Some of these cults are stocked with puritan prudes. Baptists, in particular, are a bit nuts.
A student at a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing will be suspended if he takes his girlfriend to her public high school prom, his principal said.
The student is named Tyler Frost, not Kevin Bacon, by the way.
You want to dance, dance. You want to sing, sing. The two of you want to kiss, kiss. I think those are all beautiful acts, and as long as no one is harmed, it is ridiculous to forbid them.
I also think the school has stepped way out of bounds when it tries to control activities well outside the domain of the school itself. But sure, go ahead and act like repressive tyrants — Mr Frost may well go looking for a more tolerant religion, or will perhaps leave that body of superstition altogether.
- Log in to post comments
All superstitious thought control systems whose participants have contacts outside the system will tend to become more and more irrationally repressive. It gets harder and harder to control people's thoughts.
I hope this kid gets away from the school and into the open air. He might enjoy the view.
It was a Baptist preacher that took me aside when I was 13 years old to tell me that I would lose my faith and go to hell if I kept on asking questions that disrupted the Sunday school class. Gotta thank him for that.
My first thought was, "I'm only 13 and I'm smarter than this guy."
I went to a school like this until the 5th grade. I will never forget the day that they suspended 8 or 9 Seniors for an entire week.
What did they do? Fighting? Vandalism? Drugs?
Nope, even worse, they went to a Garth Brooks concert.
And parents wonder why their children rebel and go crazy once they get outside their control. Isn't that the "preacher's daughter" stereotype? If you teach children to be responsible and self-accountable by allowing them to be responsible for themselves, I think it makes a stronger human being. A lot of parents seem to have a problem, perhaps understandably, seeing their 16 or 17 year old as such, and not as the 5 year old they used to be. But, what can you expect when you send your kid to a "a fundamentalist Baptist school that forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing".
Silly parents, adolescence is for kids.
Don't Baptists boogie too?
I heard about this yesterday, messed up stuff.
The most annoying part of the story is that the Baptist principle signed the form and gave the kid permission, then turned around and punished the kid... What a grade A a-hole. Yet more evidence of the moral bankruptcy of religious figures who claim moral high ground.
"There are three religious truths:
1) Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2) Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.
3) Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters."
~ Author Unknown
The student is named Tyler Frost, not Kevin Bacon, by the way.
I can totally see that as the name of a character in a John Hughes movie.
#3
And they only got suspended for a week...?
While I certainly look upon the school's policy with disdain, reading further into the article shows that the kid knew about these restrictions beforehand, and signed up anyways. For those that would say his parents forced him, in the article it also shows that his father is against the threatened suspension. That either means the family in question is fairly short-sighted, or there's a piece to the puzzle missing.
Either way, I hope he gets lucky at his Prom. Nothing helps yank you away from a stifling religion like sex in the back of a old truck.
...or something like that.
years ago, i worked with an ex-SBC art director at an ad agency in greensboro, nc.
he used to say that the baptist summer camp his parents used to send him to didn't allow the campers to have sex for fear it would lead to dancing.
I don't blame the school and certainly not the child. This is about the parents being idiots for sending their child to this school in the first place. The good thing is, the child will now know that his parents are hypocrites. This may challenge him to seek a better philosophy for his own life.
But I thought Tengri created R&R on the 8th day.
Religion all comes down to control freakism.
No punishment would be too severe for this transgression.
It's my understanding, in fact, that greater repressiveness in religion correlates with less mobility out of the faith, not more. I'm afraid I don't have a study to cite off the top of my head, but this comes out of the class materials for a course at Penn State, studying the Amish culture. There are several different branches of the Amish, each with varying interpretations of how strictly to reject modern technology and styles. If I recall the data correctly, some academics looked in to how the level of control related to mobility of young people out of the faith, and the stricter sects strongly tended to retain children better than those that allowed more mingling with outsiders and more trappings of modernity.
I got sent this yesterday and found it curious. Does the school's authority really extend beyond the school itself? I'd be interested to see what it was that Tyler actually signed, so as to know what the school actually thinks it has control over.
How do you make a Baptist get Alzheimers, go blind, and deaf all at once?
Say "Hi" to them in the liquor store.
@12:
The parents deserve scorn for signing their kid up to so regressive a school, but the school certainly deserves scorn for being so regressive in the first place.
I think I'll frame this and hang it on my wall. Reminds me very much of another basic philosophy that I have adopted:
Why don't Baptists fuck standing up?
Because it could lead to dancing.
My thoughts exactly
silly kid, he thought they were going to let him be responsible for himself.
also, I REALLY wanna know how the school is supposed to find out if the guy gets involved with sex during prom? unless the guy is stupid and advertises publicly that he got laid, how is the school gonna find out?
He parents may be stupid for putting him in this school in the first place but I give them credit for standing up for their kid when the school is being unreasonable. Aren't fundamentalists really big on parental authority yet this school is going against the parent's decision about their kid.
As for schools having authority outside of school, I do know a lot of schools that will punish kids for underage drinking or fighting off school property and such but that's already illegal activity. Nothing illegal about dancing and rock music. Hope this kid has the night of his life.
A couple of thoughts...
I went to a non-religious private high school, and according to its rules, you could still get in trouble if you were caught, say, smoking or drinking off campus. And we also had to sign a sort of contract (the "honor code") at the beginning of each year, which included stuff about cheating/plagiarism AND personal conduct. Not that it stopped anyone from living it up on the weekend, and I don't recall anyone ever getting busted for something outside of school (short of getting arrested or pregnant), but I suppose you lose the right to be shocked and/or indignant when the rules you signed up for are enforced.
I think this situation is ridiculous by and large, and it is absurd and downright malevolent to want to keep him from *graduating* -- something that could have far-reaching consequences -- if he dares kick up his heels at a prom. BUT...I imagine that the shoe has always been on the other foot for this kid until now. I have to wonder, how often did he buy the school's line willingly and judge those who dared listen to rock music or dance, maybe musing about how glad he was that he was clearly going to heaven and they were going to hell? Now all of a sudden he's on the losing end of the deal, and all of a sudden it's completely unconscionable that the school follow through on the rules that *he signed off on*?
At least in Footloose the church was trying to impose its will on the entire town, whether or not everyone agreed with them. If Kevin Bacon had been a willing cog in their machine until it no longer suited him, he would've been a much crappier character.
I like to call it Serena Joy syndrome, after the character in The Handmaid's Tale. The Anita Bryant/Tammy Faye Baker mashup, a former televangelist, finally gets what she wanted -- a Christian, authoritarian, male-centric society -- and guess what, she hates it.
Q: Why don't Baptists have sex standing up?
A: Someone might think they were dancing.
"No punishment would be too severe for this transgression."
How about going to a Garth Brooks concert?
---
So the kid's a senior? Go to the prom. Take the suspension and graduate. Go to a decent college (none of which, I guarantee, will consider this a black mark on your record). The school can't control you anymore. Soon, no one will legally be able to control you anymore. Fuck 'em.
2 Samuel 6:14
Sinner.
"You want to dance, dance. You want to sing, sing. The two of you want to kiss, kiss. I think those are all beautiful acts, and as long as no one is harmed, it is ridiculous to forbid them."
They're not beautiful acts. They're silly courting rituals of our society. They're pathetic.
In this case, I think, the transgression is its own punishment.
Totally bongo brains. The kid's far better off without that stupid school.
"You want to dance, dance. You want to sing, sing. The two of you want to kiss, kiss."
Here here! And if you want to be human, BE human!
Don't let any religion take it away from you.
Alex # 30? Are you suggesting that dancing, singing and kissing are "pathetic" and "silly courting rituals of our society" that have popped up, say, in the last few centuries?
Maybe you never had the pleasant experience of satisfying your youthful vigor, but there are few in life I can think of that are, in fact, more "beautiful".
Man, talk about a prude.
... since when did Pharyngula allow anonymous posts? (I forgot to enter my name and email address on #31.)
ScienceBlogs has been working on the back end this week or so, and some things have been changed. PZ might do some template changes this weekend.
There's ballard called The Last Dance (not sure who wrote it, the only reference to it I can find on teh internets says it's by Peter Coe) which has the great line in it:
Dance you buggers, dance! Or you'll never get to heaven!
That's sung/shouted by the big magical dog in the sky itself to "The Methodists".
Unfortunately, I cannot find either the lyrics or an audio(/visual) on teh internets, nor can I (at the moment) recall who recorded the song. (I vaguely recall Peter Bellamy & The Young Tradition recording a version, but an on-line search of his discography indicates that, once again, my memory has more holes than all the swiss cheeses.)
Music leads to dancing; dancing leads to touching. Need I say more?
PZ, if you think dancing is a beautiful thing, then you have obviously never seen me do it.
England said Frost's family should not be surprised by the school's position. "For the parents to claim any injustice regarding this issue is at best forgetful and at worst disingenuous," he said. "It is our hope that the student and his parents will abide by the policies they have already agreed to."
Well, that principal has a point. Why send your kid to a dumbass school that forbids dancing, music, and kissing, and then expect your kid to go to the prom? Even if the prom is "outside of school" as the father says, why send your kid to a dingbat school that wants to control every aspect of your kid's life, only to expect your kid to have, well, a life? What is wrong with these stupid parents? What next, have the kid enroll in the military but not expect him to actually serve? What did they send this kid to school for in the first place, if they think the school is being too strict? They're Baptists. Of course they're too strict!
Compartmentalization is a bitch, ain't it? Like Baptist school? You'll love the Christian workplace. Just wait until your boss enforces sexual rules on married couples. That's next, in my opinion.
There's something weird going on with Americans and religion - I mean, weirder than usual. It's as if more and more people, like these parents, are claiming to be "Christian" while at the same time not expecting it to really mean anything or to have any effect on their lives.
Dare we hope?
Alex @#30: I agree with you. Indeed, I was interested enough to click on your name and read a couple of your blog posts. This one:
http://asolis.net/2008/05/why-i-dislike-sexuality/
struck a chord with me. I think you're absolutely right.
