navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Are women objects?
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Are women objects? Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams

0 posted 2007-02-11 12:43 PM



Recent news (The over all response to Anna Nichole Smith's death and Tyra Banks "weight gain") made me wonder if we (Women) really are just objects to the greater majority to men.

Follow this link to my video.  I am interested in every one's responses.  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ta70E8a4Yqw

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

© Copyright 2007 Juju - All Rights Reserved
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

1 posted 2007-02-11 09:22 PM


I'd like to think that no one has answered you because the answer to that question is a personal decision.

Women ARE objectified, to some types of people.

So are men.

You decide how you are treated, lovie.

k?

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
2 posted 2007-02-11 10:56 PM


Yes, I know.  This is completly opinion, and it would be hard to prove one way or another.  Therefore any explanation can be right.  I was just curious, that's all.

-Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
3 posted 2007-02-11 11:12 PM


I am sorry to say that in today's society, many areas do treat women like objects. All I can do is not follow society and treat women how they and every human being should be treated: with utmost respect. I had no male role model as a kid and I was raised by my mother and sisters; so my bond is closer to women than anybody else I think.

I really hope that one day, these things will change. Cheers on the thread Juju.    - Ed

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
4 posted 2007-02-12 12:44 PM


Well It has been what I had seen.  I am glad you put an effort in to treating women with respect and appreciating them as equals.

-Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

trutodaraiders
Senior Member
since 2006-12-02
Posts 820
CA
5 posted 2007-02-12 10:24 PM


Women are the most beautiful "God Given" gifts on this earth and should be worshipped, loved and adored beyond measures. I do not view women as objects. I too was raised by women.Though I had a dad in my life he was busy working for are family he showed me through his actions on how to treat a ladie
trutodaraiders
Senior Member
since 2006-12-02
Posts 820
CA
6 posted 2007-02-12 11:10 PM


Maybe this poem will give you insight that all men dont look at just outward beauty...lipstick, makeup, eyeliner etc. Yes men will notice you more with it, but only because it brings out the beauty thats already there.


The dew upon the roses bloom
Could ne’er compare to thee,
And like that flower's sweet perfume,
You overpowered me.
But as with each fresh petal’s death,
Its beauty soon must die.
But the memory of its living breath
The artist can’t deny.
Though the rose in sun must fade,
So would its scent in deepest shade.

And you the rose in life to me,
Must be allowed to grow,
Not tethered to the soul of me,
But to the love you long to know.
For though your beauty long will live,
Your soul must wing – displayed,
For ‘tis life in you that I must give,
Not stifle or degrade.
For though my soul is precious meant,
‘Tis shade to you, I cast and sent.

The fragrance and the bloom unite,
As one, to cast its spell.
In you... your soul and beauty fight.
This I know too well
And though I long to kiss the rose,
To inhale its heavens’ scent,
A deeper love is what I chose
For losing you I must prevent.
For though the roses beauty calls,
‘Tis the love of us, my heart befalls.

And your beauty seen in slow decay,
Will lessen not my love for you.
The words my heart and soul essay
Will speak of love... not sad adieu.
Your inner soul is what I crave,
Your fragrance, ‘til we part.
And when carried to my earthly grave,
‘Twill be your fragrance in my heart.
And although the rose I loved so well,
‘Twas your fragrance that my heart befell

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
7 posted 2007-02-12 11:28 PM


"Women are the most beautiful "God Given" gifts on this earth"

Why can't women just be people instead of "gifts"? A gift for who? Men? Yeah, that doesn't sound very good.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
8 posted 2007-02-13 12:42 PM


Ed, recognizing someone as a gift from God only adds value, it doesn't diminish.  Tru's statement wasn't a sexist statement at all.  I'm sure he would say that both men and women are gifts to each other.  Shouldn't we acknowledge the difference between sexism and proper recognition of gender uniqueness?


Stephen      
  

trutodaraiders
Senior Member
since 2006-12-02
Posts 820
CA
9 posted 2007-02-13 02:17 AM


Stephanos exactly my setiments. Thanks for not taking my statements out of syntax
Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
10 posted 2007-02-13 06:06 AM


Of course women are not objects.... (objects don't need so much money... just a little side joke) they are the key to society in general. NOt only are women prven to be calmer in men in  most situations (I say most because all would just be pushing the boundries...) and the fact that they maintain their maternal instincts well after they are needed.

Once a friend told me... "Ashes to ashes... dust to dust... without women the world will soon be rust."

Although a simnple rhyme, I find it really effective as it really epitomises what the world would be with just a bunch of testosterone

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
11 posted 2007-02-13 11:23 AM


I suppose... There was no insult intended, I was just wondering why it's always put like that.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
12 posted 2007-02-13 02:24 PM


quote:
I suppose... There was no insult intended, I was just wondering why it's always put like that.

Let me ask you... when I tell my wife that she is "heaven sent" to me, am I belittling her?


The point is, saying that women are "God's gift" can be a positive statement actually in opposition to the "playtoy" mentality that this thread describes.  It's not the giving aspect that is questionable to me, but the depersonalization.  Calling a woman's person a "gift" is fine.  Saying that that gift is less than a person is not.  


And as much as chivalry is looked down upon, I think the age which doesn't value it is the one where women are objectified more than ever.  


just some thoughts.

Stephen.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
13 posted 2007-02-13 02:53 PM


No no Steph, that's not how I meant it at all.

"when I tell my wife that she is "heaven sent" to me, am I belittling her?"

Come on let's not be silly, I'm not an idiot.

I don't agree with the statement: "All women are prefect and should be adored and loved and worshiped" All people are gifts from God to begin with. And can women do no wrong? Of course they can do wrong, because they are people and people can do wrong. I've met mean and cruel women and I've met mean and cruel men. You only call your wife "Heaven sent" because you've spent your life with her and you love her. Now would it be the same if you saw a woman on the street and said the same thing? No, because you don't know her so how could you possibly say something like that about a total stranger? That's all I meant. Sorry if I didn't explain myself.   Cheers    - Ed

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
14 posted 2007-02-13 03:33 PM


I think a better question would be, "are women objective?"


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
15 posted 2007-02-13 04:04 PM


Not the one I live.  

Just kidding!  (Y'all don't know my phone number)



Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
16 posted 2007-02-13 11:10 PM


Adam's rib?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
17 posted 2007-02-13 11:35 PM


I think mine just got knocked out with an elbow thrust.


Stephen.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
18 posted 2007-02-20 12:17 PM


Quote from the Big Lebowski:

"He treats objects like women, man!"   - The Dude

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
19 posted 2007-02-22 09:47 PM


.


Do you really think
a woman who is considered beautiful,
then because, hates herself?

That a man should consider a woman beautiful
is not lust but a rising above his assumed common nature.

Men died for Helen, (or Elizabeth),
not because they wanted her
but because they loved her.


.

Ratleader
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026
Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass
20 posted 2007-02-22 10:51 PM


It makes me wonder exactly the opposite -- if we (Men) really are just objects to the greater majority of women. That's about the only conclusion to be drawn from the way Ms. Smith lived her life, using men all the way, to get whatever she wanted.

~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>   ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº>  ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº>    ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº>
______________Ratleader______________

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
21 posted 2007-02-23 02:53 PM


I think that anybody in the public eye such as a celebrity is turned into an object.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
22 posted 2007-02-28 02:10 AM


You all have brought up allot of points.  Part of the truth is I am a really insecure person (John read enough of my poetry where he knew that). It is also true that both men and women market themselves to win love.  IT is undeniable that any female celeberty becomes an object.  

But It is still a sticky question everyone needs to ask themselves.  I think it is important to question our motives behind what we do and consider the consiquences.

I believe if you put an honest attempt to treat a person with respect and love (irregardless if they deserve it) I doubt it would be possable to treat them as objects

Now, beauty is something to cherish.  But even more beautiful is natural beauty, which is something that is not forced. I did not mean to imply that being atttracted to someone means that your treating them as objects.  

To treat something as an object, You basically don't care about anything that makes them alive.
  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

23 posted 2007-02-28 08:40 AM


not if they don't allow themselves to be?  Meaning, we are as we think ourselves to be...we don't need approval for or of our thoughts from others...we don't need to go along with society...as long as we remember the 10 commandments...so to speak...society is not always right, society has outcasted many people who have insight, perception, and are artistically more knowledgable...if you don't want to be something, you won't be...or visa versa...you see, how you perceive yourself, is how others view you....



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
24 posted 2007-03-07 12:03 PM


.


Was it wrong for Maud Gonne
to act and treat herself as a  work of art,
being that as such she inspired Yeats?

.

nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200
Between the Lines
25 posted 2007-03-07 10:04 AM


It is also true that both men and women market themselves to win love.

I don't believe this statement to be true, JuJu, at least not for all...

First of all I can't even remember ever "marketing" myself for anyone. And especially not to win anything.
Maybe that is a problem with the younger generation today (or maybe not)if that is what they think of themselves and I am sure that today's advertising of products and dating services adds to that confusion.

Did you ever wonder why that particular girl/woman was with that particular boy/man holding hands, walking together? For example a beautiful/handsome woman (by societies' standard) and a plain looking man, or vice versa?

I am sure at one time or another people see this, maybe even think it, especially if we have no one special in our lives and we wonder why we are alone.  

It's because there is more to a person than looks and if we only look to the outside we will never be as happy as we could be in another's company.

Besides love is in the eyes and mind of the beholder. I know I have told this to some before, that what makes me love someone
(and there are all degrees of love) is not what they look like, but what they have in their heart that makes them appear handsome or beautiful to me even if to others or to societies' standards they are not.

It's snowing here again...a day off from teaching left me thinking too much on this
  
We need to be ourselves and not try to compete and if we are lucky enough to meet that someone to fall in like or love with for what they/we see and feel, then it is a truer love than trying to "win" someone over.

just my opinion...and after 36 years of marriage (including the last few years of a partial-separation-divorce to come)I am or was a prime example of not ever being noticed for beauty but for my warm personality, talkative nature and smile, by just being me.
And I am happier not having to try and compete with "looks" today, but instead keeping myself appearing good enough to satisfy myself, not to win anyone over.

M

[This message has been edited by nakdthoughts (03-07-2007 10:56 AM).]

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
26 posted 2007-03-08 12:47 PM


It's wrong to not respect yourself.  
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
27 posted 2007-03-08 10:12 AM


"It's wrong to not respect yourself."

I agree. You can't respect another person if you don't respect yourself.

nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200
Between the Lines
28 posted 2007-03-08 05:50 PM


That's the point, Juju...you  don't need another's approval or have to compete to respect yourself...and if someone doesn't think you "good" enough for them then that is their problem...and they wouldn't be someone you would want in your life.

M

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
29 posted 2007-03-08 10:11 PM


.

Even a good man
prefers the company
of an attractive woman

Diane Wakoski


.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
30 posted 2007-03-08 10:35 PM


I prefer the company of a woman with good manners.  
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
31 posted 2007-03-08 10:53 PM


Yeah Ess, I agree 1000% man. I remember seeing this woman who was... absolutely radiant. This woman glowed like a fluorescent light bulb set on fire, ya dig? She was one up from an angel, hell; she was 2 degrees higher than an angel. Then...

She spoke.

I tell ya man, she was so mean, dare I say evil; I found myself staring at a hobgoblin. She made children cry. No, seriously, the kid with her was being verbally mangled by this woman. And boy did she give me a shotgun look, .20 gauge straight to the face. The dirtiest look any human being as ever dealt to me. Here I thought her beauty was like the Rolling Stones (as in her radiance would never die) but her "beauty" quickly faded away like Nirvana (who mind you, also ended because the main singer had a shotgun, coincidence? I think not).

Yeah, I felt superficial for falling into a dark abyss of love for this woman; to say the least I learned a lesson though. Beauty of mind is all we really got, 'cause our faces and bodies are gonna wither, wrinkle and fade away. And if people realized that, they would probably be happier.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 2000-10-29
Posts 19200
Between the Lines
32 posted 2007-03-09 06:38 PM


Beauty of mind
I like that Ed...


