to work in our interests, and not solely for the interests of our genetic tendencies."
 
I liesurely question what kind of conclusions a rational, self-interested capitalist might reach from the above.  ?
 
my regards,
 
Jeanine Ring  {))(*)((}
stand forth!




Post 1

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 5:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine wrote:
{))(*)((}
stand forth!
What the heck is this?!


Luke Setzer




Post 2

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 8:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"...neither a cultural construction, an invention of the fashion industry, nor a backlash against feminism, but instead is in our biology"

"Those features to which we are most attracted are often signals of fertility and fecundity"

Well, the fashion industry currently seems to value stick-thin women - hardly a symbol of fertility or fecundity. I don't see how the arguments of this book could possibly be true. If you look at what different cultures find beautiful, the differences are incredible - from Chinese crippled feet to African scarification. There seems to be almost no feature that is found attractive in every culture.

Phil




Post 3

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
{))(*)((}
stand forth!
What the heck is this?!

Msr. Setzer-

     Why, my profession and title, of course.  'Tis custom among today's professionals to note this in signature, estne?

(sighs)  Does no one study the classics any more?
Hic verbus utor communiter.  But I repeat myself.  Shall we return to discussions of substance?

my regards,

miss Jeanie Ring  {))(*)((}
stand forth!




Post 4

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 3:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeanine wrote in her profile:
Jeanine Ring is a transgender escort residing in San Francisco, CA.
Okay, I get the signature now -- vagina lips with a clitoris in the middle and "stand forth!" for a client's erection.  I suspected it previously but wanted to make no assumptions.  I should have checked the profile the first time to get the answer to my question.


Luke Setzer




Post 5

Monday, October 4, 2004 - 6:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> Okay, I get the signature now -- vagina lips with a clitoris in the middle and "stand forth!" for a client's erection.  I suspected it previously but wanted to make no assumptions.  I should have checked the profile the first time to get the answer to my question.

Luther-

Certainly, no  faults on ignorance.. especially when I precisely did not speak explicitly, much as I might wish to.  Please understand neither shame nor deception has anything to do with it; as an indication of the statist conditions under which I must operate, please keep in mind that the following notes are purely academic, as I describe myself as an escort, and of course us escorts ain't prostitutes.  In fact, I have not a clue what on Earth I might do for a living.

Anyway, your observations are quite reasonable and accurate in the conclusions you reach.  But the wierd thing is, your interpretation doesn't follow the patricular references I had in mind at all.

With regards to {))(*)((}, the exterior calligraphic brackets are a common method to denote one's status as property orginating in certain BDSM subcultures, while the symbol within is one version of a transcription of ancient marks of goddess-worship.  Such symbols marked sacred prostitutes in ancient European and Near-Eastern Pagan cultures; they are the reasons for Biblical prohibitions on tattoos, as a clear distinction of the Hebrew priesthoods from the cults of Ba'al and Ishtarte among the neighboring Caananites.  Incidentally, the tradition has continued to this day among contemporary sex workers in various forms; I met a sister last night who was marked in the same manner, or specifically the Celtic form of
   *     I don't doubt that the reference to the female
   v     sexual system is intended in the orginial, but it wasn't the
))O(( conscious reason for the reference.  I'm shortly to get myself facially tatooed in a similar manner; all of the above are recollections of the proper stature of prostitution via classical references, much as this forum uses a famous painting of Plato and Aristotle in the Symposium to evoke the aesthos of philosophical discussion.

As for "stand forth!", it is an antiderivation of the Latin prostituta from which comes the English "prostitute".  The term derives from the Latin pro (for) + steti, or irrregularly prostiti, the passive of stare (to stand).  A prostitute is literally "one who is stood forth", referring specifically to Roman streetwalkers who would stand in certain areas of the city; the Greek equivalent was peripatetike, "walker"; "streetwalker" or "stroller" (our lingo) might better capture the sense.  Incidentally for Objectivists, with their Aristotelian heritage, peripatetic was the term that stuck in the classical world for "Aristotelian", due to the fact that the disciples of the Lyceum used to stroll on a prominent covered walkway on the school's grounds.  I'm not absolutely sure of this, but I always did wonder why the Church Fathers (e.g., Tertullian) writing against Aristotle loved to use the term "peripatetic" so much.

It's also a reference to a line from the movie _Dangerous Beauty_, considering the Renassaince courtesan Veronica Franco, that's been recommended to me; I'll wave off that comment until I watch the move sometime in the next 24 hours ('twas hard to find on DVD).  The line in the movie is "Stand!", so I syncretized the references by putting a trangressive active voice to the term; it's a sistren's form of "Black is beautiful", and courting presumption, appropraite for a selfish independent capitalist.  "Veronica", by the way, is a favorite stage name for people in the Industry, such as Veronica Monet, as escort and sex-worker activist, and Veronica Hart, a pro-sex feminist pornographer.

"Stand forth" honestly wasn't intended as a reference to male sexual response pattern, and I totally missed that potential allusion... though it does lay on another correspondence nicely.  Your literal interpreation is entirely valid, but it's not literally entirely accurate in my case; I after all have 7 months or so to go before my own male-to-female transition is complete (I am currently an androgyne), and patriarchal social realities aside, I certainly do accept female clients; in fact, I commit libertarian heresy and practise affirmative action on the matter!  I have had two so far.

sigh...  Apolgies for an unforgivably lengthy response, but I confess I tear at cloth a bit to shout "we can read, y'know" to the world.  Sex work is, after all, a form of honest, noncoercive aristocracy in the classical sense, in that one has the liesure to develop aesthetic talents in return for the expectation to present a sublime persona- and unlike the dukes and duchesses, no coercion is involved.  A significant number of prostitutes- those who love their work, at least- are performance artists, painters, musicians, photographers, actresses, or "perpetual grad. students" in their spare time, except that it's all really part of an art of personality that is the essence of the erotic vocation.  I assure you that while my philosophical and libertarian bents are a bit unusual among today's sex-work culture, they are far from unprecedented, and my historical, literary, and artistic knowledge is an embarassing pretense compares to that of some other girls out here.  In fact... every time I bring up history with serious sex workers (with one exception), I get something between an amused maternal understanding and amused impatience with the prima donna who thinks she's the first one to get inspired by these things.  The world may think what it may about the Life, but we're wiser and smarter than it thinks, and more importantly than being the first profession, we were the first professors; the first class with the liesure to learn and teach the liberal arts.  Diotima taught Socrates.

my regards,

Jeanine Ring  {))(*)((}
stand forth!




Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.