For some reason where the SBC is 'active' they seems to have more drive thru liquor "barns" (open garage door - drive in - close door - when finished, drive out the other side - through the out garage door of course) and drive up windows (in the back alley) than anywhere else. Lots of little non-descript slightly greasy brown paper bags litter the highways too.
What would the neighbors say?
Incidentally, did the idea of a minor signing an "agreement" ring alarm bells for anyone else?
They're not beautiful acts. They're silly courting rituals of our society. They're pathetic.
I too visited Alex's blog, read the "reason, not pleasure, should dictate our acts," was reminded of Ayn Rand, and also of the Star Trek episode "Amok Time" in which Spock responds angrily to the bride who jilted him, "I see no logic in choosing Stahn over me!" Ahh, reason - I love it too, and not with water or on the rocks, but it sometimes needs a chaser.
Alex, I have no maternal instincts whatsoever - I'm as maternal as a stone - so I guess that when I dance, it's a masturbatory behavior. Yes, I am happy to put that image in your head. You're welcome. ;-)
From Alex's blog:
Ah, good. Listening to music must also be dumb, as should enjoying the sun, walking in the rain, reading books, getting a thrill out of learning, having pets, etc.
You said you were going to turn that into a coherent post. This would be a good time for it.
As a former Baptist, I have to say I'm not surprised in the least. What I am surprised at is how the kid managed to get a girlfriend on the outside in the first place.
Hopefully he won't be making any eye babies at prom. Oh, wait, that's in Florida that those are such a problem.
I say we take up a collection of condoms and have them delivered to his high school in his name, like they did when the Pope shot off his stupid mouth about condom use in Africa. If that doesn't give the principal a coronary, nothing will.
Oddly enough, some places you would, but not here. With religious cults, homeschooling, and abstinence only nonsex ed. there are some really uneducated kids out there.
While this kid in Ohio is getting his late childhood messed up, it probably isn't all bad. He is also probably getting the jesus kicked out of him as well. Think he is going to be a baptist after adulthood? Maybe but I doubt it.
Remember, 1-2 million people leave the xian religion every year in the USA. No one who thinks about it for a few minutes wonders why.
Can we not send Gene Simmons down there to totally freak out these nut jobs?
Ya know why you always have to take two baptists when you go fishing?
If you only take one, he'll drink all your beer.
In my old school you were not allowed to eat chips (french fries) in the street whilst wearing school uniform.
Of course that was 45 years ago.
Garth Brooks? At least it wasn't Miley Cyrus.
I saw the fatman do the shimmy
I saw the fatman do the shimmy
And he shimmied like he didn't give a shit
I wish I could shimmy like the fatman
So much ease and grace
Joy and passion on his face
Go fatman!
Go fatman!
Fatman by EAT from the LP "Sell Me A God"
You know why Baptists don't have sex standing up?
They don't want anybody to think they're dancing.
You want to dance, dance.You want to sing, sing.The two of you want to kiss, kiss.But if you do y'all go to Sing Sing
Josh asked @ 17:
If you're representing god, your authority extends everywhere.
When I was still in Catholic school, one morning a nun beat the holy crap out of one of my 7th grade female classmates in front of the class because the nun had heard a rumor that the girl had committed the terrible sin of [gasp!] holding hands with an 8th grade boy while riding a chartered bus to a non-school outing sponsored by the CYO (Catholic Youth Organization) the previous weekend.
I don't know what happened to the 8th grade boy. But even if he wasn't punished by the nuns, I'm sure he didn't escape the wrath of god. Sooner or later, you gotta pay.
Okay, I'm lost, and clearly not hip to some meme. Why is this the second time that I've seen this story and a reference to Kevin Bacon?
I dance for joy. I sing, although not well at all, for pleasure. Over the years, I've kissed many more people than I've courted, or ever wished to court, for a variety of reasons.
If you think dancing, singing, and kissing are solely linked to mating, how terribly sad for you.
And when they are linked to mating, they can, and often do, become extraordinarily wonderful activities.
The fact that Walton agrees with you says much, but not a positive much.
Kristine at #43, you have won the thread were it mine to give.
Alex either never read Dr. Seuss or has forgotten. The single most important thing is:
Bow wow! And how. How 'bout now?
You feeling alright, Alex?
Spook @ #56:
Surely you know that everything links back to Kevin Bacon?
Dancing til my feet don't touch the ground
I lose my mind and dance forever
Lose my mind and dance forever
This story hardly surprises me. Twenty years ago, I had a friend who attended Bob Jones University. He was a huge fan of Amy Grant but BJU thought that she was too racy. My friend, the rebel.
We can dance if we want to,
We can leave your priests behind,
Because your priests hate dance
And if they hate dance,
Then they ain't no priests of mine.
Actually, I have always detested dancing. It's completely stupid. I hate watching people dance, I hate that they think I should dance, and I hate their terrible music which needs to have a boring repetitive beat all the way through to compensate for everyone's inability to perceive rhythm. I hate the drunkeness in all the clubs with their bad lighting, sticky floors and overflowing urinals.
It's just depressing.
I'm going to try not to launch a massive self-pity session, as it isn't appropriate for this forum. But I will say this.
Being uninhibited about sex, and praising it as a great thing, is all very well for those of you who are normal-looking, socially well-adjusted, and capable of forming romantic relationships. For those of us who are not so fortunate, it's not a lot of fun seeing happy fulfilled couples everywhere, and being constantly told how sex and relationships are fantastic experiences. Please try to have some empathy.
William @16
I don't know if Amish are really comparable enough to other repressive Christian sects to put them on a continuity of "moderately" restrictive to "extremely" restrictive. It's my understanding that Baptists don't have and would never condone anything like Rumspringa.
If you have more details from these course materials I'd be interested to hear how the presence of Rumspringa in Amish culture as a rite of passage might influence retention rates given the restrictiveness of the religion as a whole.
Marc Abian @ #63 wrote:
I often dance alone, sometimes to music that only I can hear, and it's beautiful music indeed.
I have often danced in my home (where the kitchen floor is admittedly sometimes sticky.)
I have danced outdoors, on the beach, and in the grass, in sunshine, in rain, during a snowfall, and in the moonlight.
I have danced underwater. I have danced in puddles.
I have danced on stage. I have danced at school. And many years ago, I danced in dancing school.
I have danced with my babies and my grandmother. I have danced with boys that I loved.
I have danced dances of joy and dances of sorrow.
I have danced to entertain myself, and I have danced to entertain others.
I have danced to rock, ethnic and folk music, classical music, and every other kind of music that moves me or makes me want to move.
I have danced at weddings, at parties, at ethnic festivals, at half-time at sporting events, at dance recitals, and for no special reason at all.
But I have never danced in a club.
And I have never danced only because because others wanted me to.
And I have never danced only because I'd had too much to drink, although I have been known to drink and dance.
Walton-
So... you're saying that you don't really think that kissing, etc. are "silly courting rituals of our society" and "pathetic"... you just feel socially inept. So instead of reconciling with that, you just pretend to believe that those things are pathetic...
Bastion of Sass, I'm not sure what the point of that was, but you don't have to justify anything to me.
Obligatory link to Where the Hell is Matt?
Arrrgh. Forget the html, here's the friggin' link:
http://www.wherethehellismatt.com
Baptists are even crazier than that. Take the following article, which has been dubbed "Manhunt for Jesus":
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12286425
"COLORADO SPRINGS — Representatives of a local Christian church tried to lure a seventh-grader at Russell Middle School into a church van last week, school district officials said.
As a result, the principal sent students home with a letter to parents asking that they instruct their children not to talk to strangers, and the district has beefed up security around the property at 3825 E. Montebello Drive."
It wasn't Walton who said that. It was Alex.
Walton @ #66 wrote:
I don't know how close to reality your beliefs that you aren't normal looking, and that you are incapable of being loved (and loving someone else?) are.
But whether these beliefs you profess about yourself are realistic or not, I hope you are getting some kind of therapy or counseling to help you find some sense of happiness in your life.
No one, especially someone as young as you are, should be as unhappy as you see to be.
Marc Abian @ #66 wrote:
My point was that your apparent view of who, when, where, and why someone might choose to dance seemed sadly constricted.
Here walton, have some black hair dye and some shitty music.
You sound like you need it.
arggg
that is the most frustrating self serving pathetic poor-pity-me post you've ever made. And it's fucking ridiculous.
I shouldn't be happy and show it because you're a miserable pill?
Grown the FUCK up Walton.
I've said it before, I like you Walton but sometimes i just want to grab you and give you a big kick in the ass.
Happily constricted actually. To think that this behaviour was confined to the souless booze-soaked nightclubs like a quaratined virus was a source of comfort. Now you tell me it's everywhere, even underwater? That even right now I might be living in a world where there are french filmmakers with millions of hours of underwater dancing footage, and it's being broadcast continuously while Simon Cowell talks over it and there's a scrolling bar along the bottom carrying the malformed text messages of a gaggle of illiterate teenagers who never saw an exclamation mark they didn't like.
I could go swimming tomorrow to find that the sea's been choked by an unholy plague of dancers, and knowing my luck just when you need a shark, there's none around.
Just one I'd like a nightclub to release some sharks onto the dancefloor. Just open up the ceiling cages and out come the sharks. It would be perfect.
Also dances of sorrow? Really? How does that work?
holy shit
teh funnies
Rev. BDC @ 77
So, Rev.,
You just waltz in, fling four word, leave us in limbo, then bop out?!
Reely?
it's BDC's MO
Cuttlefish won a thread with just two words.
AFAIK dancing really is a human universal, as is singing. Kissing not so much - I suspect that in cultures without tooth cleaning habits it's not always pleasant.
My own preferred dance styles are swing and bellydancing, but there are so many. The hiphop dancers who used the space before my bellydance class were amazing, so athletic. I once saw a modern dance troupe do an amazing set to Nick Cave songs: there's dances of sorrow for you. Also some classical ballet.