M

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
33 posted 2007-03-09 07:20 PM


.


There’s a sort of “dumb blond” prejudice
that assumes the more physically attractive
a woman is the less likely there’s an attractive mind inside.
I have not found that the case; in fact I’ve found physically
attractive women just as, if not more, likely than others,
(who then carry a chip on their shoulders, or try to compensate by being
“wild” or “crazy” ,which usually means obnoxious), to be
someone worth being with if only in conversation.


.

[This message has been edited by Huan Yi (03-09-2007 08:37 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
34 posted 2007-03-11 03:45 AM


When a woman walks by in makeup, high heels and a tight and revealing dress I feel little doubt that she is probably not very minded to read books and study wisdom.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-11-2007 04:31 AM).]

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
35 posted 2007-03-11 03:36 PM


Hmm, I don't know about that Ess. That fact is that pretty much all women wear makeup; and high heels are just a style of shoe. A person cannot be judged by simply how they look, I learned that first hand. Like my above story, I saw a woman that looked very sweet and nice but that wasn't the case. And as far as revealing clothes go, that's just the individual's sense of fashion. A king in poor man's clothes is still a king; it's only clothes. But perhaps it’s the mentality of wearing revealing clothing that is the point. A lady that wears low-cut apparel perhaps merely seeks attention in the wrong way. They might want all eyes on them so to speak. That is an emotional issue, not an intellectual issue. At least that's my take on it.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
36 posted 2007-03-11 06:52 PM


I don't try to judge the people by the way they look and dress, but I do partially judge their lifestyles from the way they look and dress, because how we look and dress is a part of lifestyle, and does betoken a manner that more often than not, rears its head further than just superficial appearances.  And from my getting to know people, I've found that it usually proves true.  People that dress this or that way usually  also have attitudes, manners, and a lifestyle that involves the characterstic you see in the way they dress.  People that wear melancholy and black clothing and the "goth" look, usually do have a lifestyle of melancholy and dark things.  Someone that wears much makeup and things to give her sexual allure,  usually is involved in a lifestyle that is more sexual.  Someone that has a natural, pleasant, modest-looking appearance usually has a lifestyle that goes along with that characteristic too.  Certainly there are exceptions, and also deceptions, but in my experiences, the way people appear and dress very often does tell truths about their attitude and lifestyle.


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
37 posted 2007-03-11 08:15 PM


Very true, I agree.

However:

"Someone that wears much makeup and things to give her sexual allure usually is involved in a lifestyle that is more sexual."

Being "more sexual" has nothing to do with a person's level of intelligence.

"When a woman walks by in makeup, high heels and a tight and revealing dress I feel little doubt that she is probably not very minded to read books and study wisdom."

You can't assume things like that. Some of the smartest people around were a little promiscuous. If a woman has "sexed" up her appearance, that means she wants to look sexually appealing. Her clothing and desire for sexual appeal has nothing to do with her intelligence just her attitude, like you said.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
38 posted 2007-03-11 09:40 PM


I don't agree at all.  Women that are wont to go out of their way to be "sexy" are rarely those that are strongly interested in reading and studying wisdom.  
rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
39 posted 2007-03-12 06:59 AM


"Women that are wont to go out of their way to be "sexy" are rarely those that are strongly interested in reading and studying wisdom."  

I disagree. Confidence is very sexy. Great style is very sexy. Being fresh-faced with a bright smile, clean and shining hair, is very sexy. Possessing poise and grace is very sexy. A great balance of kindness and fire and wisdom without arrogance is very sexy. I speak of sexy, as exciting, appealing, quality traits that add to the person, not take away. Any of the things I listed can be misapplied and teeter on what I call "trashy" or bad examples, but there are women who set the bar high on their sexiness and there are women who sit at a lot of bars and make the mistake of modeling themselves after what's hot inside the bar, which is fine and dandy if they want to be that way and live with it.

Also, what if she's a librarian or a school teacher and ends up being a sexual fantasy just because of the "she's probably a wildcat underneath all that wholesome and boring attire" factor?


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
40 posted 2007-03-12 11:38 AM


"Women that are wont to go out of their way to be "sexy" are rarely those that are strongly interested in reading and studying wisdom."

I'm really not sure how you can say that. Your entire argument is based on false assumptions and stereotypes. Sex and intelligence have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Just Like Regina said, "Confidence is very sexy." A woman or man that dresses to look sexy is merely looking to boost their confidence or maybe even attract the opposite sex. We are creatures that mate, Ess. Like many animals, we have our own little mating calls; you see what I mean? We have to keep up the planet's population you know; it's our duty, lol.
     A person who is sexual is a person who enjoys sex, which is a physical act. Intelligence is one's faculty of understanding, something that has nothing to do with one's appearance or physical preferences. Sex and intelligence are so far away from each other because anyone (smart as whip or dumb as an ox) can have a little fun if you know what I mean. But not as many people can obtain a high level of intelligence with that amount of ease.
     Let's take the focus off women for a minute. What about a man who likes sex and is promiscuous and dresses to advertise his taste? Is he "unintelligent" as well? What about Casanova? He was probably the most famous and infamous "lover" of all time and yet his written works are respected because he was a great writer. Was it just because he's a man?


    


Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
41 posted 2007-03-12 09:04 PM


It does have to do with intellegence because that is what comes to be expressed less and less, the more "sex" becomes the theme.  Do I have a problem with such done in bedrooms and private?  No.  But it is shame when it becomes a growing exhibitionism in public, that also includes much youth going to highschool supposedly to become more "educated".  


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
42 posted 2007-03-12 10:28 PM


"It does have to do with intelligence because that is what comes to be expressed less and less, the more "sex" becomes the theme."

Are you saying that the more sex you have, the dumber you become? That seems very inaccurate to me, man. I mean hell, if that were the case our world would go back to the days of Cro-Magnon man! Having sex isn't the equivalent to banging your head against the wall; you won't lose brain cells I promise, lol.

"But it is shame when it becomes a growing exhibitionism in public"

I agree fully with you here. It literally makes me uncomfortable to see someone dressed like a staff member of a strip club. I get nervous enough as it is around women without them being dressed like centerfolds. My argument is that just because someone is into sex and likes to look like walking sex, doesn't mean their intelligence is scraping the bottom of the barrel. No, I don't agree with how people can dress inappropriately sometimes but I know how someone looks has nothing to do with their smarts.

"that also includes much youth going to high school supposedly to become more "educated"."

Whoa now man, off the subject. I'm talking about adults here dude. I think teenagers should have to sport monk's garbs. Teenage girls who dress like that are just begging to get in trouble. Man, I don't even want to think about that stuff. I see these damn twelve year olds with makeup on and skirts higher than Jefferson Airplane and I just want to give their parents an endless rain of slaps across the face. I mean, they're kids for Christ's sakes! They should be in denim overalls and have candy sticking to their face, not makeup and short skirts!

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
43 posted 2007-03-13 07:23 AM


I do understand what Ess is talking about. I don't consider myself to be all that old-fashioned, but if I waved my tush around in public like it was an object, my Momma would hunt me down and flog it off like an object that I'd never need anymore, and I'm 40 years old!

She has a "Keep it covered or wish you did," motto, when it comes to public matters, and I respected her word when I was little, even more now. She raised 3 daughters, mostly by herself, and we didn't make it easy on her. She was and is, a lady. One who made sure we pursued a real future and not one that would fade away with our beauty or youth.

Thanks Momma!


Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
44 posted 2007-03-13 02:22 PM


Ess, you're talking about your own personal morals, not a direct link between intelligence and appearance.

You're also talking about your own standards - while it may be valuable to you to study the wisdom of the ages, learn the Grecian language and etc., some others may be just as fulfilled by attaining a well-paying job and earning the esteem of their compatriots for being an enjoyable person to be around. They may not even be able to spell Grecian, but could be happy in that.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
45 posted 2007-03-13 07:42 PM


.


“Manners are especially the need of the plain. The pretty can get away with anything.”

Evelyn Waugh


I also once read a quote from some famous woman
who said her fantasy was to be wanted only for her body.


“for the eyes are the scouts of the heart…
…and the heart is the organ of opening up to someone else.”

from Joseph Campbell on love in mythology, art and life (from the Power of Myth w/ Bill Moyers)


.
PS

http://www.thebeckoning.com/poetry/yeats/yeats4.html


.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
46 posted 2007-03-13 08:53 PM


"Are you saying that the more sex you have, the dumber you become?"


No, I am saying the more one dwells on and struts sexual appeal, the less and less they express and show respect of intellegence, let alone share or inspire it.
   
"My argument is that just because someone is into sex and likes to look like walking sex, doesn't mean their intelligence is scraping the bottom of the barrel. "

I agree with that.  All I am saying is that if you put "sex" in your appearance and expressions foremost, you inevitablly put intellegence in your appearance and expressions less.  And I told you that I think that often lifestyle bears out that characteristic that people pursue in their appearance.   Someone that pursues more an expression of "sex" in thier appearance than intellegence, most likely pursues a lifestyle that is more oriented to "sex" than a lifestyle more oriented to more intellectually cultivating things such as reading, and studying wisdom, history, language, or even weighing and debating things as philosophically as we do here in this forum.  

  
"I know how someone looks has nothing to do with their smarts."

Well, I think it does.  Looks either more or less help express smarts or don't.  And the more they are shown to be acknowledged and respected, the more they are acknowledged and respected, and inspire others to partake.  There is no such expression of intellegence, in which intellegence is acknowledged and respected, when people more and more put sex first in their looks, expressions, images, attitudes, etc.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
47 posted 2007-03-13 09:43 PM


.


And why can’t looks be a trap
in which the victim, (God help him),
discovers to his abject dismay
the trapper is thoughtful as well?  


.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
48 posted 2007-03-13 09:53 PM


I think true "intelligence" is when a woman or man cares nothing of others' opinions. Fashion (and its industry) tends to be very trivial and at many times it can be conceited. The thought that clothing reveals one's intelligence also seems very superficial. You mentioned "goth" teenagers. Well, I know this dude who reached a very high level on the "goth scale." Outwardly, I suppose you could say that he looked a moldy piece of meat with legs and chains. He "looked" brain-dead and people treated him that way. Well, he happened to be my sister’s new boyfriend so I had to get acquainted. Not only was he an avid Russophile (some of his role models being Tolstoy and Chekhov. And not to mention his homemade shirt reading "Rasputin still breathes in the Neva") but he was delving into German philosophy as well. We had an entire discussion about Nietzsche then he veered off to Hegel and eventually into Kierkegaard (yes he was Christian too.) Do you see my point? A person can’t be judged by their looks.
    And you don’t really know their lifestyle, Ess. Do you think every sexy woman you see looks like that all the time? Come one, lol. I mean I have about ten pairs of dark green cargo pants in my closet and black shirts to match every one of them. I wear size 12 ½ army boots and sport Chinese Red Army winter hat with welder’s goggles. Does that mean I want to enlist in the Army or become a welder? Don’t think so…


"I am saying the more one dwells on and struts sexual appeal, the less and less they express and show respect of intelligence, let alone share or inspire it."


You keep saying this and I just don't understand your logic. Can you explain why someone who exudes sexual appeal shows "less respect of intelligence?" I'd really like to hear why you think that. Because for the life of me I can't figure it out. Maybe we should just agree to disagree, lol.

"most likely pursues a lifestyle that is more oriented to "sex" than a lifestyle more oriented to more intellectually cultivating things such as reading, and studying wisdom, history, language, or even weighing and debating things as philosophically as we do here in this forum."

Here is my point: your first two words, "most likely." There is where my whole argument rests. It's all assumptions and stereotyping and I think you know it is. That's the same as saying, "Most likely all rappers are black"; "Most likely all men play football"; "Most likely all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants"; "Most likely all women who wear sexy clothes are ignorant tramps." All that sounds pretty awful man and "most likely" all of it is based entirely on assumptions and stereotypes. "Most likely" a person who believes that a woman’s style defines her mental capacity is very, very wrong.