I am sorry for Walton and Alex and hope they manage to recognise and do something about their problem, which looks a lot like severe depression to me. I imagine that the misanthropy is mostly projection, and a symptom rather than cause. (I am not a doctor or a psychiatrist and even if I were internet diagnosis would be unethical. See a real professional.)
I've got real life distractions. Hockey (grats heddle and Sven), beer, cleaning the house and planning the menu for mothers day etc...
Pens come through but need one more...
My favorite dancing is floppy-freeform deadhead skanking, and my favorite time to sing is in the car, along with the Dead or (guilty pleasure) James Taylor whose vocal range is exactly the same as mine and whose tunes I know well.
Kissing's always good, too. As I recall.
@Suul
It might be a coincidence; but I'd point out that Colorado Springs IS the home of the USAF Academy (which has had a well publicized history of Fundie Infiltration from the top down over the last decade). The post last week about the idiotic Head Chaplin at the Air Force base in Afghanistan who was filmed saying that Xians were "like the Special Forces guys who basically hunt men, that's what we do: we hunt men for Jeebus!" As well as having an illegal pile of translated bibles that they want to pretend they weren't planing to use for illegal proselytizing.
The fact that they're targeting Middle School kids now shouldn't come as a shock to anyone: they know full well that the best chance that they have for new cultists converts is to get them while they're still too young to have strong critical thinking skills and then work the Fear of Hell angle for all it's worth.
Yep Canes need one more as well.
Cath,
Not universal - I've never cared to dance or sing, not even as a child. It might be atypical, but I don't see how you consider it problematic.
Culturally universal in a broad sense (yes as demonstrated above there are pockets of micro-cultures that don't).
Never danced.Enjoy to watch good dancers though.
My kid is 2 and dances to every piece of music,including Simpsons intro.Should do a DNA test maybe.
Walton @ 64,
dont be pathetic man.Get out more,you wont pick up any chicks with your appeals to pity on internet blogs.Not a good strategy outside of internet blogs,either,btw.
But what if they dance with snakes?
http://www.poetv.com/video.php?vid=14917
Bastion of Sass #66: Thank you. That made my heart glad.
We're dealing with the death of a family member and the birth (scheduled for Monday and potentially difficult) of my first grandchild, so this is a time in my life when I needed that shaft of joy. I saved the post because it so perfectly expresses my own thoughts about the matter.
Thanks, sweetie, for being you.
News flash Walton, ugly people have sex too. Ugly people get in relationships, and ugly people have fun. I'm going to bet that your personality gets in the way a lot more than your looks.
When I dance it looks like I'm fighting invisible robots.
Ugly people get in relationships, and ugly people have fun.
Ahem. Why do you think they call it bumping uglies?
As Frank Zappa reminds his audience during an impending musical interlewd, "hey, there's a whole lots more of us ugly people than there are of you pretty people, so watch out..."
Frank Zappa said it, I believe it, that settles it.
chgo_liz @ 70 wrote:
The video made me smile. Thanks.
And I see I'm not the only one who's danced underwater. (3:05 in the 2008 video.)
Shorter Alex:
Frank Zappa said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Arguments from authority are not automatically and entirely suspect, so long as great care is exercised in the selection of the aforementioned authority.
Why some of you acting so petty and mean? Why not attack the argument, not the person? Being mean like that may bloat your egos for a little while, but in the end it won't get you anywhere and will just hurt others.
When I dance it looks like I'm fighting invisible robots.
Is your name not Yoshimi then? Are you quite certain they're not just invisible, but pink?
Alex, May 9, 2009 12:32 PM
In a few months you will learn about these wonderful creatures called, "girls". Girls are neat, girls are clever. In a few years the girls your age will grow something wonderful called, "breasts".
You can do all sorts of wonderful things with girls. Kiss for example. Even talk. Girls are nice to talk and spend the day with.
Finally, as many a Catholic priest has learned over the years, they are better than ham.
Why some of you acting so petty and mean? Why not attack the argument, not the person? Being mean like that may bloat your egos for a little while, but in the end it won't get you anywhere and will just hurt others.
This is not a classroom to educate youngsters about social development, this is a freeway.
free advice:
don't play on the freeway.
Alan Kellogg, I wonder what basis you have for thinking I don't interact with girls. I have many girls for friends, many of whom I'm really close to. (And yes, before you make another assumption, I have many close male friends as well.)
"In a few years the girls your age will grow something wonderful called, 'breasts'."
You do know that girls begin to grow those before they're 17, right?
"You can do all sorts of wonderful things with girls. Kiss for example. Even talk. Girls are nice to talk and spend the day with."
I dunno, I prefer to treat other people as individuals without regard to the sex they happened to be born with. The same is true of race. Although someone may be born with a different race than you, that doesn't mean your actions or feelings toward them should be affected by the fact that they happen to be of a different race.
Ichthyic, this may not be a classroom, but comments that serve no purpose other than to make others feel bad aren't necessary. Hopefully they don't have that effect, but I imagine they often do.
Ichthyic, this may not be a classroom, but comments that serve no purpose other than to make others feel bad aren't necessary.
Neither are comments that serve no purpose other than to inspire nothing but contemptuous chortling.
Tee hee.
Wanting to have a discussion without people belittling others is funny, how?
@Alex (#102), I guess
is denying the fact of certain biological processes at work when being with somebody you find attractive. Obviously, there are circumstances - or psychological influences - under which this matters more or less (such as you having a partner already), but the global assumption of treating attractive single persons you happen to spend time with equal to non-attractive persons seems to me a bit too stoic to be healthy. Or christian, for that matter.
Your excourse on treating different "races" (race itself being an obsolete term anthropologically) equally is, of course, a false analogy, or an obvious strawman, respectively. No one is going to deny that one should not treat people with appearance different from one's own differently because of how they look (whether or not we are predisposed to do so is another matter, independent of the morals we adopt).
Sex is an entirely different thing.
Alex, how can you possibly be hurt by anything we say? That's not rational.
seriously, what exactly is the point of life if you can't enjoy it
@Krystalline Apostate: (Don't Baptists boogie too?)
Are you sure you're not confusing them with catholics? "The Vatican Rag" (Tom Lehrer) was all the rage:
First you get down on your knee,
fiddle with your rosary,
bow your head with great respect,
and genuflect, genuflect, genuflect.
...
Uh oh. Just having re-read my post #106, I might hastily add that treating members of the sex you are attracted to differently compared to those you are not attracted to does not preclude treating them as individuals anyway.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_12286425
Holy shit. Fundies luring kids into the back of vans from school playgrounds to proselytize?! Terrifying yet somehow hilarious.
I worry for Walton and Alex. Yes, when you're single and don't want to be, it's difficult to deal with people who are happily in relationships. However, taking that to the extreme of not wanting to hear about romantic interaction, ever, from anyone, in any context, is a bit too far. This thread doesn't have people rubbing their happy relationships in your face; it's about how interactions are natural to people, including dancing/singing as an extension both as a mating activity and as an enjoyable activity in and of itself. Everyone's been the wallflower at the school prom; that doesn't mean that no one should ever talk about dancing.
Certainly not me.Happy relationship,what do you mean??
I dont.
Just your average oversexed and underfucked young males.Alex seems unhinged enough to be the next mall shooter,Walton is just depressed with self-value issues.
I just wish they would get their psychotherapy from professionals and not off internet blogs.
Maybe so. It's quite hard to tell. Does my personality seem that bad?
Fucking werd Clinteas, fucking werd. The place to be an emo kid is myspace, though I think we need to recognise that we enable walton by actually try to help him out with things. A libertarian feeding off the social focus of liberals, who'd have thunk it?
Kel,
whatever you are on,I want some of that !
Not bad,but in,shall we say,disorder.
Walton,get a grip man,this is not the place to sort out your sexuality issues.
Here you are a bit mono-manic about libertarian political philosophy. If this carries over to the pub, chances are most people would be turned off by you. There, you need to remember most other people have their favorite topic, which is usually talking about themselves. So if you ask questions about them, listen carefully, and follow up with more questions based on what they say, you will come across much nicer that if all you do is pontificate political theory.
Just wine, good wine but wine nonetheless.
In the way it matters, yes. As the giant clitoris said in the South Park movie "chicks dig confidence."
Walton,
I think you forget your assets. The world is a big place and human life is cheap (due to oversupply). While we in the west have fantasies about romantic love, in much of the world, home sapiens have to be more practical, and nothing is so attractive as a man that can be a good provider. You are relatively rich by world standards and can offer an extre to citizenship in a western country. For example, in Thailand you will be quite attractive. While you may decide to not take advantage of such opportunities, perhaps realizing that even in the worst case, your prospects are not so dismal, will allow you to be less stressed out. Western females have similar opportunities.
This is not the advice column, we do not fix broken hearts or get someone a date for Friday night. The only serious advice we give is that if we perceive you need professional help we recommend you get professional help.
Now back to our previously scheduled rants.
Is religion really declining? I know it is in Europe, but I thought that Christianity and Islam, at least, were growing worldwide.
nothoscordum,
"Is religion really declining? I know it is in Europe, but I thought that Christianity and Islam, at least, were growing worldwide."
I just watched "God is Back" on cspan2's booktv which argues the case. You can watch it online at:
http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=10408&SectionName=Politics…
Once again, I apologise for derailing the thread with my personal problems. While my issues are probably objectively too trivial to merit counselling (and as my uni provides it for free, I'd feel guilty about wasting their time), I do recognise that there are other sites on the internet where such discussions are more appropriate and where emotional support is more likely to be provided (indeed, I hang out on such sites a lot of the time).
Walton, talk to the counsellors. If they decide you're wasting their time they'll tell you. However, it is the opinion of several of us here that you would benefit from counselling.
no dancing? no kissing? no rock music? what's next, no colors?
didn't those smart people in england runs these guys out of town a few hundred years ago, for shitting on everyone's parade?
oh. right. they came here didn't they.
Two of those three qualities are things you can change about yourself. I speak from experience - I wasn't always socially well-adjusted or capable of forming romantic relationships.
Looks are harder to change, but men have the option of learning to play guitar instead.
Never hurts to give it a try Walton. They are paid to be there for a reason.
They may also be psychologists in training who need a certain amount of clinical time for their degrees. You may be helping them graduate.
Walton - go for it at uni. I used the free mental health services at mine a couple of times, and it helped tremendously, even if just to have someone to talk to about whatever was going on at the time.
africangenesis - Get bent. You managed to demean Walton, poverty, women in general, and men in general all in just a few sentences. Misanthropes get really boring after awhile.
Why don't Baptists fuck standing up?
Because it could lead to dancing.
I first heard this about Iowa Dutch Christian Reformers.
This reminds me that I haven't been dancing in faaaaaaaar too long.
oh, I don't worry about Alex. For all I know, he might really be asexual. Add to that complete lack of empathy and ability to think outside your own head, and we might have an idiot who doesn't understand that his idea of denying our sexuality isn't any better than the Pope's.
Walton on the other hand should really take advantage of his university's mental-health services. And if you feel too guilty for that, just think of it as a loan. you can take advantage of it for free, and when you do have a job and some money, donate a chunk of it to some mental-health charity or your university or whatnot. or, you know, just pay your taxes.
Also: under no circumstances take advice from AG. EVAR.
shit, I keep forgetting about the formatting issues :-p
Well then, MAJeff, dance!
You will feel the better for it and those of us fortunate enough to see you dance (or even know that you are dancing) will feel a bit better too.
AG:
This seems a bit cold, don't you think? Women are human beings, not commodities. It would be fairly exploitative and unpleasant to enter into a relationship with someone in the knowledge that she was only in it because she was too poor to have any other options; how is that morally any better than prostitution? In any case, it would do nothing for my self-esteem. What I really want (and what I suspect most people really want, deep down) is a relationship with someone who I respect as an equal and who likes me for who I am.
For almost all of human existence the odds against survival trumped all other considerations, Walton.
We humans have only had a few hundred years worth of experience of trying to hone the tribulations of being alive and self-aware into something that is satisfying and inspirational on a broad, general basis.
Even at a cursory historical glance it seems we are gaining ground. Slowly, perhaps falteringly, and repeating old mistakes. Net result is a plus for humanity.
You are not alone in your sense of exclusion. We all feel that to some extent. But the pain is a transient one, ameliorated by further experience and reflection. We have an innate ability to learn, grow, change and mature. The process is facilitated by the simple act of living.
Live long, and prosper, Walton.
A quiet interlude follows . . .
and because I can't help myself:
Walton, if you hate the way single-ness is viewed where you are, you'll REALLY hate living in the U.S. Not only are you going to be seen as defective for not "putting yourself out there" and dating*, but you'll also have to survive the yearly ritual known as Valentine's Day, which is really at least a month worth of reminders why you suck because you're single. Seriously, I think anyone who has spent a Valentine's Day single and has not felt the urge to slaughter all those condescendingly happy couples (and plant bombs at Hallmark Stores) is not really human.
*dating here being the strange American custom that turns getting to know someone into a process very much like Jog-hunting, i.e. a series of interviews for the position of girlfriend/boyfriend. This relationship-hunting is about as fun and stuffed with unwritten rules and idiotic awkward questions as job-hunting is.
Luckily for me, Mrs. BigDumbChimp thinks valentines day is a crock of shit.
So we spend it laughing at all the people falling all over themselves to make sure they let their significant other know that they are special on that day. Like the other 364 don't matter.
Carlie, #111, I just don't want people to view sexuality the way they currently do. I think you're making some strange assumptions.
Rorschach, #113, I think you've got some serious issues yourself if you assume a random stranger is "unhinged enough to be the next mall shooter" because they don't share the same views as you.
Crudely Wrott, #59, I think I am.
Cath the Canberra Cook, #81, my problem? I haven't said anything about my life here. That was Walton. I'm not Walton; I don't even know a think about Walton other than what his posts in this thread say.
Snoof, #96, when did I call anyone stupid?
What way do you want people to view it? And why is your way better than the way I view it?
And why should I care how you want me to view it?
May you continue to think so and may you be correct.
Rev, I think Alex is conflating sexuality with sexism. while I agree on his points re:sexism, I think he goes one step too far in blaming it on sexuality in general. especially since it's not sexuality and sexual orientation per-se that makes people attracted to other people (for example, I could never be physically or mentally attracted to a creobot). kind of like the "feminists" who consider hetero-sex to be gender treason.
In alex' world, apparently you can only view people either as "things to fuck" or asexual buddies.
er.... that should be "not just sexuality and sexual orientation"... but if we take it as attraction in general, i.e. the stuff friendships are made of, I guess it still works.
Yikes. That's some fucked up shit right there.
Alex, seek help.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, #140, http://asolis.net/2008/05/why-i-dislike-sexuality/#comment-264
If you don't care, that's your choice.
Jadehawk, #142, http://asolis.net/2008/05/why-i-dislike-sexuality/#comment-255
Rev. BigDumbChimp, #144, I haven't said anything like that, so I don't know where Jadehawk got that from. Also, I'm not sure what Jadehawk meant by "asexual buddies".
alex, you claim that sexual preference is causing people to treat people differently because of their gender, and that therefore you prefer to treat everyone as asexual friends. implicit in that is that people can't be friends with people of the gender they're attracted to BECAUSE they're attracted to them. and that's the false dichotomy I've stated in #142. you seem to think that people can either not be attracted to someone and therefore treat them like individuals and people, or they can allow themselves their attractions, but then they're treating people of that gender as fuckables only. that makes no sense here in the real world, where people are perfectly capable to treat people of the gender they're attracted to as equals and individuals. hell, a lot of people are even capable of treating individuals they are attracted to as equals and individuals. your conflation of sexuality and sexism makes no sense.
Then what are you saying?
If you want to kiss--HEY! Get a room!
To the people who hate dance for non-religious reasons:
It's rarely about courting. It can be about community, like the Polynesian dances. It can be art. It can be entertainment. It can be a sort of sport/self-discovery/expression play, wherein what is important is your joy in motion. And yes, it can be about courting, and your disdain for sexuality is unimportant to the enjoyment most humanity gets.
It doesn't have to be to terrible music. Do you hate Ravel's Bolero? Beethoven's Ninth? Taiko drums? Steel drum bands? African chants? Balinese music?
If you don't believe in Duality, you should love how dance reveals how our physical sensations and our emotions interact. If you like neurological science, pay attention to your mirroring neurons reacting to watching dancers. I bet if you put sensors on an audience, their muscles would in tiny ways react to every move they see.
Religions that want to repress dance want to repress it not because it is immoral, but because it is powerful.
By the way, I have fibromyalgia and sometimes vertigo. Like a stutterer using song to break past the stutter, I can dance more easily than I can walk, and on a bad day, I may dance my way through ordinary activities. Divorcing yourself intellectually from your body doesn't help you use it as a tool.
Walton,
"This seems a bit cold, don't you think? Women are human beings, not commodities. It would be fairly exploitative and unpleasant to enter into a relationship with someone in the knowledge that she was only in it because she was too poor to have any other options; how is that morally any better than prostitution?"
The analysis is cold. But you are seeking and offering love, that is warm. Don't fall for the cynical marxist propaganda that labels voluntary relationships as "exploitive". The relationship may be more pleasant than you yet imagine. The poor may have more options than you realize. Thailand is not Somalia. In order asuage your conscience about possible "exploitation", you are going to deny someone an option, that they wouldn't otherwise have? How are they better off with one less option? Don't listen to these anti-immigrant types, who are really just trying to suppress competition and get you to voluntarily restrict your options without offering you any compensation, or even the dreggs in your own market. There might be gems among the dreggs, but gems might be easier to find in another market. There are practical considerations in this world, and real emotional responses to solving material problems and fulfilling material dreams. The culture here may tell you one thing, but the mass culture may be more accepting of such realism, if popular movies are any indication. Consider the relationships in these movies:
"Accidental Tourist"
"Pretty Woman"
"As Good as it Gets"
"Jerry McGuire"
Now unless you are just planning to "steal the pooty", you aren't being "exploitive". Did I miss any other apropo movies? None of these relationships are as trashy or exploitive as the currently culturally acceptable "The Bachelor" or "The Bachelorette".
"Shoplift the pootie," dammit.
"Shoplift the pootie," dammit.
Dang, I need to get some smart pills, quick.
Alex
Are you assuming that sexual beings make all decisions based on a desire to feel pleasure? If some part of our lives are based on that I can't possibly fathom how that is a bad thing?
That's not a convincing argument. You need to tell me why you think your Vulcan like view on the world is better than one where people sometimes do things because it feels good.
Just because I find my wife attractive because she is a woman does nothing to take away from my appreciation of her intellect, empathy, work ethic and all the other aspects of her character. It's as if you think that if I find someone attractive I am unable to appreciate their other qualities. While my wife is attractive physically that is by far not the main reason I am attracted to her. This is not a zero sum game Alex. It appears that you think that should sexual attraction be present that all other aspects are instantly less important. While I'm sure that may be true for some people it's not for many or most.
This is a reasonable point and has more to do with cultural taboo than pure sexuality as a human reaction.
Again you assume that sexual people don't use reason.
What the fuck? Yes of course food is there for sustenance, but deriving pleasure from food has many other effects. Meals have always been the #1 social event in humans' lives. This creates bonds, increases communication, etc.. And I'm not willing under any circumstances to concede the point that doing some things for pleasures sake is inherently bad. It's just not. Psychiatrists would agree.
Moderation is key Alex.
Assertion without support. You have not shown why this is bad.
Man you are one black and white individual. There are no degrees in your life. No one would ever make the claim that doing everything purely for the sake of pleasure is a productive way to live ones life and as you said, may lead to disastrous consequences but doing some things in your life for pleasure is a good thing both mentally and in turn physically.