I’m not sure what else to say about the matter.


Cheers...

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
49 posted 2007-03-13 11:02 PM


"And why can’t looks be a trap
in which the victim, (God help him),
discovers to his abject dismay
the trapper is thoughtful as well?  "


If someone has has much respect and strength in thoughtfulness and virtues, they don't need to put "good looks" first.  Nor do they need to trap people, when they can earn peoples respect by expressing thier virtues and wisdom.


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
50 posted 2007-03-14 07:18 AM


But....Ess,

I'm confused.

Do you surround yourself with people that have no outward appeal to feel safe in the notion that they are smart, warranting a friendship or conversation?

Doesn't that leave you with the chance of passing up what could be a positive learning experience between two people? Regardless of whether they have sex appeal, or what if they are dirty and smelly from a hard days work and don't really have time to read philosophy but would love to if they didn't have to feed their kids? But if we second guess them, we pass them by as unworthy of our deep thoughts.

I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, because some people have a wealth of common sense, where others have a stockpile of book sense. Both are valuable to me.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
51 posted 2007-03-14 09:39 AM


"I think true "intelligence" is when a woman or man cares nothing of others' opinions. "

Unfortunately, that is not intelligence, but carelessness, Ed.


"The thought that clothing reveals one's intelligence also seems very superficial."

When people make choices about looks they also have attitude and lifestyle choices that go along therewith.  I don't see how judging that judges people themselves.  I'm not saying that anyone is intellegent or unintelligent for expressing this more than that, but I am saying that certain appearances, attitudes, lifestyle choices express intelligence less than others.  And that includes putting "sex appeal" at the forefront.


"Can you explain why someone who exudes sexual appeal shows "less respect of intelligence?"

When you go out the way to emphasize and express "look at my hot body" and suggest "sex", respect to intelligence diminishes, because you are focusing more on the body and bodily attraction then you are on the mind and judgement.


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
52 posted 2007-03-14 07:45 PM


"Unfortunately, that is not intelligence, but carelessness, Ed."

Well that's why I put intelligence in parentheses, Ess. It's a different form of intelligence; there are many kinds you know. A person who can go his whole life without worrying about whether someone likes his shirt or not is, in my book, intelligent enough to be comfortable with himself. And I'm shocked you said that that's considered "carelessness." What an awful thing to think. Do you live in fear of what other people think of you? How can you properly live your life if you have to be concerned with other people's thoughts about you? Take my advice, put on a wetsuit, a leather jacket, a hardhat and red boots and just run out into the street screaming "I am the walrus!" Be free! If that's too crazy for ya, then wear two different colored socks or two different shoes. Or find the loudest Hawaiian shirt you can and wear it. Do whatever, just please... Forget what people think, you'll be happier.
    Do you know why kids are happy, man? Because they don't care about the melted ice cream on their t-shirt or the gum in their hair. They don't care what people think.

"I don't see how judging that judges people themselves."

Saying that a woman who looks sexy "probably doesn't study wisdom" sounds a bit like judging to me. Look man, I know where you're coming from but that fact is, like I've said mucho times, these are all assumptions.

Again, I feel as if this conversation is going in circles. Maybe agreeing to disagree wasn't a bad idea, lol.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
53 posted 2007-03-14 08:24 PM


.


Can a sober man, (not KGB), feel, make love to a woman
without desire; without instead compassion, sympathy,
or pity to drive him up and on?

Or is that what Viagra is for?
.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
54 posted 2007-03-15 01:57 PM


"Do you surround yourself with people that have no outward appeal to feel safe in the notion that they are smart, warranting a friendship or conversation?"

No,  if I don't like being around someone it is not because of something they are or naturally have, but because of something they may do and keep on doing.  Evil, indecent, unsmart, etc is not what people are, but it is what they do , sometimes even for a living.  But in my opinion there are no evil, indecent, or unsmart people, there are only evil, indecent, unsmart deeds.  The difference between a woman in prostitution and prostitution, is that the woman isn't the one that is indecent, but it is what she does that is indecent.  This is a very important distinction.  If one treats a woman in prostitution as if she is indecent and void of honour, that is just one more way of mistreating her, instead of helping her.

If someone keeps dressing and artificially going out the way to put sex appeal at the front of physical manners, then I think that is more than just momentary looks.  It is behaviour that reflects and influences attitude/mentality.  And I believe this does diminish attention and esteem for more mental and spiritual things because people dwell upon physical attraction, and physical "statements", and then they often expect them to be the gate, before they even walk thro and give any attention to the garden.  

I don't usually avoid people if they are friendly.  But if they strut a bad manner often, and it is a predominant part of their manners, and even their lifestyle then I usually do have misgivings about that person and end up avoiding him/her.

"Doesn't that leave you with the chance of passing up what could be a positive learning experience between two people? "

Yes.  But I'm willing to pass that up if someone's  bad manner is overwhelming.


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
55 posted 2007-03-15 02:00 PM


"But I'm willing to pass that up if someones  bad manner is overwhelming."

Why do you associate bad manners with sexy clothes?

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
56 posted 2007-03-15 02:49 PM


You seem to live in a very small world, Essorant. You should get out a bit more.

Fortunately, your convoluted arguments simply don't stand up to empirical facts. Sharon Stone, for example, has made millions of dollars in large part from being beautiful and sexy. So has Gina Davis and Jodie Foster, just to name two. All are members of Mensa, meaning their IQ's are within the top two percent of the population. Their knowledge, wisdom and judgment would probably blow your socks off. That is, if they even deigned to talk to you.

Intelligence and wisdom aren't defined by your sense of morality. Or by mine. And even if we set aside morality and just addresses priorities, as Christopher already alluded, you don't get to set those, either. You don't get to decide how people should properly use their intellect. I'm sure you wouldn't want anyone telling you how to use yours? Or calling you unintelligent because you chose a different course?

If someone makes you uncomfortable, Essorant, by all means, feel free to avoid their company. You'd be wise, however, to not pretend that's their problem. It's your problem, Ess, and in many cases, will be your loss as well.



rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
57 posted 2007-03-15 03:58 PM


Huan Yi~

Awww. Spell it out man!

Are you asking if a man can successfully manage to make love to what he feels is an ugly woman?


Ess~ "then they often expect them to be the gate, before they even walk thro and give any attention to the garden."

I believe that's a beautiful take on the proverb: "Don't judge a book by its cover."


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
58 posted 2007-03-15 10:08 PM


"Huan Yi~

Awww. Spell it out man!

Are you asking if a man can successfully manage to make love to what he feels is an ugly woman?"

I said "sober" man . . .

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
59 posted 2007-03-16 05:20 AM


Alright. I had to change my post because I'm trying not to offend you, though I'm not sure why.

Can a sober man successfully manage to make love to what he feels is an ugly woman?

Out of Compassion, Sympathy, and Pity?

Is it because she's undergone a lobotomy?
Is she diagnosed with a terrible life threatening disease?
Is she having trouble distinguishing the difference between a man and a dog?
Because she'd have to be out her mind, on her death bed, or completely unable to make a proper decision about love or sex to be with a man like that.

Too bad Viagra doesn't give a man a spine.

[This message has been edited by rwood (03-16-2007 05:51 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
60 posted 2007-03-16 10:54 AM


"Sharon Stone, for example, has made millions of dollars in large part from being beautiful and sexy. So has Gina Davis and Jodie Foster, just to name two. All are members of Mensa, meaning their IQ's are within the top two percent of the population.  "


They may have much wisdom in private,(anyone may have that) but the emphasis on their looks and sexual appeal little pays respect to it in public.  


Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
61 posted 2007-03-16 11:35 AM


And why is that a bad thing, Ess?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
62 posted 2007-03-16 11:50 AM


I already said it:

"It does have to do with intellegence because that is what comes to be expressed less and less, the more "sex" becomes the theme."

"When you go out the way to emphasize and express "look at my hot body" and suggest "sex", respect to intelligence diminishes, because you are focusing more on the body and bodily attraction than you are on the mind and judgement."



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
63 posted 2007-03-16 12:04 PM


quote:
They may have much wisdom in private,(anyone may have that) but the emphasis on their looks and sexual appeal little pays respect to it in public.

Little pays respect? LOL. You may be right, Essorant, but I have a funny feeling any one of those hot babes could write a better sentence than that.

I don't know them in private (wish I did), so my estimation of their intelligence, knowledge and wisdom is necessarily based only on their public persona. I've been nothing but impressed. Certainly not all sexy women are intelligent, just as not all slovenly women are, but even these few show glaring flaws in your premise, Essorant.



rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
64 posted 2007-03-16 12:57 PM


"When you go out the way to emphasize and express "look at my hot body" and suggest "sex", respect to intelligence diminishes, because you are focusing more on the body and bodily attraction than you are on the mind and judgement."

Ess~ So, are you saying that you have no control over your senses in the presence of a hot and sexy woman?

Many men use that notion to cheat on their wives or significant others. "It's not my fault. She was super hot and waved it in my face!"

That's what men in positions of power or authority use to take advantage of their students/employees/victims. "If it wasn't for your hot body..."

I will say this: If a woman comes up to you in a full frontal attack with her sexuality and tries to rip your clothes off your person, Run Essorant Run! She means business and doesn't care who you can quote.

Otherwise, assuming anything based on looks is pretty stupid and can get you into a lot of trouble.

As if there aren't tigresses in plain clothes!


Ron~ I'm glad you knew that about those ladies. I admire them and I'm a big fan of Gina Davis.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
65 posted 2007-03-16 01:35 PM


"but even these few show glaring flaws in your premise"

No, not really.  

I could mention worse about myself right now, such as not getting out enough, not eating very healthy nor getting enough sleep lately.  I would criticize these things far more than dwelling on "sexy" looks.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
66 posted 2007-03-16 02:37 PM


"Ess~ So, are you saying that you have no control over your senses in the presence of a hot and sexy woman?"

Not at all.  I mean there is difference between the token of an attractive woman in careful and "unloud" elegance that contrasts with the omen of a woman that dons sex-centered appeal.  The difference is that one expresses more care and intellegence and dignity in her bearings than the other.  


"Otherwise, assuming anything based on looks is pretty stupid and can get you into a lot of trouble. "

Obviously I don't agree.  To me everything counts, including the additions we give to our outward bearings.  When a woman prostitutes her looks to serve sexual appetites in public there is no token of virtue whatsoever in that.  I can look beyond it, but I don't pretend that it is nothing, or that it is not often in conjunction with sexual hedonism and sexual vices, because it is.  


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
67 posted 2007-03-17 06:17 PM


Hmm....

I wear heals and make up......
0:

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
68 posted 2007-03-17 07:16 PM


.


So in an ideal world
there’s an equality
between the lovely and the slovenly . . .
Then I choose Hell


.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
69 posted 2007-03-17 07:33 PM


Well that doesn't say much Juju.  The Queen Elizabeth wears makeup and higheels too.  

One may wear makeup and highheels in such a way that they don't "stand out" with other things to make sex appeal predominate in one's aspect.  They may be "toned down", and other things one wears and expresses in outward bearings may be modest, elegant, sophisticated, and not make "sex appeal" predominate.  


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
70 posted 2007-03-17 08:33 PM


Huan Yi,

So if I am "slovenly", you would rather go to hell than treat me as an equal human?


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
71 posted 2007-03-18 04:11 PM


“So in an ideal world
there’s an equality
between the lovely and the slovenly . . .
Then I choose Hell”

So move to Stepford, Connecticut and you’ll feel right at home.


“One may wear makeup and highheels in such a way that they don't "stand out" with other things to make sex appeal predominate in one's aspect.”

I can’t help but “stand out,” Ess.

I stand 5’11” tall, which makes me taller than the average man, and when I wear heels I’m apprx. 6’3”.
My genes were never my choice. No matter what I wear or how I wear it, I stand out.

So, Queen Elizabeth has caught your eye, huh?  I bet she don't know she's still got it. You should tell her.

quote:
When a woman prostitutes her looks to serve sexual appetites in public there is no token of virtue whatsoever in that.  I can look beyond it, but I don't pretend that it is nothing, or that it is not often in conjunction with sexual hedonism and sexual vices, because it is.”