AG, were you in Bangkok in April of 07?
"AG, were you in Bangkok in April of 07?"
Never been.
Alex - if you're asexual, that's fine. Just don't go thinking it makes you somehow superior to everyone who isn't. As the Rev. just said, being attracted to a person is not equivalent to treating them like an object.
Walton, Alex, africangenesis, et al:
Check the movie "Pleasantville": http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120789/
Willian H Macy is a very underappreciated actor, and the movie has Don Knotts in an actually non-humiliating role. There's also a great quote about bowling alleys, but you'll have to watch it!
nothoscordum:
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/Nothoscordum
Botany much?
I'm sad to report that this is on our local news website. I read this story this morning on Pharyngula and I'm appalled that it's taking place right here in Ohio.
This kid was suspended:
http://www.nbc4i.com/cmh/news/state_regional/article/teen_suspended_for…
Jadehawk, #146, and Azkyroth, #147, uh, if by "asexual friends" you mean as individuals, then sure. What that means is not viewing women differently than men, just as you wouldn't (or shouldn't) view whites differently than blacks. Of course people might not do it anyway, but it should be the "goal". That's what I'm saying. I hope that makes more sense. I've been having a lot of trouble explaining this to people; probably because they're making lots of assumptions about what I'm trying to say. If you have any suggestions on how I should reword anything, I appreciate it.
Rev. BigDumbChimp, #153, people waste time and energy on doing things that they only do because we evolved that way. I'm not expecting people to suddenly become all asexual; I'm not expecting that of myself either. I do, however, want people's view of sexuality to not ignore the fact that human sexuality exists because it allows humanity to procreate.
I think this is the key misunderstanding:
I don't think this is currently feasible. I don't think humans can be or, as they currently are, should be this way. I'm arguing for an ideal, I guess. I think I should make that more clear when/if I rewrite my post again.
Carlie, you're making idiotic assumptions. I don't think I'm superior to everyone else. I'm not asexual. If I was asexual, I wouldn't think I was superior to everyone else either.
OrchidGrowinMan, I watched Pleasantville in my high school's movie club already.
right. except what you're describing is sexism, not sexuality
I don't think I'm superior to everyone else.
Was immediately preceded by
I'm arguing for an ideal, I guess.
Based on the prior statements of
They're silly courting rituals of our society. They're pathetic.
just don't want people to view sexuality the way they currently do.
I dunno, I prefer to treat other people as individuals without regard to the sex they happened to be born with.
How is it that you arguing for something you claim to be ideal, which coincidentally is how you say YOU treat people, but that everyone else doesn't, isn't saying that you're superior to everyone else?
Jadehawk, while a heterosexual male might not treat women like objects, he will almost definitely not attempt to court a male while he would consider courting a female. Sexuality results in people differentiating between people in a way that's similar to differentiating between people based on their skin color. Even without sexuality, sexism would probably exist, but sexuality certainly contributes to it, especially in that it causes people to consider only people of a certain sex for partners (provided the person isn't bi/pansexual).
Carlie:
Oh, I'd love for you to tell me where I said I act the way I want to act. I'm not saying I do or I don't--my argument has nothing to do with me. I'm just not aware of where I said that. Feel free to show me where. I'm waiting.
and? asides from not courting females, I also don't court pompous businesspeople, fundies, and fratboys. conversely, I don't consider all people who don't fall into those categories as courtable by default.
on the other hand, I DO consider friendships with both men and women, but not with pompous businesspeople, fundies, and fratboys. hmm... seems my sexuality plays less of a role in discerning my everyday relationships with people than other preferences. my sexual preference, as a matter of fact, doesn't play ANY role in any social interactions that don't involve the specific target of my love/lust. and in that instance, I've just discriminated against all 6-and-some billion people in favor of a single one. aren't I a horrible horrible elitist...
and you STILL haven't explained why it's a bad thing to only be attracted to one gender; this only matter if
1)people divide others as "asexual friends" and "potential fuckables", and treat them accordingly differently, based on that distinction; which is sexism.
2)you happen to be attracted to someone who has no sexual preference for your gender; and then it is, once again, no different than not being attractive to someone for other reasons.
Even without sexuality, sexism would probably exist, but sexuality certainly contributes to it, especially in that it causes people to consider only people of a certain sex for partners (provided the person isn't bi/pansexual).
and if they are?
what then?
frankly, variability is something to celebrate, not wash out.
Somehow, you seem to to have concluded that racism and sexism are inevitable, unless we remove the whole idea of variability to begin with.
ugh.
your world vision is a very bland, flavorless one.
I wonder where this attitude originates from? Is it really just based on a fear of rejection?
I could picture that. Fear of rejection based on personality or appearance generates a worldview where everyone being non-distinct is the ideal.
I would suggest a visit to a counselor to sort out your inferiority issues.
Wow....
I love how when everyone was giving dating advice to Walton Africangenesis actually offers this tidbit: "The world is a big place and human life is cheap (due to oversupply).....You are relatively rich by world standards and can offer an extre to citizenship in a western country. For example, in Thailand you will be quite attractive." He also adds:
and then
I couldn't make this shit up. There's a whole lot of crazy there. Even Walton finds this inhumane.
my argument has nothing to do with me
I find that rather hard to believe.
Jadehawk, fratboys? The same standard doesn't apply to people in female Greek organizations? =)
"my sexual preference, as a matter of fact, doesn't play ANY role in any social interactions that don't involve the specific target of my love/lust."
How do you acquire that target? If you're a heterosexual female, why do females never have any chance of being that target? It's like saying people who are black could never be the target of your "love/lust".
Specific circumstances like yours aren't really the point either. Since your sexual orientation doesn't "play ANY role in any social interactions" for you, you're different from the majority of people I've met, and probably the majority of people.
Why the hell would it play any role,unless you are profoundly insecure about your sexual orientation,or sexually repressed,or a stupid bigot??
because that would be repetitious...?
once again: you still haven't demonstrated that there's any damage done to anyone because I only fuck males. for that matter, you haven't demonstrated why it would be a bad thing if I only went for the scandinavian type (or, conversely, only had a thing for black guys), as long as I treated them equally outside of my sexual/romantic encounters, which are only with specific individuals, anyway.
and you're back to talking about sexism. STOP FUCKING MIXING THOSE TWO CONCEPTS!!!
Can you imagine how embarrassed Alex is going to be ten years from now when he remembers thinking this way? I remember all of the idiotic things I thought made me smart and original when I was in high school and cringe.
...are you perhaps under the impression that there is some meaningful element of choice associated with who one happens to be sexually attracted to?
Azkyroth,
"...are you perhaps under the impression that there is some meaningful element of choice associated with who one happens to be sexually attracted to?"
I think it can be influenced by disciplined effort. I made a decision years ago to prefer "sweet" looking, sounding and behaving females to "hot" looking, sounding and behaving females. I purposely try to visualize how patient, gentle, open, loving and protective they would be with children and how pleasant they would be as a partner to live with. The personality makes a big difference in how attractive they are. Those whoom I'm attracted to now coincide with my values, and I can make stable assessments fairly quickly. I do occassionally get fooled by good actresses who are able to play both types well, and that can be disconcerting, and occasionally particularly strong sexual signals by the wrong type are arousing, but I just roll my eyes at myself in those circumstances.
I know this is hard for you to understand, but there is a thing called attraction. Just because you pride yourself in emulating Andy Warhol in all things sex, the rest of the human race actually has real life lives to live that include love, attraction and emotions.
If you really thought that humans were so able to change what they are attracted to, please explain that to the rest of the world.
But here's some advice, your current tactic sucks.
Not feasible? Are you blind. Billions of people live their lives exactly that way and get along perfectly with other people.
Your ideal is boring, purely not feasible and naive.
AG, I was asking the confused human. Still, your input is disconcerting yet amusing, as always.
Really, AG. Because of course "hot" women can't have any morals? Or you think only women you consider homely are attracted to you? Honestly, your reasoning is as stupid as saying "I saw a woman with brown hair in a park once being a good nanny, so I'm only going to date women with brown hair." Never even mind that you're setting yourself up for an epic disaster once you're married, have kids, and realize you're nowhere near as attracted to that wife you forced yourself to like as you are to half the women you meet.
Man, AG is ripe for a Scarlett O'Hara to mow right over him. She was sweet and charming and oh-so-feminine in every single way imaginable.
Until the wedding. And then she was hell on wheels.
I would strongly advise you against moving to the south, AG, where it's sort of a blood sport to use the Southern Belle charm to trap a man, only to turn into the Steel Magnolia after the wedding.
It's amazing how many men fall for it. And you would be really easy pickings for the slicker varieties of Moonlight and Steel Magnolias.
Aquaria,
Yes, I admit some vulnerability, but I doubt I would be fooled by the pinch the cheeks and talk down to the child type. Wanting a man, might have some correlation with wanting a child. In the southern culture it seems more socially acceptable to openly want and try to please men and to openly want a family. Immersion in such an environment might cultivate those sensbilities. Christianity seems to cultivate them as well, but so do some asian cultures, and the country life as opposed to the city seems more conducive. Perhaps part of it is the pace of life, being able to relax into a child, like in a Cassatt painting.
what I find far more interesting about AG's Madonna/whore complex seems a lack of distinction for actual personality traits beyond ability to turn him on or mother children... you know... things like shared interests, similar humor, intellect, generally compatible life-goals etc...
but I suppose "sweet" women who "want and try to please men" don't really need a personality beyond that... they just make one up to suit the man in question. Kind of like the morph in one of the Star trek: TNG episodes... :-p
AG - You mean a Cassatt painting like this one? I adore it - the mom has a look on her face that clearly says "I love you, child, but your dad is a complete ass for letting you in while I was trying to sleep and he is really going to pay for it later."
Children are a pretty important shared value, it helps to share child rearing and educational philosophies. Movies and bbc mini-series, and reading Jane Austen and elizabethan and other history aloud take it further.
Walton:
I realize I'm coming to this "party" somewhat late, but...