True Prostitutes are not in the business of virtue, Ess. They’re in the business to sell sex. Just like a CEO of a piston manufacturing company isn’t in the business of virtue. He’s selling pistons for really fast cars like Corvettes, you know, supposed chick magnets, extensions of manhood, and statements of youth and virility. There’s all kinds of rampant myths about sexual prowess and virtue. Just because a woman has a body from hell doesn’t mean you can test drive her like she is. The woman could be a prostitute? And the clean cut, sharp dressed, strikingly handsome CEO could be a misogynistic serial killer beast in an Armani suit.

Looks don't prove what's inside of a person. I wish they did. I wish you were right. Many people might still be alive.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
72 posted 2007-03-18 06:14 PM



I can’t help but “stand out,” Ess.

I stand 5’11” tall, which makes me taller than the average man, and when I wear heels I’m apprx. 6’3”.
My genes were never my choice. No matter what I wear or how I wear it, I stand out.


Please read the sentence again, Reg. I wasn't talking about a person but about the makeup and highheels worn to "stand out" (and also in conjunction with other additions to one's appearance) to make "sex appeal" predominate.

So, Queen Elizabeth has caught your eye, huh?  I bet she don't know she's still got it. You should tell her.

I bet she does know it.  Elegance and sophistication have excelled in her bearings all her life.

True Prostitutes are not in the business of virtue, Ess. They’re in the business to sell sex. [...]


Once again, please look again.  I am not talking about prostitutes, but "prostituting" one's looks to sex appeal.  

Looks don't prove what's inside of a person.



I agree.  Nor do a person's words, deeds, poetry, etc.  What's inside is inside, and only the one "inside" has the "proof".  Any look, word, deed, expression, can be be deceptive or fail to meet intentions.  But that doesn't mean there are no truths, meanings or attatchments to them.


[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-18-2007 07:07 PM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
73 posted 2007-03-18 08:52 PM


Okay Ess,
just don't judge me because my favorite lipstick shade is Jezebel by Lancome.

I'll overlook your high and mighty expectations since you have a crush on the Queen.

I'm ribbing you.



Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
74 posted 2007-03-18 09:46 PM


favorite lipstick color = electric pink

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
75 posted 2007-03-19 08:59 AM


quote:
Little pays respect? LOL. You may be right, Essorant, but I have a funny feeling any one of those hot babes could write a better sentence than that.


But Ron, fame, talent, and wealth, do not necessarily indicate that someone is wise or that they are choosing the best path.  (of course, it doesn't necessarily imply the opposite either)  Nor do such qualities in any way detract from Essorant's assertion that public modesty is a better approach than public sensuality.  So someone is worldly wise, intelligent, and shrewd ... still they may behave in such a way that encourages wrong thinking, such as they way Hollywood "stars" generally dress and flaunt their bodies.


It's still a reasonable statement to suggest that certain modes of dress exacerbate rather than help the problem of men objectifying women for lust.  Though the problem of lust (and wanting to be lusted after) lies deeper than that, in the heart.    


Stephen.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
76 posted 2007-03-19 10:52 AM


quote:
But Ron, fame, talent, and wealth, do not necessarily indicate that someone is wise ...

Essorant has little differentiated between wisdom and intelligence, Stephen, often using the words in the same breath or interchangeably. I believe success is a good indicator for intelligence. I also believe wisdom is a very subjective illusion.

quote:
So someone is worldly wise, intelligent, and shrewd ... still they may behave in such a way that encourages wrong thinking, such as they way Hollywood "stars" generally dress and flaunt their bodies.

Wrong thinking? Ah, you're talking about morality again.



Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
77 posted 2007-03-19 11:53 AM


quote:
... suggest that certain modes of dress exacerbate rather than help the problem of men objectifying women for lust.
So you're suggesting that men can't lust after women without objectifying them, that we're just dumb beasts who turn stupid the moment the mare's in heat?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
78 posted 2007-03-19 03:09 PM


quote:
I believe success is a good indicator for intelligence. I also believe wisdom is a very subjective illusion



Why do you believe wisdom (and morality) more subjective than "success", which you spoke of with more confidence?


I am of the belief that though wisdom is always pursued imperfectly and mired in subjectivity with us (as a goal, and broken reflection), it is possessed fully by God, and therefore not merely an illusion.


quote:
Wrong thinking? Ah, you're talking about morality again.


Ah, and so I am ... at least partly.  And thus far I've found no convincing reason to dichotomize morality into a special off-limits category of human insight.  The greatest of thinkers have understood that wisdom, morality, and right living are linked, even if the strands cannot be traced with precision.  


quote:
So you're suggesting that men can't lust after women without objectifying them, that we're just dumb beasts who turn stupid the moment the mare's in heat?


I'm saying that physical lust as defined by sensuality without love or monogamous commitment IS objectification of the woman, by definition.  She is being used as an object of pleasure, without a view of personhood and soul.  What is the entire pornography industry founded on (other than money) but the dehumanizing and objectification of women?


I am making a distinction between proper sexual attraction, and "lust" ... even if that distinction is difficult to maintain in practice because of our sinful tendencies.  So no, not all sexual desire or action is lecherous or "stupid" as you put it.


Stephen  

  

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
79 posted 2007-03-19 04:06 PM


wisdom and intelligence....


Being smart is fine and dandy, but not being able to use it, that's a shame.  

I disagree with you about wisdom being subjective.  Wisdom is needed to succeed.  Whether its yours or an advisors.  It's something some poeple learn.  

Unless you meant it as an emotional widom... well I may agree with you there.  You may need to explain what you meant.  I am not sure about the context of what you said.
-Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
80 posted 2007-03-19 09:42 PM



"Wisdom is needed to succeed"

.

Juju,

That's not at all true . . .
History is replete with idiots
Doing quite well.


John


Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
81 posted 2007-03-20 12:40 PM


"History is replete with idiots Doing quite well."

Whether it was their wisdom or someone elses it  is needed.  What they did once they got to top perhaps was was them not applying there wisdom correctly.  We are human and we make mistakes.   That cliche may seem funny, but wisdom differs from intellagence in the fact that knowlage is forever while application takes constant maintenance.  

Any business person here may know of the childrens book "who stole my cheese" or "where is my cheese."  basically about constantly learning how to make choices.

many of you may know of the bible teaching of the wiseman who built his house on the rock.  It was smart of him and his family to build the house there, but not wise of his wife and children to live on the beach because it was easier.  Eventhough they had a safeplace they almost died by not preparing and being wise about what they did.  

So wisdom John, needs to be maintained.

And I assume they failed.  Failure is measured in many ways. It most likely ended  something dear.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
82 posted 2007-03-20 09:38 AM


It helps to appreciate the many different sides of wisdom, ethics, and morals.

Practicality, for instance.

Among other things, some people try to own practicality to the point of foolish, unethical, and immoral degrees (by common assertion).

Still, most people feel it’s wise to stick to the practical side of things because it’s safe, but not always as fruitful as the impractical.

Example: Most people know that Life involves risk, blind faith, wild hairs, unorthodox-out of the box and completely crazy ideas that can facilitate progress or benefit all humankind through someone’s determination or utter insanity/genius. Visionaries? Dream chasers? Most people get that, until whatever it is they accomplish proves to be intelligent of origin and design. What if it’s just entertaining to them or something they feel driven to do out of a need for change?

Damn, then the “Practicals” step in and take all the fun or merit out of it by trying to own the rights to their ideas, then marketing it to death, or they’ll figure out how to use it as a weapon. Thus showing the evil side of impracticality, but for some reason it’s not seen as unwise, unethical, or immoral, because they are already the ones making all the rules about what’s wise, ethical and moral. Huh, ain’t that some shizen?

So there is some merit to being a rule breaker: Faulty, yes, but just as faulty as always following all the rules, to me. Mistakes will be made no matter what.

No human has a cod-lock on wisdom and that’s a beautiful fact for me, thank goodness.

Does that keep us from trying to assert that we do? No.

I’d like to assess that all women who possess a wild amount of sexuality are sexual objects, especially if they flaunt it, but that’s the faultiest thing I’ve ever written in judgment, BECAUSE:

You can cover a woman up from head to toe, never let her speak, touch, or look into the eyes of another man, make her walk 10 paces behind a man, and diminish her worth to the price of an “unclean” pig, and some men will still use her as a sexual object.

I don’t give men enough power over me to decide whether I’m an object or not. I decide that. Otherwise, all men and women are damned if they do, damned if they don’t by popular assumptions. It’s just not practical or wise to me, to place so much power on an idea that it dictates our behavior beyond belief. I'm just as guilty of that as the next person, but I'm gonna step out of the box and say that I think men and women are better at making their own choices than most people want to give them credit for. We just think we could always do it better or be better or are better at whatever it is at hand. I'll be the first to admit "I'm not smarter than a 5th grader" and my elders have forgotten more than I'll ever know.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
83 posted 2007-03-20 11:13 AM


quote:
Why do you believe wisdom (and morality) more subjective than "success", which you spoke of with more confidence?

I don't. Success is equally subjective, but it is also often (not always) more easily measured. In the context of Hollywood, it is MUCH more easily measured.

quote:
And thus far I've found no convincing reason to dichotomize morality into a special off-limits category of human insight.

Of course it's not off limits, Stephen. It is, however, very personal. It's between one person, one individual, and one god. Beyond that it is no longer morality, but just interference.

quote:
I'm saying that physical lust as defined by sensuality without love or monogamous commitment IS objectification of the woman, by definition. She is being used as an object of pleasure, without a view of personhood and soul.

What if you go bowling with a friend, Stephen? No love. No monogamous commitment. Aren't you using your friend as an object of pleasure, without a view of personhood or soul?

What makes sex different than bowling?

quote:
You may need to explain what you meant. I am not sure about the context of what you said.

Juju, it is the very indefinability of the word wisdom that I think makes it an illusion.

The dictionary goes from defining wisdom as an antonym for ignorance, which I'd be perfectly willing to buy, to tying wisdom to common sense, itself a term with little meaning. When most people use the word, it seems to take on magical properties. I don't believe in magic, thank you very much.

Your own use of the word, I think, is a common one. You appear to define wisdom as the application of intelligence, as knowing what to do in a given situation. To me, that's simply a combination of intelligence and experience. Your usage, however, relies on an after-the-effect definition of wisdom. If it turns out well it was wise, if it turns out poorly it was foolish. I think you are absolutely right to point out that a previously wise man can in turn do very foolish things, which to me suggest he was never really wise at all. He was just damn lucky.



LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

84 posted 2007-03-20 01:14 PM


Rwood's Quote

I don’t give men enough power over me to decide whether I’m an object or not. I decide that.


Here here!!!!!!!! And then you go on to say


Otherwise, all men and women are damned if they do, damned if they don’t by popular assumptions. It’s just not practical or wise to me, to place so much power on an idea that it dictates our behavior beyond belief. I'm just as guilty of that as the next person, but I'm gonna step out of the box and say that I think men and women are better at making their own choices than most people want to give them credit for. We just think we could always do it better or be better or are better at whatever it is at hand. I'll be the first to admit "I'm not smarter than a 5th grader" and my elders have forgotten more than I'll ever know.


AMEN Sista

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
85 posted 2007-03-20 02:52 PM


Ron,

"Your own use of the word, I think, is a common one. You appear to define wisdom as the application of intelligence, as knowing what to do in a given situation. To me, that's simply a combination of intelligence and experience. "

NO...  experience may help some one build their wisdom, but I believe wisdom and experience are different. Experience is knowlage; something learned.  

Wisdom is the ability to use your intelligence and plan out decisions.  In my example of the wise man, He new that rivers or seas may flood.  He also new that sand wont hold a structure.  So even if it meant more work, he built the house on high ground, and on a rock.  that was wisdom.  