...this brought a rueful smile to my face. Have you clicked through to my blog? You won't find any recent posts there, I'm afraid, but you will find a photograph of a somewhat pudgy, bespectacled, Hawaiian-shirt-wearing, plain-looking dork. You won't see in the picture, but I'll tell you, that said dork has a very plain-vanilla, long-married sex life that's never going to be the subject of anybody's dirty movie. Nevertheless...
1. At least one person has told me, based on that picture and apparently without irony, that I'm a "hottie"... from which I take that unless you're the Elephant Man, you're somebody's type. And...
2. You don't have to be a hottie, nor do you need to be having wild sex (or even much sex at all), to believe in principle that a nonjudgmental, uninhibited, pleasure-focused approach to sexuality is a Good Thing™. I'll never be the polyamorous omnisexual hedonist that you might imagine from some of the stuff I post here... but I think a world in which people are free to be such a being (or any other sort of sexual being they please, so long as they're not hurting anyone) would be far better than the sexually fearful and repressed world we actually live in.
Re your response to AG:
I wholly agree, except that I think the deliberate commoditization AG describes is worse than prostitution (you'll recall I've defended sex work, at least in ideal principle, in other threads): While it would be naive not to recognize there's an economic aspect to pair-bonding in general, a man who consciously and deliberately goes looking for women who are too poor to refuse him is engaged in something virtually indistinguishable from slavery; prostitution, OTOH, is at least in theory "honest work" involving a consensual exchange of personal services for pay.
In practice, of course, a significant percentage of real-world prostitution is also economic slavery, but AG's version of mating is arguably no better than the worst of prostitution, and far worse than the best of it.
IMHO, of course.
Bill,
Objectively, you're right, of course. But the difficulty is that, while such a world might be better for most of its inhabitants, it wouldn't be any better for me.
My problem is that, fundamentally, I'm not just physically unattractive; I'm also, IRL, emotionally weak and needy (very visibly so), exceptionally lacking in self-confidence, and an incompetent failure at most things I've ever attempted. My problems are deeper than just looks (since there are, indeed, guys who have fulfilling sex lives despite below-average physical attractiveness). Indeed, my problems are deeper than just involuntary celibacy. I don't feel like there's much worth left in any part of my life.
People like me often become fundamentalists - because when one is denied the chance to have the kind of fulfilment that others get, and when one carries inside oneself a deep-seated sense of inferiority and a burning resentment against the successful, it's very easy to be tempted to use religion or ideology to stop other people having fun.
But I like to think that I've grown beyond that stage; and I have no problem, rationally speaking, with other people doing whatever they want sexually. Hence why I became a libertarian, in the social and moral as well as the economic sense.
Nevertheless, it still hurts to live with the slow realisation that I'm simply a born failure. Rationally, I know I should just accept it, and try to perform some minimally useful function for the remainder of my life so that I won't be a burden to other people. But the pain doesn't go away.
Again, sorry for ranting about personal issues. I know it's inappropriate for the forum. But sometimes I just have to talk to someone.
Looking again at my comment above, it was needlessly melodramatic. For anyone who's worrying, I'll be OK.
I realise that this is not the place to come to discuss my personal difficulties, and once again I apologise for the thread hijack.
Walton, I don't want to belabor the point (because by now I'm sure you're probably wishing it would just go away), but it's entirely natural to feel that way. In fact, I would guess the group here has experienced similar things in a larger percentage than the average populace given that there are so many of us science nerds here. :) People who peak before age 30 have a long slow road downhill; the ones who peaked in high school/college are the most pitiable of all. The lifelong successes are by and large the ones who came into themselves slowly, figuring out who they were and what was important to them along the way. And don't diss the possibility of therapy - just a few months' worth did worlds of good for me and my sense of self-worth in my 30s, and I wish I had done it years and years earlier.
attention, whiney-yet-illustrative self-portrait. ignore if you don't care for emo-discussions :-p
Walton, seriously, those are not signs of actual failiure, but of clinical depression. For illustrative purposes, let me introduce myself properly: I'm a 27-year-old High-School drop-out, college-drop out, middling artist who works at a series of mind numbing and unchallenging McJobs to pay her bills, and has so far failed to come within touching distance of the poverty line. Both qualitatively and quantitatively speaking, I have accomplished absolutely nothing, primarily because of: complete lack of self-discipline; authority issues; an internet and information addiction; complete lack of social skills; and a debiliating misanthropy. all my friends are online-friends; I've had my first boyfriend at 20, and since then only 2 others; etc.
the mere fact that you've presumably graduated from High-School and are studying at one of the best universities in the world makes you less a failure than I am. The actual difference is that I've mostly recovered from depression, while you're still right smack in the middle of it. Life is decently enjoyable even when it's insignificant, even though it IS painful to know that it is indeed insignificant(I've known this insignificance since I was maybe 5; Imagine having to be a parent whose pre-schooler cries her soul out because she just KNOWS she won't ever achieve anything important). but it's a lot less painful when NOT in the grips of depression.
Bill Dauphin,
"I wholly agree, except that I think the deliberate commoditization AG describes is worse than prostitution ... a man who consciously and deliberately goes looking for women who are too poor to refuse him is engaged in something virtually indistinguishable from slavery;"
You are making that up. The voluntary and fully informed vs coercive distinction is easy to make, blurring it is intellectually dishonest. We are talking about a legal immigration where rights are fully protected. Perhaps you are concerned about a differential in power in the relationship, but there are often differences in power in domestically originated relationships. I recall a time, when feminists were calling marriage "rape". Now everybody it seems, wants to get married.
way to completely miss the point of both
Jadehawk,
Yeah, I completely agree. Where are those feminists now?
AG, stop talking about shit you don't even care to inform yourself about. I'm not doing your homework for you. It's really not that hard to figure out why, for the most part, a lot of feminists have stopped pointing out the blatant flaws in that institution quite as fervently than they did back then; nor is it particularly difficult to find information on feminists working on reforming marriage; nor is it hard to find information on why "everybody it seems, wants to get married" (or why that statement is only partially correct, to begin with)
AG,
Can you give one example, with a citation, of a feminist who called marriage "rape"?
Feynamaniac,
"Can you give one example, with a citation, of a feminist who called marriage "rape"?"
You must be too young to remember the protests and "marriage is rape" signs. Google to see the origin:
"marriage is rape" Dworkin
Dworkin =/= all feminists.
You're being as disingenuous as creationists when they pluck out someone like Hitchens to represent all atheists.
AG:
Well, since the quoted material your "that" refers to is a statement of my opinion, well, yes, I am "making it up." Your point?
My opinion is that if you go looking (as you seemed to be counseling Walton to do) specifically for a woman so desperately poor that she can't possibly turn you down, no matter how much she might want to, you're effectively engaged in economic slavery. The fact that she's "fully informed" about the hopelessness of her situation does not make it in any sense of the word "voluntary."
There's no blur on my position here; you may feel free to disagree, but you have no standing to call me intellectually dishonest.
Walton, as Jadehawk suggests, you probably suffer from mild depression, or perhaps just youthful angst*. Your abilities are evident; I doubt you're particularly benighted yet you irrationally deprecate yourself. It's not a creditable attitude and it denies your evident progress as a person.
If I were to pop-psychologise, I'd suggest you're avoiding setting expectations so that you can't possibly fail at your goals. Or something.
Anyway, be assured, you're only a pup. Far too early for you to be considered a failure, and contrary to your circumstances too.
Get a grip, or get support from a professional, don't just seek sympathy.
--
* Or you're maybe doomed to spiral into utter madness, I'm no expert. But I doubt that. :)
"marriage is rape" Dworkin
A google hit is not a citation. Despite numerous google hits of people claiming that Dworkin said that, she never did.
Carlie,
"You're being as disingenuous as creationists when they pluck out someone like Hitchens to represent all atheists"
Now that is unfair, I was only asked for one, and this one was particularly popular and influential in the movement, so it isn't only one. In the 70s and early 80s the phrase and marxist analysis (exploitation, disparity of power, patriarchy, etc) was popular. It was in vogue again in the early 90s when Brownmiller's "Against our will" was published.
Walton:
I won't go into your self-revelatory comments, since you've already gotten good advice from others, but this, I think, bears on a larger point:
I disagree. Leaving aside the fact that most of your perceived deficits are passing things, or are easily remediable, I'd just like to point out that a world free of the fear, guilt, and self-recrimination that currently surround human sexuality would be better for everyone... including even people who ain't gettin' any... because it would be a happier world, and a happier world is better for everyone.
At the risk of challenging your L-word assumptions, it's somewhat like public education: A world full of well educated young people is a better place to live, even for cranky childless folks who don't want to "pay for others' self-indulgence through their taxes." Similarly, a world that was more relaxed about sex would be better for everyone, because we're all affected by the social distortions our current sexual hangups cause, quite without regard to how much (or what sort of) sex we're having as individuals.
Just think of all the political tsuris that's caused by "culture wars" over abortion, contraception, sex education, gay rights, pornography, etc., etc., etc. ... all attributable to our current moralistically prescriptive approach to sexuality. You do have a stake in sweeping that shit aside, whether you ever get laid or not.
P.S. AG is too stupid and intellectually dishonest to even get the charge right: it's "intercourse is rape". But Dworkin never said it:
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html
And neither, of course, can AG.
Now that is unfair, I was only asked for one
You were asked for a citation, and you've provided none. The one person you claim said this didn't say it, so it's time for you to find another.
And of course you're a disingenuous ass, because regardless of what you were asked for, you made a sweeping statement about "feminists" -- sweeping, stupid, an wrong.
Bill Dauphin,
"My opinion is that if you go looking (as you seemed to be counseling Walton to do) specifically for a woman so desperately poor that she can't possibly turn you down, no matter how much she might want to, you're effectively engaged in economic slavery. "
The hyperbole is yours. You assume that Walton would be selecting from the dreggs of that society, when he would probably be choosing from among very marriagable women with lots of options. When you use "economic slavery" it must be practically meaningless, like the term "wage slavery" that gets thrown around.
I recall a time, when feminists were calling marriage "rape". Now everybody it seems, wants to get married.
My but you are the model of disingenuousness. Of course not everyone wants it get married; rather, people want the right to get married. And those for whom that right is denied are same-sex couples, who, um, don't fit the model of those power relationship analyses of marriage. When you write such transparently stupid and dishonest shit like this, you can't expect anyone to believe a word you say about anything else.
Nothing sacred,
You are lying.
"And of course you're a disingenuous ass, because regardless of what you were asked for, you made a sweeping statement about "feminists" -- sweeping, stupid, an wrong."
Feminists were calling marriage rape, and a significant number were. Dworkin apparently didn't say it, but it was more pithy than saying what Dworkin said that inspired the phrase. I was in feminism classes when the phrase was extant. I admit they were feminists of the marxist or lesbian separatist ilk, but they self identified as femenists and they were highly visible activists. It was less popular among the radical and liberal feminists.
Many feminists weren't on the bandwagon, but my statement wasn't "sweeping" and didn't imply they all were.
The voluntary and fully informed vs coercive distinction is easy to make, blurring it is intellectually dishonest.
On the contrary, it is the blatantly, transparently false claim that this is an easy distinction to make that is grossly intellectually dishonest. It goes against everything we know about human beings as situated physical objects, everything we know about biology and psychology. This divide between coercive and non-coercive can be found nowhere in nature, only in the self-serving fantasies of libertarians, sexists, and other exploiters of human beings.
You are lying.
No one believes that, not even you. OTOH, everyone here knows what a liar you are and can see that you're doing it again.
nothing sacred,
"coercive and non-coercive can be found nowhere in nature, only in the self-serving fantasies of libertarians, sexists, and other exploiters of human beings."
It is found in ethics and in nature. Most of the animal world seeks to avoid or escape coercive encounters, and often welcomes voluntary encounters. There is an almost universal preference for the non-coercive relationship over the coercive among those who would be the victims of the coercion. Now those that would do the coercion, probably prefer coercion, and like marxists would want to blur the distinction, by characterizing many voluntary relationships with coercive language. It is only the would be coercers that benefit from the obsfuscation.
"coercive and non-coercive can be found nowhere in nature"
That's not what I said, you quotemining asshole.
but my statement wasn't "sweeping"
An obvious lie. All statements referring to plurals without qualification are sweeping. "atheists want to ..." "Catholics believe ...", "cephalopods eat ...", "feminists were calling ...". To be honest you would say "some" or "a few" or "a handful", etc. but that would lose the rhetorical punch -- the dishonest ambiguity.
It is only the would be coercers that benefit from the obsfuscation.
Another transparent lie that doesn't even make sense. The would-be coercers benefit by denying that coercion is coercion, by pretending there is some bright line that their coercive actions are on the non-coercive side of.
What honest libertarians there are out there really should seek to distance themselves from transparently dishonest people like AG, because he makes them look very bad.
nothing sacred,
Apologies, my bad, I should have included "this divide between". But it doesn't materially change what I would have said. The divide is in the preference of those animals involved. I guess you just hadn't thought it through before making such a silly statement, you bold fresh piece of humanity.
The divide is in the preference of those animals involved.
You're an immensely intellectually dishonest fool. It's begging the question to talk about a divide in preferences when the divide in what is supposedly being preferred is in dispute.
Interacting with you is such a waste of time; I think I'll go back to ag/dr mode.
nothing sacred,
You bold quoteminer you! I did qualify my statement about feminists:
"I recall a time, when feminists were calling marriage"
I placed it in the past, conditioned on "when". You should go back to ag/dr mode.
AG:
At worst, I'm only stating the logical extension of your position. But I don't think I'm even doing that. Now you say...
...but his original premise was that no woman would have him, at which point you suggested he go search in the Third World, pointing out that by Third World standards he is very rich. He echoed your position back to you as "[i]t would be fairly exploitative and unpleasant to enter into a relationship with someone in the knowledge that she was only in it because she was too poor to have any other options [emphasis added]"... and while you offered some lame justification arguments, you never explicitly disavowed this formulation of your advice.
So I really don't think I'm being hyperbolic to say you advised Walton to seek out women too poor to refuse him. If that's not what you meant, by all means, clarify... but I think it's a fair interpretation of what you've said so far, and bitching about my argument doesn't really do much to make your position any clearer.
Hmmm... you really think chattel slavery as typified by the ownership of African slaves in the U.S. before emancipation is the only form of slavery? When a person is bound by insurmountable economic poverty to a "master" whom she did not choose, she is his slave as surely as if he held legal title to her (and no, this isn't the same as marriage: in a marriage, the two people form an economic partnership by choice, and even if they become so mutually economically dependent that one or both cannot subsequently afford to leave, it's still a freely chosen bond).
Consider two prostitution scenarios: A woman decides (for whatever reason) that she can't think of a better/easier way to support herself than by having sex for money, and so she goes into business as an independent escort. Her motives are economic, but she's nobody's bondservant.
OTOH, a woman addicted to crack is turned out into the street to work off her debt to her dealer, who will kill her if she doesn't turn enough tricks to pay him back. Except that she's still an addict, and thus incurs new debt as quickly as she pays off old, and so can never stop hooking. Even though her dealer/pimp doesn't "own" her in the sense of having purchased her, she is his slave by any reasonable definition of the word.
Superficially, the situation of a Third-World "mail-order bride" might not seem as dramatically dire as that of the crack whore, but in principle it is precisely the same: Some slaves (in the more common sense of the word) lived much more comfortably than others, but that did not mean they weren't slaves.
And if you can't see that... "well, God, Jed, I don't even want to know you."
Bill Dauphin,
I think most of your assessment is fair, however "while you offered some lame justification arguments, you never explicitly disavowed this formulation of your advice."
My justification wasn't lame, because it was a correction of Walton's idea that the women were too poor to have other choices. I specifically suggested Thailand rather than somalia.
Would it change your analysis if your perspect was not that Walton was exploiting woman that didn't have any other choice, but rather he was exploiting a market where he stood well compared to what the other men had to offer. He is basically engaging in market arbitrage, going where he is the most valuable and the competition is weaker, due to inefficiencies in the market, that was failing to provide these women with the best available options, because they couldn't afford to transport themselves to markets that would value them higher. Keep in mind that however coldly we might be analyzing this, there are cultures where the female/male relationship is not as egalitarian or as based upon romantic love as the standard in the west. So Walton, may be offering a better option in almost every regard by which a marriage is objectively judged, except perhaps the comfort of staying within ones own culture.
Oh, for goodness' sake!
AG, Walton will either meet someone compatible or not. The last thing he should be doing is thinking of companionship issues as some sort of transaction.
Or maybe it's a libertarian thing, this commodification of relationships?
Walton, I know I've given you no reason to feel any obligation toward me, but if I asked you as a personal favor to me to at least try counseling there, would you do it? You owe me nothing, but I'm asking this as a favor. Will you, please? It's important to me.
[I suspect on the basis of its current behavior that my laptop may well disintegrate after this post (if it goes through). Hey, all! Planning to get a new computer tomorrow...]
You bold quoteminer you! I did qualify my statement about feminists:
"I recall a time, when feminists were calling marriage"
I placed it in the past, conditioned on "when".
ROTFLMAO!
You should go back to ag/dr mode.
I'll continue to glance over your garbage for the sheer humor value.
What honest libertarians there are out there
I've never seen one here.
In fact, I can't recall seeing a living one anywhere for some time now.
any suggestions?
Frankly, I'd love to be able to suggest a better place via link for all these pseudo-libertard wankers to argue with a supposed "honest libertarian", instead of stinking up thread after thread here.
OT, but did you and yours manage to escape all the fires unscathed?
Most of the animal world seeks to avoid or escape coercive encounters, and often welcomes voluntary encounters.
I'm 90% sure I'm wasting my time even asking, but...
what the fuck does this even mean?
this is either some very twisted application of anthropomorphised terms, or complete bullshit.
would you like to cite some specific examples you want to cram these terms on to in order to clarify, or is this just another exercise in wankery by yourself, as usual?
Are you trying to imply things like rape ("coercive" sex) are rare amongst animals?
'cause that wouldn't be accurate if so.
AG,
You have yet to provide any evidence of a feminist saying marriage is rape. NS already showed your one example was false (oh, and askng someone to google a phrase is not a citation). You then claimed they were made by "feminists of the marxist or lesbian separatist ilk". Still no citation.
You have the entire internet at your disposal and you weren't able to come up with a single example.
I've never seen one here.
Walton has displayed encouraging signs (all the more reason that I hope he responds to SC's plea). But hey, it was just a rhetorical device.
OT, but did you and yours manage to escape all the fires unscathed?
As far as I know, everyone I know personally is unscathed this time. I did have one friend nearly lose the house he spent the last several years building, but the firefighters and other responders did some amazing work.
ag's hand-chosen example of a land of relatively nonexploitative sexual relationships is...Thailand. But he's, like, so totally not insane. Right.
speedwell seems ok...
SC'OM
"ag's hand-chosen example of a land of relatively nonexploitative sexual relationships is...Thailand. But he's, like, so totally not insane. Right"
You make my point for me. Walton would be doing them a favor, by offering a less exploitative more egalitarian relationship.
Oh, and fuck you, you despicable asshole.
Walton,
Universities usually have a student counseling service — drop in to them today, or go see a GP, and be straight with them. Seriously. I know that your thoughts seem perfectly rational to you now, but that's how depression works — when you get out the other side of it, you look back and wonder why you ever thought like that and did nothing about it, but when you're in the middle of it, your perspective is so skewed that you see blue gloom, isolation, and melancholy as normal. Get help — there is absolutely nothing to lose and a huge amount to gain. You are not alone.
You are thoroughly stupid.
Ichthyic,
"Are you trying to imply things like rape ("coercive" sex) are rare amongst animals?"