Just because someone makes a mistake, doesn't mean it was foolish. What would be foolish is if it the person relied on that one thing to happen. Then they are relying on luck.  I do agree with you there.  One mistake wont make someone a fool, relying on luck does.

Lee:

true.  I have come to realise that letting it get to me makes the problem worse.  There will always be some guys that use and women that want to be used and vise versa.  Instead I should work on having poeple appreciate who I am as a person.  

by the way I don't believe that being attracted to someone is treating as an object.  to me an object is something with out life.  

my reasoning why I felt that way is that the top videos on youtube is girls shaken there booty in there undies and current events.  and my question was not full enough.  perhaps I should have meant society, because it seems like some women treat themselves like they want to be used  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
86 posted 2007-03-20 06:31 PM


"Wisdom" and"intelligence" both betoken knowledge and judgement and the practicing, and practicing well thereof.  There is no reason or need whatsoever to treat these words as if they mean different, unlike, or seperate things from each other.  Indeed, they have different etymologies, but their meanings betoken the same important things.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
87 posted 2007-03-20 06:39 PM


quote:
In my example of the wise man, He knew that rivers or seas may flood.  He also knew that sand wont hold a structure.  So even if it meant more work, he built the house on high ground, and on a rock. that was wisdom.

No, Juju, that was knowledge. As your own words attest.    

BTW, do you know the rest of the story? Three years down the road there was this massive 8.2 earthquake that pretty much swallowed the man's house whole. Not to be discouraged, he moved to the desert, a thousand miles from any fault line, a thousand miles from the nearest body of water. He rebuilt his house. On sand.    

quote:
"Wisdom" and"intelligence" both betoken knowledge and judgement and the practicing, and practicing well thereof.

You need to look up the words in a dictionary, Essorant. My daughter was born with a very high level of intelligence, which was quickly apparent in the way she learned new things. She was NOT born with much knowledge, though, and suffered for years and years with very little judgment.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
88 posted 2007-03-20 06:58 PM


That's called growth, Ron.  
Yes, I do think your daughter had wisdom.  It just wasn't as grown as an old man's.  But it was, nevertheless, there.  Wisdom begins with the human, and grows in stages, as what we betoken with the word "intelligence".  I don't see why you seem to be trying to trivialize "wisdom" or make it something seperate or different.  


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
89 posted 2007-03-20 08:24 PM


quote:
That's called growth, Ron.

LOL. Is that another word you now want to claim is the same as wisdom?

Of course, by your definition, Essorant, you're agreeing that blatantly sexy women like Sharon Stone, Gina Davis, and Jodie Foster, all of whom have documented intelligence levels exceeding the norm, are also wise women -- since you think intelligence and wisdom are one and the same.

Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less. Lewis Carrol

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
90 posted 2007-03-20 08:58 PM


Ron,

I don't appreciate something I say earnestly, being mocked.


My daughter was born with a very high level of intelligence, which was quickly apparent in the way she learned new things



I was referring to what you were emphasizing here as "growth" Ron.  I wasn't suggesting that growth is wisdom or intellegence, but that wisdom/intelligence and growth both include each other.



Of course, by your definition, Essorant, you're agreeing that blatantly sexy women like Sharon Stone, Gina Davis, and Jodie Foster, all of whom have documented intelligence levels exceeding the norm, are also wise women -- since you think intelligence and wisdom are one and the same"



I never said that they didn't have intellegence/wisdom. I said the emphasis on their looks and sexual appeal instead doesn't show much respect to it.  


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
91 posted 2007-03-20 09:27 PM


You're right, Ess, I shouldn't mock your words. It's frustrating, though, when you give so little care to them.

You aren't Humpty Dumpty and I hope you'll forgive me if I continue to prefer Webster over Essorant. I think it's very difficult to define wisdom and believe Webster is missing much from common usage, but neither common usage nor Webster will ever agree that intelligence and wisdom are the same things.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
92 posted 2007-03-20 09:49 PM


Which part of the definitions defy sameness or similarity between them?  I don't see it.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
93 posted 2007-03-20 10:18 PM


Don't blame Ron for mocking, that's his trademark.

Just kidding, bucko.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
94 posted 2007-03-20 10:59 PM


Intelligence The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge

wisdom The ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting; insight.

The former is a capacity largely determined at conception. The latter is an (alleged) ability  acquired over time.

I especially like the entry at Wikipdeia for intelligence:

"Although intelligence is sometimes viewed quite broadly, psychologists typically regard the trait as distinct from creativity, personality, character, or wisdom."



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
95 posted 2007-03-20 11:48 PM


I admit I don't agree with those definitions.  
I think both wisdom and intelligence have both of what those definitions refer to.  

There is no way I may treat wisdom as only ability justly to judge, and not knowledge and application as well.  Likewise, I can't bring myself to accept intelligence itself as not implying judgement or experience.  


[This message has been edited by Essorant (03-21-2007 12:05 AM).]

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
96 posted 2007-03-21 12:06 PM


I wholeheartedly disagree Ess. My brother is living proof that your theory isn't right. His IQ is way up there, 170, 175; something ridiculously high like that. But he has no judgment and no "wisdom" in life. He got into drugs and booze; he's been arrested. One time he woke up in Georgia (lives in Florida) and had no idea how he got there. It took him five years to graduate from college. In the books, he's a genius; in life, he's an idiot. I love my brother but I won't deny he's a moron.

Einstein wasn't too bright in life either. Intelligence and proper judgment (wisdom) do not go hand-in-hand.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
97 posted 2007-03-21 01:49 PM


I still stand my ground that Wisdom and Intelligence are seperate entities.  

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
98 posted 2007-03-21 01:50 PM


I just realized how sad this thread turned out to be. It started out to discuss if women were objects or not and ended up debating their intelligence because of their attire. I just feel that that's sad. If this thread was about men I doubt very much that we'd be talking about this right now. And that's pretty sad too.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
99 posted 2007-03-21 02:14 PM


"I still stand my ground that Wisdom and Intelligence are seperate entities."

Couldn't agree more.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
100 posted 2007-03-21 04:23 PM


Ron:
quote:
I don't. Success is equally subjective, but it is also often (not always) more easily measured. In the context of Hollywood, it is MUCH more easily measured.


I think Essorant was placing Hollywood in much wider context.  It's easy enough for most of us to think (at least a little) that Hollywood culture has gone somewhat awry.  Therefore it's reasonable to question what it considers as "success" as well.  My only point was that you spoke of the success of your star examples with much more aplomb, than when you mentioned morality and wisdom.
  
  
quote:
Of course it's not off limits, Stephen. It is, however, very personal. It's between one person, one individual, and one god. Beyond that it is no longer morality, but just interference.


Seeing that most moral questions involve (and always have) how actions affect community and other individuals, I don't think it's quite as "individual" as you say.  Remember Ron, before you get huffed, we're not talking about law here (though, the assertion that morality and law have no relation is itself highly questionable), but philosophy.  The title was "Are Women objects", literally bursting with moral and philosophical implications.  Therefore your complaint of morality coming in the discussion is moot.  And unless law and constraint are presently being discussed, then your statement of "interference" is at best non-applicable, and at worst verging on paranoia.


quote:
What if you go bowling with a friend, Stephen? No love. No monogamous commitment. Aren't you using your friend as an object of pleasure, without a view of personhood or soul?

What makes sex different than bowling?


I almost responded by saying that if you don't see the difference, then my response is hardly worth it... But I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, as typically playing the Devil's Advocate.  The nature of bowling is befitting of the intimacy level of friendship (even on a very casual level), while the nature of sex is befitting of the intimacy level of committed monogamy.  When one ilk of activity is mistaken for another, problems arise.  It's actually only when the proper and moral sensibilities are not possessed, ignored, or lost altogether, that sex has been viewed in disconnection with such a commitment, or as a common amusement with no further demands than than casual "fun".  Don't get me wrong, I am a man, and a sinful one at that, and I understand how easy is that deception.  But I'm aware that it is at work.  


You've made such comments yourself on previous threads, about casual sex being less than a desirable choice.  Why your change of tune now?  Could it have anything to do with the spirit of the age which can justify just about any puritanical view previously thought of as dangerous or wrong, and says that any moral prescription (beyond one's own immediate person) in indicative of a dull mind and a lack of compassion?  At least I'm hoping you're too wise for that, and still playing the Devil's advocate for the sheer fun and discussion of it.         


Stephen        

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
101 posted 2007-03-21 04:35 PM


Oh I just thought I would add my thoughts on the Wisdom / intelligence controversy here.


Is it off base to view knowledge as knowlege, and wisdom as the rare will and ability to use knowledge properly?  Knowledge being seen as a kind of workforce, and wisdom as good management?  


This makes them kindred enough for Ron to not be quite so hard on Ess, but different enough for Ess to be more careful with his words.  


JMHO,

Stephen.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
102 posted 2007-03-21 05:36 PM


quote:
Seeing that most moral questions involve (and always have) how actions affect community and other individuals, I don't think it's quite as "individual" as you say.

Absolutely not!

Thou shalt not kill was never meant to protect the other guy, any more than "Turn the other cheek" was. Morality is all about what happens to YOU when you transgress, not what happens to the victims of your transgressions. Your relationship with your god is the ultimate expression of individuality.

If morality was meant to protect society, we would have no need of laws.

quote:
The nature of bowling is befitting of the intimacy level of friendship (even on a very casual level), while the nature of sex is befitting of the intimacy level of committed monogamy.

Befitting, Stephen? Befitting for whom? And who gets to make that determination?

By the by, while it's only marginally relevant, I think you make much too light a thing of friendship. I believe friendship, at its best, can be every bit as profound and intimate as the most binding love affair. And every bit as rewarding.

Intimacy isn't about sex. Never has been. Or would you perhaps suggest that Jesus never had a deeply intimate relationship with another human being?  

quote:
You've made such comments yourself on previous threads, about casual sex being less than a desirable choice. Why your change of tune now?

The tune hasn't changed, Stephen, only the lyrics.  

I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, however. I'm, rather, trying to demonstrate that you can't use morality to justify telling someone else what to do. If your only objection to sex is a moral one, you've already lost the argument. And even a cursory glance at history, I think, shows that to be true. Agreement relies on arguing not what's morally right, but instead arguing what's pragmatically best.

quote:
The title was "Are Women objects", literally bursting with moral and philosophical implications.

Perhaps, but then I'll readily admit the title of the thread never held any interest to me. As expressed, the answer seems entirely self evident.

Of course women are objects.

So are men. And children and puppies and kittens, too.

It's very hard to hug a concept.  


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
103 posted 2007-03-21 06:23 PM


Ed

I must disagree.  The having of wisdom or intelligence doesn't determine how fully someone uses it.  One with an inch of wisdom/intelligence often uses his inch more wisely/intelligently than one with an acre of wisdom/intelligence.  All you are saying is that your brother doesn't practice or demonstrate wisdom/intelligence in one part of his life as much as another, that doesn't prove that "wisdom" and "intelligence" are seperate things.  


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
104 posted 2007-03-21 07:50 PM


Come on man, you're really stretching here.

"your brother doesn't practice or demonstrate wisdom/intelligence in one part of his life as much as another, that doesn't prove that "wisdom" and "intelligence" are seperate things."

He doesn't practice wisdom because he doesn't have it but he has ample amounts of intelligence. So yes they are separate things. I live in the south, and you can talk to any old "southern hick" who is as wise as Socrates but still can't multiply. Yeah Ess, they're separate things.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
105 posted 2007-03-21 08:04 PM


I was wondering Ron: what do you have against morality? Every time Steph mentions it or uses it in his argument, you write it off as irrelevant. And I'm asking very sincerely too. Are you just uber liberal or an atheist? I'm just curious, that's all; nothing to get ticked off about.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
106 posted 2007-03-21 08:29 PM


Edward, I believe very strongly in morality. For me.

I won't, however, ever expect you to abide by MY morality because, when push comes to shove, I won't allow you to shove YOUR morality down my throat. For morality to have any intrinsic meaning, it has to be voluntary. You have to choose to do what you believe is right, else it stops being morality and becomes law. We need the law, don't get me wrong, but the law only serves to protect. Morality serves to enrich.



Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
107 posted 2007-03-21 08:49 PM


Whoa now...

"I won't, however, ever expect you to abide by MY morality because, when push comes to shove, I won't allow you to shove YOUR morality down my throat."

What's that supposed to mean, man? I'm not shoving MY morality down YOUR throat. I don't think you even know the extent of MY morality. I just noticed that you don't like using morality in arguments with Steph so I asked. I don't think we've ever duked it out about morality.

Easy butch... lol, jeez.


"You have to choose to do what you believe is right, else it stops being morality and becomes law."

I agree 100%. See now, maybe we're not totally different.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
108 posted 2007-03-21 10:50 PM


Edward, I was using "you" in the Universal sense, not the specific one, both in that sentence as well as later when I said, "You have to choose to do what you believe is right." Similarly, when I said, "We need the law," I was speaking of the greater we, not just you and I.

Sorry if I wasn't clear and you misunderstood.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
109 posted 2007-03-22 12:45 PM


"He doesn't practice wisdom because he doesn't have it but he has ample amounts of intelligence. So yes they are separate things. I live in the south, and you can talk to any old "southern hick" who is as wise as Socrates but still can't multiply. Yeah Ess, they're separate things."

That to me is still just saying someone may use or show wisdom/intelligence in one way more than in another, such as in words and theories more than in deeds and practice.  And just because your brother doesn't demonstrate using intelligence/wisdom in a more judgemental and thoroughgoing way throughout his life doesn't at all mean he has no judgement or ability to judge or improve.  No one is just a knowledge-processor.   Everyone, whether you like it or not has wisdom/intelligence (including judgement) to some extent.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
110 posted 2007-03-22 01:42 AM


A man that has an inch of wit
is wont to take good care of it.

But he that has an acre's lot
has many parts that stray and rot.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
111 posted 2007-03-22 02:15 AM


Ron:
quote:
Morality is all about what happens to YOU when you transgress, not what happens to the victims of your transgressions.
  

If it's all about what happens to me rather than my victim, then why is it a moral transgression at all?  Seems you're interpreting morality through the lens of philosophical egoism.  But you've mistaken the windows for the foundation of the house.

quote:
If morality was meant to protect society, we would have no need of laws.


Oh you've got me ... I admit, it would a moral outrage, a monstrous irresponsibility, and a crying shame NOT to have laws.         Naked pragmatism can never in reality be so cleanly resected from its moral moorings, as you've allegedly done in your arguments.


Actually it's our inablity to be moral, that leads to the necessity of law, giving the law an inverse relationship (but a relationship nonetheless) to the moral question.  

quote:
Befitting, Stephen? Befitting for whom? And who gets to make that determination?


Ultimately God does.  But it's certainly noteworthy that every moral system (and every major religion) has viewed mere casual sex as unwise and immoral (even if not embracing in totality the ideal of Christian monogamy).  It is still a majority which has recognized that sex is more than a thrill ride to be taken at whim, as something potentially dangerous in proportion to being rapturous.  Fine things come with unique and uncommon requirements of responsibility, by form and nature.  


quote:
By the by, while it's only marginally relevant, I think you make much too light a thing of friendship. I believe friendship, at its best, can be every bit as profound and intimate as the most binding love affair. And every bit as rewarding.



It's not irrelevant.  But you have misread me if you think that.  I only said that bowling was proper to the most casual of friendships, or even aquaintences.  Arguing from the least, not the ideal, to make a point ... namely that bowling and sex differ far more than just technically.  


Otherwise, I begrudge no one valuing friendship as a high and rewarding relationship.  I don't think a true friend (with no romantic inclinations or commitment) would have sex with a friend ... but even if if it happened and the friendship flourished, it would be in spite of the sex, which is adverse to friendship and goodwill where no romantic commitment is present.  


Even Rod's "Maggie Mae" lyrics contained that much insight.


I'm not arguing a hierarchy of marriage over friendship.  I'm arguing that some things are suited for one, and some are suited for the other, due to their differing nature.  Experience and sages alike have confirmed it over and over, in spite of our tendency to want to follow our baser impulses.  Let me speak, at least, to the egoist in you, that it is short term self interest rather than the longer view.  


quote:
Intimacy isn't about sex. Never has been.



I didn't say that intimacy was necessarily about sex, but that sex was about intimacy.

And C'mon, the life of Jesus doesn't prove your point, but mine.  He was abstinent precisely because he never married.  That didn't rule out intimacy for him, only the romantic kind and the sexual expression of it.  (of course he didn't reject those things as generally unlawful or wrong, only as particularly incongruent with what he came to accomplish for the Father, and for us).


quote:
you can't use morality to justify telling someone else what to do.


Why not?  Is it wrong to do so?  Are you telling me what to do?


quote:
If your only objection to sex is a moral one, you've already lost the argument.


Who said I objected to sex?  Maybe you're arguing with someone else?


quote:
Agreement relies on arguing not what's morally right, but instead arguing what's pragmatically best.



Firstly, perfect agreement is not something I always expect, or even think is necessary in the now.  


Secondly, since when did people agree on what's pragmatically best?


Thirdly, your usual method is to dissect pragmatic reality from moral truth.  But like pulling apart a miniature flower with boxing gloves, there's little left to admire when you're done.  Morality and Pragmatism, if not one and the same (which oddly enough is sometimes your argument too) are at least of the same blood-line, and won't be made strangers without consequences.  


quote:
Of course women are objects.

So are men. And children and puppies and kittens, too.

It's very hard to hug a concept.



I've got to think you're joking.  Because I'm thinking to myself: implicit in the title is the question whether women are treated as mere objects, whether women are MORE than objects, or treated so.  It's ontologically obvious that they are not LESS than objects.


Stephen.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

112 posted 2007-03-22 02:08 PM


Ron Said...

By the by, while it's only marginally relevant, I think you make much too light a thing of friendship. I believe friendship, at its best, can be every bit as profound and intimate as the most binding love affair. And every bit as rewarding.


AMEN!!!!!!!!

Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
113 posted 2007-03-22 03:09 PM


quote:
But it's certainly noteworthy that every moral system (and every major religion) has viewed mere casual sex as unwise and immoral (even if not embracing in totality the ideal of Christian monogamy).  It is still a majority which has recognized that sex is more than a thrill ride to be taken at whim, as something potentially dangerous in proportion to being rapturous.  Fine things come with unique and uncommon requirements of responsibility, by form and nature.
That's hardly supported by the propogation of sex in popular media. I'd like to find where you discovered the majority's opinion on casual sex.

I think a lot of people make a mistake by assigning value only to those things which are unique, special, by their very nature. For example, having a monogomous, intimate relationship. There is true, high value in that relationship, but it doesn't negate the value in a less meaningful, casual relationship, only provides a contrast. I submit that without the possibility of a casual relationship, the monogomous relationship loses perceieved value. Just because Ben and Jerry's ice cream is the best, doesn't mean you can't enjoy Foster Farms once in a while and appreciate it on its own level.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
114 posted 2007-03-22 06:00 PM


Christopher:
quote:
That's hardly supported by the propogation of sex in popular media.


Since when did attitudes portrayed by Popular media become something to emulate, or to trust?  Popular media is not only the representation of popular opinion, but a shaper of it.  And any entertainment appeal to unrestrained desire, is apt to be popular, because of our weaknesses, not our strengths.  Proof of this is the fact that many people will watch graphic portrayals of a sexual nature, and yet wouldn't do those things themselves.  The label "entertainment" allows us (often in an unhealthy way) to lay our convictions aside without abandoning them by a more visible action, and to change them (or have them changed for us) ever so slowly.  There's a reason that the journey from Elvis' scandalous hips on Ed Sullivan, to the practically pornographic MTV has been a somewhat gradual one. Leaven needs time to work.  My point?  Popular media doesn't necessarily represent the healthiest views of society, but sometimes the ones most suited for instant gratification ... something which even amoralistic (allegedly) egoism recognizes as unprofitable.  Actually morality just goes a step beyond egoism and explains the why.  
    
quote:
There is true, high value in that relationship, but it doesn't negate the value in a less meaningful, casual relationship, only provides a contrast.



I am only expressing the proper relational framework of sex.  I am not devaluing "casual" relationships, if you mean friendship.  Rather I am speaking against a casual approach to sex.  

Neither Am I suggesting that friendship is not in it's own way, just as profound as an intimate marriage relationship.    


Stephen.  

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
115 posted 2007-03-22 07:51 PM


Intimacy can be presant between friends.  I took a class on intimacy jeesh....

-Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
116 posted 2007-03-22 07:56 PM


"just because your brother doesn't demonstrate using intelligence/wisdom in a more judgemental and thoroughgoing way throughout his life doesn't at all mean he has no judgement or ability to judge or improve."

Ha, you obviously don't know my brother.

And what of my "old hick/wise man" reference? What about those men that have all the wisdom one could want but can't spell correctly, can't speak properly, can't handle complicated or even simplified mathematical equations, or can't even form a complete sentence?

Just because I have a motorcycle doesn't mean I have a helmet. Let's say the bike represents intelligence and the helmet is wisdom. You can ride a motorcycle without a helmet but it's not a good idea.

What about child prodigies? These kids are smarter than you, me and Ron combined. Do you really think these kids are wise? Do you think they have good judgment? You can't possibly, they're only children.

"No one is just a knowledge-processor."

I beg to differ.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
117 posted 2007-03-22 08:04 PM


"No one is just a knowledge-processor."

Need I mention Kim Peek?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
118 posted 2007-03-22 08:14 PM


"Do you think they have good judgment?"

In some things yes, in other things no.  If one drives a motorcycle well, then he/she has both good skill and judgement as far as driving the motorcycle.  But if one doesn't wear a helmet, I wouldn't say he/she has good skill and judgement in that respect about safety and taking precautions.


Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
119 posted 2007-03-22 08:21 PM


quote:
Popular media is not only the representation of popular opinion, but a shaper of it.
Progression? By agreeing that media is a reflector of popular opinion, you've negated your stance that the majority of people recognize sex as more than a "thrill ride."

And - I should have been more clear - I DID mean casual sex, not simply friendship. I respect others for their desire (if it IS a conscious desire and not a carry-over cross on the shoulders from a forcibly imposed morality) to maintain monogomous sexual relationships throughout their lives, foregoing the temptation of casual sex. I feel, however, that if you put two consenting adults together and they want to have some physical, casual fun, there's nothing wrong with it. From a pragmatic perspective, it warrants one to be cautious (diseases), but in no way demeans or lessens their value as a person or a friend. It's just fun, kind of like having a good bowling game is fun. I think the problems around sex tend from those who make it out to be too big of a deal than it really is. Sex is just sex.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
120 posted 2007-03-22 08:24 PM


You're ignoring my key points.

And what would a child have "good judgment" in?

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
121 posted 2007-03-22 10:13 PM


When a child makes a good choice or does well at something.  From putting the right sock on the right foot or the left on the left foot, to brushing the teeth, to saying "thank you", to sharing a toy with a friend that doesn't have one, trying to stay in the lines when colouring a picture.  You may say these things are just memory and mechanism, but I won't be able believe it.  


Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
122 posted 2007-03-22 10:32 PM


"From putting the right sock on the right foot or the left on the left foot, to brushing the teeth"

LOL, clearly we're talking about two different things. Because if you think putting a sock on and brushing your teeth constitutes as wisdom then I have nothing more to say.

And still you ignore my key points. Is it because they prove your theory wrong?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
123 posted 2007-03-22 11:59 PM


Christopher:
quote:
Progression? By agreeing that media is a reflector of popular opinion, you've negated your stance that the majority of people recognize sex as more than a "thrill ride."