No, I am saying that animals prefer voluntary relationships to relationships where they are coerced. For instance prey animals choose to run or escape or defend themselves from predators. When there is rape in animals, the victim even it species where tolerance developes the victim attempts to run or evade. Just as a preference to not have a coercive relationship is exhibited by behavior. Many voluntary relationships are actively sought among herd, social and mating animals.
"this is either some very twisted application of anthropomorphised terms, or complete bullshit."
Jane Goodall was part of the ethology revolution that overturned this type of behaviorist denial. We know animals have brains and can infer some of what is going on in them, such as preferences, fear, etc.
You have the entire internet at your disposal and you weren't able to come up with a single example.
There are, however, quite a few examples of critics of feminism claiming that it was said by "feminists" or specifically Andrea Dworkin or Catherine MacKinnon, who are taken to represent "feminists" or "radical feminists". These people are, of course, reliable interpreters of the theories of radical feminists like Dworkin and MacKinnon -- a group of academics who must have numbered in the dozens at their peak. (Disclosure: I once was in a relationship with one, a feminist law professor and expert on sexual harassment who was in great demand during the Anita Hill hearings, and whose work on gender equity had been cited by Thurgood Marshall. She was brilliant, bisexual, and incredibly sexy, but she was also a smoker, an alcoholic, and a Baptist whom I heard state that you couldn't be a real Christian if you didn't believe in the resurrection.)
It was amusing to see AG backpedal and claim that he didn't making a sweeping statement, when there would be no point to his statement if it weren't sweeping.
#229
ROTFLMAO!
Jane Goodall was part of the ethology revolution that overturned this type of behaviorist denial.
what? wtf does "behaviorist denial" even mean??
"the ethology revolution" started with Konrad Lorenz, fucktard. We've learned quite a bit since the days of early field ethologists. It's why the field has become more well known as behavioral ecology these days instead of ethology. That said, the idea that "ethologists" of any stripe would project anthropomorphisms onto animals like you just did, and like Fossey and Goodall have done to a greater or lesser extent is nonsense.
No, I am saying that animals prefer voluntary relationships to relationships where they are coerced.
this is entirely meaningless.
For instance prey animals choose to run or escape or defend themselves from predators.
you write as if it was a conscious choice.
again, you're anthropomorphizing out of your own ass.
it ain't pretty, but it's you all over.
You don't know fuck all about what you're saying, but you say it as if you were an expert.
IF you actually DO want to know something about ethology and animal behavior (and the history of the study of it), I would refer you to a basic text on the subject like Alcock:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Animal-Behavior/John-Alcock/e/97808789…
the previous edition should be available at a much cheaper price, and also stocked in any decent-sized library.
I can assure you that it's not. No libertarian I know IRL would think like that.
To everyone else: thanks. I'm feeling a lot better now having got some sleep, and I think I'll be OK. I just have these periodic episodes of despair and self-pity at the moment, but I'm trying to deal with it.
For my two cents, I don't consider Dworkin's views on this issue to be an example of any line of feminist thought, since a core tenet of feminism is that men and women are, on average, mentally and morally equal, and even if the most egregious quote is fabricated, what I've read of her extant writings on sexuality are difficult to reconcile with a view other than "all men are conniving psychopaths, and all women except the ones who share my views are gullible morons."
(Though, given her involvement with the anti-pornography thing, it's arguable that she felt all men were gullible morons too...so I guess she did think men and women were mentally equal.)
Given the difficulties of getting verbal statements and accounts of events and feelings from nonsentient nonhumans, if the animal didn't attempt to run or evade, how would you recognize it as rape? Isn't this kind of tautological?
Walton #233
Please, get help dealing with it.
I sent off an email today to the university counselling service, asking for an appointment next week.
I'm a little intimidated, though, by the idea of going and talking to someone about my emotional problems - if only becuase I'm worried that, in such a context, my issues will seem trivial and it will appear that I'm overreacting to something minor.
good on ya Walton. No you're not over reacting.
AG:
You actually think coldly searching for the precise level of desperation — and not one jot more — that makes the transaction a sure thing makes this suggestion less inhuman? And, I know SC already mentioned this, but you picked Thailand as your kinder, gentler example? Really? A country famous the world over for the sexual exploitation of women and girls?
Let's leave Walton out of it: We're past his specific case at this point, and talking instead about the principle (if it can be called that) you're enunciating. If there were genuine choice in the situation, it might be different, but the whole premise of the conversation was trading on lack of choice... the premise was seeking out people who might feel compelled by their circumstances to accept an otherwise unacceptable mate. Fine-tuning the degree of compulsion required to seal the deal is a matter of technical slavemastering; it does not represent a difference in principle.
BTW, I'm not holding out for some soft modern/Western romanticism: If you could show me a case where two fully informed free actors agreed that one would guarantee a certain standard of living in exchange for the other agreeing to provide domestic and sexual services, I'd have no problem with that... even if it were a purely cold-eyed economic transaction, with no mention of love or personal devotion. It's not a relationship I would choose, but it's not one I would criticize, either, as long as it were truly informed and truly freely chosen.
But I suspect such genuinely consensual arrangements are vanishingly rare, and they're certainly not what most people think of when you recommend that Western men go hunting for women in Thailand or anywhere else in the Third World.
The issue here is not a conflict between economic and emotional views of human relationships; the conflict here is between freedom and bondage. It just happens that economics are the material from which these particular chains are forged.
No matter how you try to wrap it in velvet, your suggestion involves commoditizing people; in contrast, prostitution (in those admittedly possibly rare cases when it's entered into fully voluntarily) involves commoditizing a personal service, in a way that would be entirely noncontroversial if the service in question weren't sexual.
And suggesting that bondage to a relatively wealthy Western master is preferable to remaining in relative poverty at home doesn't cut any ice, either: No doubt many slaves in the American South (esp. those who served in domestic roles) lived physically more comfortable (and possibly healthier, too) lives than they would have in their African homelands... but that doesn't change the fact that they were slaves.
And now I've spent enough (if not more than enough) pixels responding to what I suspect was never anything more than intellectual bomb-throwing anyway, so I'll turn my fingertips to other subjects.
:-D
*refrains from pathetic cyber-hugging*
I hope it'll work out for you
Bill Dauphin,
Now you are implying that marriage is "bondage" even in midst of this massive breakdown of the institution into serial "monogamy". You are suggesting that cold calculation is less human than the romanticization of animal attraction. Any you are using the abusive and exploitive Thai culture as a reason NOT to lift someone out who wants to get out.
It is interesting that even the more affluent S. Korea supplies a lot of the sex trade/slave workers in the US and Japan. A lot of times they have paid thousands of dollars to get out of their cultures only to be defrauded and forced into these conditions. I think the morality is on the side of the cold calculator, looking for and offering love, egalitarianism and freedom.
[sigh]
I said I wouldn't continue to respond to AG on this, and I won't. But I keep turning over the notion of prostitution as a personal services business in my mind, much the way you might compulsively poke at a chipped tooth with your tongue. And since I've been thinking about it, and we all know that nature abhors an unexpressed thought...
It occurred to me that my previous description of a hypothetical idealized purely economic arrangement...
...precisely describes, if only we delete the words and sexual, the hiring of a live-in housekeeper, which is perfectly acceptable behavior in legal, moral, and social terms. Restore the original wording, and what you're doing is hiring a live-in housekeeper/concubine, which is legally, morally, and socially different because... uh, why, again? It strikes me that the difference inheres only in the moral weight we give sexual interactions, over and above other sorts of human connections.
Or consider another example: You (a male, for purposes of this hypothetical) call a service agency, and they send a woman to your house. You take off your clothes, and she uses her hands to massage every part of your body (except your penis). You've never seen her before, and, absent the normal polite pleasantries, there is no personal relationship between you: She is only doing what she's doing because you're paying her, and you're only paying her because what she's doing gives you pleasure.
To this point, I've described a perfectly legitimate massage, legally and ethically proper and socially unremarkable. But... if we add to the scenario that the woman takes her own clothes off, or that she uses her hands (or mouth or vagina) to "massage" your penis, suddenly we're in the territory of prostitution, which we hold to be illegal and immoral. It's not clear to me why that should be. Unless the woman is under some compulsion or coercion (in which category I do not include reasonable economic compensation), why should a rational person consider the prostitution version of this scenario any less legitimate than the legit massage version? And conversely, if there is coercion, why would we consider the legit massage version any less reprehensible? The only answer, it seems to me, is that we've elevated sexuality and sexual pleasure to a quasi-magical status and arbitrarily freighted it with (religion-driven, IMHO, even when that connection is not explicitly made) moralistic prohibitions.
As we've been exploring over several threads recently, I firmly believe this particular prescriptive moralism distorts our social and political fabric, adversely affecting people in ways that far exceed the directly sexual aspects of life.
From the way I've rambled on about this particular subject, y'all have probably concluded I'm secretly a brothel owner, but nothing could be farther from the truth. It's just that this pervasive prudishness is, to me, one of the most clearly visible ways in which the hidden "groundwater" of religion undermines the foundations of our collective pursuit of happiness.
OK, maybe now I've exorcised this particularly demon (and how's that for an ironic figure of speech?), at least for a thread or two. I appreciate y'all's patience.
Urrk!
Fixed.
Not fixed (@243): Somehow my underline tag disappeared the text instead of underlining. The quoted phrase should have read "...aside from the normal polite pleasantries...."
Also, it's a good thing I've promised not to continue my conversation with AG: In order to reply to #241, I'd have to understand what the hell AG is trying to say. As it is, I'll be leaving in a few hours for a fun long weekend helping run a national model rocketry contest for school-age kids, so I won't even be tempted to jump back in.
I'm worried that, in such a context, my issues will seem trivial and it will appear that I'm overreacting to something minor.
You're not overreacting. And hey, if you still think so, at the least you've given the counselor an easy hour to deal with. :) If you don't "click" with the first person you talk to, feel free to ask for someone else. They switch around like that all the time.