Not really.  I think it may reflect more what producers know will sell.  And judging from a great tendency of people to watch as a fascination (representationally) what they would disagree with in actuality, shows that popular media may be more an expression of our baser tendencies (agreed with morally or not).  Remember Christopher, that I believe that the biggest problem we all have is not immoral or incorrect beliefs (though I don't deny this possibility), but acting against what we actually already approve of in our saner states of mind ... acting contrary to our own standards, and then half-convincing ourselves that it's okay after the fact in a kind of fig-leaf fashion.  The majority of people really do recognize to some degree that casual sex is not a good choice, whether or not they indulge.


quote:
I respect others for their desire (if it IS a conscious desire and not a carry-over cross on the shoulders from a forcibly imposed morality) to maintain monogomous sexual relationships throughout their lives, foregoing the temptation of casual sex.


I'm not speaking of morality as forcibly imposed.  There is the very real free option of acting wrongly as opposed to rightly.  This freedom however doesn't preclude recognizing which is which, and recognizing morality as obligatory if not inexorable.  Obligatory and "forced" are not the same.  I am obliged to tip a waitress that served me well, or to keep my appointments.  That doesn't mean someone is forcing me to do so.


The thing is, when you speak of desires, as opposed and conflicting, there has to be an arbiter between the two beyond the mere grip of desire ... and that is where morality comes in.  The very fact that you spoke of forgoing "temptation" tells me that there is a recognized standard, in which one way is really better (ethically and practically), and in which the other is a diversion or ambush.    


quote:
I feel, however, that if you put two consenting adults together and they want to have some physical, casual fun, there's nothing wrong with it. From a pragmatic perspective, it warrants one to be cautious (diseases), but in no way demeans or lessens their value as a person or a friend.


I think you are talking yourself out of a possessed insight you already have ... namely that such casual rendezvous of a sexual nature, complicate a "friendship" in a way it was never meant to be, and will (by it's very nature) lead to problems.  The emotional powers of sexuality are geared toward that understanding, like it or not.  And if this nature or quality of sex is denied, in the guise of a cheap thrill, one will acknowledge sooner or later that it wasn't helpful to friendship, but hurtful.  


There's a reason why "fornication" and "adultery" have been viewed in the particular way they have been, beyond the avoidance of disease.  These personal, emotional, and spiritual realities surrounding sex are ignored only at a significant cost.


Don't you think derogatory terms like "loose", "womanizer", and the like, though possibly uncharitable if said in the wrong way (and for the wrong reason), have a truth behind the words?  By your harmless view of casual sex, you would have to say "no".


quote:
It's just fun, kind of like having a good bowling game is fun. I think the problems around sex tend from those who make it out to be too big of a deal than it really is. Sex is just sex.



It's the "just" part of your last sentence which saddens me ... and really presents the strongest argument against it's own conclusion.  


I'm curious (if you are married) how your wife might respond if you told her plainly that sex was "just sex".  


Stephen.      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (03-23-2007 12:11 AM).]

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
124 posted 2007-03-23 12:33 PM


So Chris, are you saying that sodomy and soccer are just two casual pastimes?

Damn, and I thought sex was supposed to be special.

You know what that means? I can become a monk now. Hell, I won't be missing out on much. Right? I'll just play soccer or foosball.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
125 posted 2007-03-23 10:53 AM


"LOL, clearly we're talking about two different things. Because if you think putting a sock on and brushing your teeth constitutes as wisdom then I have nothing more to say."

Yea, I'm talking in with an evolutionary context, wisdom being "younger" "simpler", and "growing up" in stages.  It doesn't just come in the shape of adult, complex, or academic.  

"then I have nothing more to say."

So be it.  

"And still you ignore my key points. Is it because they prove your theory wrong?"

No. I felt my earlier points addressed that direction already.  I get tired of me repeating myself too


Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
126 posted 2007-03-23 11:36 AM


I think she would agree with me, Stephen. Sex is just sex. For my wife and I, the "special" part isn't in the motions themselves, it's in the concurrent emotions developed from our relationship.

For what it's worth, I can see how you would want to believe, within the framework you're operating from, that I just try to talk myself into a retroactive acceptance of casual sex, when that just has never been the case in my life. I've lived a very free sexual life, casual to the extreme in many cases. I have had and maintained many friendships that involved casual sex at some points. I won't deny that some friendships have unravelled following a night of relatively casual sex. I firmly believe that it wasn't the sex, however, that hurt the relationship, but the desire on one side or the other to change what was previously a plutonic relationship into one more intimate.

It may be that my experiences have given me a persopective that you can only guess at and assign emotions or justifications that you feel you might in the same situation. I can understand that - premises can only predict based on your own wisdom (intelligence + experience?), but will often fail in practice.

Soccer and sodomy? Are they they same? I won't suggest that we feel them the same, but at their base, they are equivalent physical actions done for enjoyment when there is no larger emotional connection.

I don't suggest, either, that sex can't be much more than casual, with a committed (not necessarily monogomous) relationship where people share deep feelings. It's an enhancement that's not to be ignored.

Juju
Member Elite
since 2003-12-29
Posts 3429
In your dreams
127 posted 2007-03-23 02:06 PM


Sex is just sex, but it is intimacy that makes  sex "special."  Unfortunitly to little poeple these days realize that.

-Juju

-Juju

-"So you found a girl
Who thinks really deep thougts
What's so amazing about really deep thoughts " Silent all these Years, Tori Amos

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
128 posted 2007-03-23 03:54 PM



["then I have nothing more to say."

So be it.]

I'm not letting you off that easily. lol I'm just kidding mate. I'm actually really enjoying our discussion.  

"No. I felt my earlier points addressed that direction already."  

Mmm, I don't think so. You didn't touch my "wise old southern dude" point (one that I think makes my case.) Nor did you go near my Kim Peek reference (which, in my opinion, shatters your "no one can be a knowledge processor" point.)


_____________________

Chris,

I can't really contest with what you're saying because that is your personal belief and I can't say otherwise. But it is my belief that I don't agree with your belief. lol. I guess we'll just leave it at that.  



Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296
Purgatorial Incarceration
129 posted 2007-03-23 04:36 PM


And that's fine, Ed. I'm not trying to create any converts. I'm happy with who I am and don't feel remorse over my perspectives. The nicety of freedom is that it affords one the ability to make their own choices. I just like sharing my opinions.
Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
130 posted 2007-03-23 04:48 PM


Now that... I do agree with. I, too, enjoy sharing my opinions.


Right on brother.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
131 posted 2007-03-23 08:11 PM


Christopher:
quote:
I think she would agree with me, Stephen. Sex is just sex.


Then she would feel okay about you having sex with someone else besides her?  If you say "no" then I'd say there's a problem with your view of sex.


quote:
For my wife and I, the "special" part isn't in the motions themselves, it's in the concurrent emotions developed from our relationship.
  

Then those mere "motions" could be had with anyone outside of your relationship with no objections from either of you?

quote:
I won't deny that some friendships have unravelled following a night of relatively casual sex. I firmly believe that it wasn't the sex, however, that hurt the relationship, but the desire on one side or the other to change what was previously a plutonic relationship into one more intimate.



It seems like you're contradicting yourself.  The definition of platonic (in the sense that you're using) is:  purely spiritual; free from sensual desire, esp. in a relationship between two persons of the opposite sex.  


Your response illustrates my point that those kinds of intimate emotions and desires (and hurts and disappointments) are part and parcel of sexual intimacy, by it's very nature.  I'm criticizing your view on the grounds that your expectation (that such an intimate act should be taken "casually", without complicating feelings) doesn't match reality.  


Is the fault the sentimentality of one partner, or the callousness of the other?  The sentiments correspond to sex, the callousness doesn't.  And that's my whole point.


quote:
I don't suggest, either, that sex can't be much more than casual, with a committed (not necessarily monogomous) relationship where people share deep feelings. It's an enhancement that's not to be ignored.


Only problem with that is, it is the nature of a woman (and a man, including you I'll bet) to desire monogamous commitment from a lover.  And problems arise when it is denied or ignored.  In what sense does "commitment" enhance sexuality, if it is not to avoid adulterous forays and maintain an exclusively special kind of love?    


JuJu:
quote:
Sex is just sex, but it is intimacy that makes  sex "special."  Unfortunitly to little poeple these days realize that.


True.  I never suggested that sex could not become (by a wrong view of things) "just sex".  I only suggested it represents a spoiled version of what sex was meant to be, and may help to spoil us in the process.  


More later,

Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
132 posted 2007-03-24 10:35 PM


.


If sex were all
then every trembling hand
could make us squeak like dolls
the wished for words


Wallace Stevens


.

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
133 posted 2007-04-07 04:33 PM


laugh.

Male bonding/communication is so interesting. The volley of argument and philosophies. One can sense the flex of male brain cells at work.

I like it when yall share things you normally wouldn't because it's either incriminating or makes you appear vulnerable. And when yall stress a point, wow. I don't know why, but it's just sexy and flattering to you as men...unless you see women as nothing but objects.

haha.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
134 posted 2007-04-19 07:47 PM


.


'To be born woman is to know --
Although they do not talk of it at school --
That we must labour to be beautiful.'


Yeats


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
135 posted 2007-04-20 09:42 PM


"if man treats woman like a queen, he will be a King. If man treats woman as a object, he will be a tool."
moondogz
Member
since 2007-05-01
Posts 397
Great White North
136 posted 2007-05-21 09:53 AM


yes unfortunately Juju women seem to be
going backwards instead of forward. It seems
to me that women's liberation has given way
to women's devolution. The role models for
young women today are who..Paris Hilton?
Maybe it's just what's in the media. Personally I feel that until we men experience some kind of spiritual awakening this will do nothing but continue. Depressing? Maybe.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
137 posted 2007-05-21 11:39 AM


quote:
Maybe it's just what's in the media. Personally I feel that until we men experience some kind of spiritual awakening this will do nothing but continue.


You may have a point dog, about the media. I'm starting to think that men aren't as big of a factor in this as I thought. Men can't ultimately "fix" this problem. Only women can. I'm starting to think that the objectification of women in the media can only be “blamed” on the women in the media. Women who present themselves in that fashion on television and in films are doing it on their own accord. No one is holding a gun to their head; no one is forcing them. The women in pornography, as well as the men in pornography, are there because they choose to be, want to be and/or agree to be. The scarcely dressed ladies in rap music videos are in those videos because they are being paid for it and they willingly do it, and possibly even do it for attention. Yes, a man dressed them like that and told them to move like that in the video, but the women are doing it on their own free will. If women stopped agreeing to be presented in such an inappropriate fashion in the media, they would cease to be looked at as objects. Their choice to be looked at like that is ruining the image of all women. We have a new generation that looks at ordinary women the same way as women in the media. We have these little dudes seeing women as objects because that’s what they hear in music or see on television and in movies. And we have these little girls who see women depicted in this fashion and think that it’s ok or think that that’s what expected of them. It goes back to good parenting.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

moondogz
Member
since 2007-05-01
Posts 397
Great White North
138 posted 2007-05-21 04:05 PM


Edward; yes u do make some very valid points. I was thinking about this just
a few minutes ago and thought how young people are being bombarded by sexual images
at a younger and younger age. When i was growing up in the 50's and 60's I was quite sheltered from this "brainwashing". The rap music scene and their disrespect for women certainly adds fuel to the fire. Also as you say women need to accept some responsibility. I don't think we'll be able to respect others until we respect ourselves.

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
139 posted 2007-05-21 07:08 PM


quote:
thought how young people are being bombarded by sexual images at a younger and younger age.


I hear ya. I'm discouraged to a point of being angry with our current society.

quote:
I don't think we'll be able to respect others until we respect ourselves.


Couldn't agree with you more.

Head Cheese & Chicken Feet

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
140 posted 2007-05-24 06:47 PM


.


"I was beautiful. Now, because I am old, I take no shame in so saying."

Lillie Langtry


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
141 posted 2007-05-24 08:17 PM


"you say that I am ugly?
but my mom loves me dearly."


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
142 posted 2007-05-26 05:36 AM


Isn't it true that Maud Gonne caused Yeats much frustration in her resistence to his illicit sexual advances?


Stephen

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
143 posted 2007-05-28 04:16 AM


To the original question.
Juju’s question probably has a yes answer.

God made Adam out off earth and Eve out of Adam’s rib and flesh. Woman is made to be soft and curved, quite different from man. Besides managing the garden, God told them to be fruitful and increase in number. So naturally, Man wants woman and woman wants man…for the numbers. The first crime Eve committed was something pleasant to eyes. So, later something pleasant to eyes is very important in earthly life.

When man watches a beautiful woman…she is seen as an object at first. Same as when woman watches a handsome man…as an object too at first.

What is the definition of beauty? I think that it is based on individual point of view.

latearrival
Member Ascendant
since 2003-03-21
Posts 5499
Florida
144 posted 2007-06-03 11:06 AM


Edward:
_____________________________________________"You may have a point dog, about the media. I'm starting to think that men aren't as big of a factor in this as I thought. Men can't ultimately "fix" this problem. Only women can. I'm starting to think that the objectification of women in the media can only be “blamed” on the women in the media. Women who present themselves in that fashion on television and in films are doing it on their own accord. No one is holding a gun to their head; no one is forcing them. The women in pornography, as well as the men in pornography, are there because they choose to be, want to be and/or agree to be. The scarcely dressed ladies in rap music videos are in those videos because they are being paid for it and they willingly do it, and possibly even do it for attention. Yes, a man dressed them like that and told them to move like that in the video, but the women are doing it on their own free will. If women stopped agreeing to be presented in such an inappropriate fashion in the media, they would cease to be looked at as objects. Their choice to be looked at like that is ruining the image of all women. We have a new generation that looks at ordinary women the same way as women in the media. We have these little dudes seeing women as objects because that’s what they hear in music or see on television and in movies. And we have these little girls who see women depicted in this fashion and think that it’s ok or think that that’s what expected of them. It goes back to good parenting. "
__________________________________________
Edward, you are so right here. Even eight year olds are speaking to young girls as if they were objects..They are learning so many
things  that I do not know how to show the light to them... thank you for understanding. martyjo


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
145 posted 2007-06-03 06:46 PM


.

Stephanos,

She is also reputed to have
joined in an event leading to the
birth of another child while lying
on the tomb of her first.

“Manners are especially the need of the plain.
The pretty can get away with anything.”

Evelyn Waugh


Since you brought it up

(-;

John

PS,  She was also in favor of Yeats’ proposed marrying of her daughter
but the poor girl was too intimidated by his notoriety then
to comsent.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
146 posted 2007-06-05 07:30 PM


.


A Troubador's Song

"So through his eyes love attains the heart.

For the eyes are the scouts of the heart.
And the eyes go reconnoitering for what it would please the heart to possess.

And when they are in full accord and firm all three in one resolve,
at that time perfect love is born from what the eyes have made welcome to the heart.

For as all true loves know, love is perfect kindness which is born, there is not doubt, from the heart and the eyes."

- from Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth, Love and the Goddess.


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
147 posted 2007-06-05 07:43 PM


Sir Yi Huan

Typical man's view.

"woman views man as the object of bank, roof, and handyman. no poetic terms, sorry!!"
--me.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
148 posted 2007-06-06 06:39 PM


.


Juju,

Let’s approach this differently.
Are women symbols?

In asking the question I am deliberately
referring to the concept of the Eternal Feminine.

After all, how can we expect anyone to know us
as more than objects or symbols when we don’t,
(or even can’t),  know ourselves much better, our
upbringing and/or surroundings distorting a clear view?

Who are you that would have been true
born a hundred years or a millennium before or after?


John

.


PS

I know this strikes against the pride of being unique
and individual, yet is it so bad to be a current expression
of and within a good timeless continuum?


.




Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
149 posted 2007-06-06 07:45 PM


No because symbols are not "agents" of active life, conciousness, choice, or action.  They are just tokens used to refer to things.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
150 posted 2007-06-06 08:09 PM


What next?

Are women fruit?



Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
151 posted 2007-06-07 08:42 PM


.


Has the idea that women
are no different from men
done in general
more harm or good?

Did women's liberation
in fact free men
of any sense of duty,
responsibility or obligation
by which, as opposed to
power, confrontations with danger, killing
dragons or each other, they could define
their beings as men?

If indeed women are no different
from men it just then becomes what body
you chose to have sex with.


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
152 posted 2007-06-08 12:36 PM


Has the idea that women
are no different from men
done in general
more harm or good?

--of course. children lost both parents.

Did women's liberation
in fact free men
of any sense of duty,
responsibility or obligation
by which, as opposed to
power, confrontations with danger, killing
dragons or each other, they could define
their beings as men?

---obligation is still there.
---responsibility is more. beside job, he has to cook his own food, do his own laundry, clean his own house and take care other people's kids...and still be a physical man.


If indeed women are no different
from men it just then becomes what body
you chose to have sex with.

-no. even that responsibility that some men want to shoulder.

there is not much difference between women and man(to me it is a laughable but true situation). all the organ transplant, the artificial organs, the clones .if one day, a human clone is made..then forever gone your last noun.


rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
153 posted 2007-06-12 02:12 PM


quote:
Has the idea that women
are no different from men
done in general
more harm or good?


Who believes women are no different from men?

I like being different, not just from men but from anyone else on the planet.
So saith my DNA.

I believe the applicable word here is "better."

Women are no better at being human than men
and men are no better at being human than women.
It takes everybody to make a world. Even fruits.

That's sort of why we enjoy the implications of equal rights. The private sectors still speak loudly for themselves.

Men let us believe we have equal rights, on paper, and women let men believe we actually believe what's written. That's okay. We're making headway on the NASDAQ, baby, and it ain't Barbie. "Biotechniciennes" are my heroines. Oh Gawd. Now they'll come out with Biotech Barbie.

quote:
Did women's liberation
in fact free men
of any sense of duty,
responsibility or obligation


Same question, same answer.
/pip/Forum6/HTML/001469-2.html

I beg you to think of your question. Freedom from oppression really does upset those that depend heavily on slave production. What kind of a man with any sense of duty, respect, responsibility, obligation, or any kind of honor would allow the oppression of another in good conscience? The Tyrants being discussed in Brad's other thread.

Perhaps someone in a drunken-vampirical state could justify why one human is less human compared to him/herself, but I couldn't/wouldn't call that person honorable.

quote:
by which, as opposed to
power, confrontations with danger, killing
dragons or each other, they could define
their beings as men?


That defines Men?

Your questions are delightfully plagued, (dragons, et alii) with old adage from a time when most men had rites of passage from the shadows of their fathers, through the keen eyes of the community, with bare-handed work or hard honest management of the family business. War aside; men were as good as their word. The apron strings were cut, not by the mothers but by the sons. This was all-important to them. Can we say this is so now?

How did women do that all by themselves?

Many young men/women are sitting at home today at 25+, playing video games and plotting their next gathering of peers with their parent’s money. This could include an all night jam session with WHAZUPBI*ATCHES or being in an episode of Girls Gone Wild. Then again it could be a chess game at the civic center? Who knows?
  
Granted: The Feminist movement moved through and with any movement things can get constipated or run off…topic? I never trust anyone who screams out who they are for they are not convinced. I don't support many of their views because they are demeaning to men. I happen to love the way I was conceived.

It's not like women have had forever to try and get it right. We're still trying to learn how to learn and engage with others what we've learned. Take this forum as an example. How many women do you see posting? Could it be because it's philosophy and women shy away from critical thinking due to critical reception? It's easier just to remain quiet, make nice, and play purty or get a sugar daddy so we never have to think about anything beyond hair & tan appts. again. Not my call.

I say blast it all. It's easy to criticize, but to encourage, explore, build bridges? Even in the archives & annals of philosophy, men might be ashamed at having so much freedom all this time and doing nothing with it besides remodeling walls. We should help each other tear them down for good, for the good of all, not just one or the other.

I don't support or buy into personas who flaunt their hoohaas across the media as if it's something the world wants to see. I don't blame a certain party for it either. The media presents. People buy. If no one's buying. Hmm. The persona becomes a washed-up hoohaa fiddler without a song or dance. After a while, people might have a renewed appreciation for the Botticelli's and Michelangelo's of the world.

What you've already said is important:

quote:
Men can't ultimately "fix" this problem. Only women can. I'm starting to think that the objectification of women in the media can only be "blamed" on the women in the media.


Some women are doing exactly what they think men want. If they are wrong, how many men will stand up and say, "That's not what I want."

quote:
Also as you say women need to accept some responsibility. I don't think we'll be able to respect others until we respect ourselves.


Responsibility and respect is a definite issue. What Ron stated earlier about brick terms "you don't get to set those," on what's morally right, correct, universally applicable, etc. And I'm not trying to pass judgment on anyone's aspirations in life, but when others are hurt by the images projected, it's time to look into what's going on. I personally feel it boils down to some type of competition. Women are competing, no holds barred, with each other.

quote:
symbols are not "agents" of active life, conciousness, choice, or action.  They are just tokens used to refer to things.


I believe you, but some young women truly do want to go to Hollywood and become sex symbols. Period.
They will surgically alter their figures and faces specifically to fit the mold. It is their goal and their dream. Why? I have no say. Just as they have no say over my goals and dreams.

quote:
Isn't it true that Maud Gonne caused Yeats much frustration in her resistance to his illicit sexual advances?


Very clever. Pursuit, again. Dream on dreams. He wanted her no matter what she did, who she was with or where she was in life. Though if she’d given in? The poetry that would not have been written.

I once heard some guy on TV stating something along the lines of: "Women rule sexual tension." "Men set the standards of Romance."

Does anyone feel there is any truth or strategy to this?

lightkeeper
Member
since 2006-09-13
Posts 100
pluto
154 posted 2007-06-24 07:20 AM


We as women are selfless ..... we give with entirety ourselves.... But we do this by choice and of free will..... so somewhere down the road in our lives.. who can we blame .... what in general happens to us ..we allow. When we feel our heart has been broken... we by choice allowed for someone to hurt us... when a man or people take us for granted ... we have allowed them to do that and on many occasion allow it to continue... Why do we allow this and these things to happen time and time again ?... should we build a wall around our hearts.... should we then cast our hearts of  stone ?only WE deep down know WHY.... but what is truely beautiful ... is that by free will we choose to experience these feelings.... happiness,sadness,love,hate... but without them we would not know the difference .. we would not know the feelings... we would not know what we like or what we dont like.... these feelings come from the same source.. they are emotions... that distinguish the difference between life and death... Personally i have no regrets for my experiences, and the  emotions i have felt and still do feel because i choose to of free will ... They are a clear indication that tell me I AM ALIVE and when i die .. i shall do so knowing i truely LIVED :O)  Peace and love
   BernadetteXXX

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
155 posted 2007-06-24 11:29 AM


quote:
Some women are doing exactly what they think men want. If they are wrong, how many men will stand up and say, "That's not what I want."



That is not what I want.

“Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.”

Edward Grim
Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154
Greenville, South Carolina
156 posted 2007-06-24 02:40 PM


quote:
We as women are selfless ..... we give with entirety ourselves....


No offense lightkeeper, but this is the type of attitude I can't stand. Not all women are selfless and totally giving and angels. I have known some very selfish, wicked and downright cruel women in my life. I've known more men that meet that description (most of the men I'm related to) but that doesn't erase the women I've known like that. You can't just pick a gender to be the morally superior faction and the victims because no matter what, both are human. And humans aren't perfect and too far from it.

And it's not just women that get hurt and get their "hearts broken." Men have had their fair share of problems as well. Everybody inflicts pain and gets hurt once or twice in their life. Believe me.

quote:
is that by free will we choose to experience these feelings.... happiness,sadness,love,hate


Without these, we wouldn't be human; we'd be plaster.

Have a good one...   Ed

“Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.”

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
157 posted 2007-06-24 03:42 PM


smiles.





Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
158 posted 2007-06-24 05:14 PM


.


I think women far more readily understand
vulnerability, (which every woman has no choice
to experience), to mortal reality than do men, so that in
their lives there is a greater need to believe
in something beyond themselves.  I’m not saying
they are more fortunate as a consequence, but I
will not deny the impact and the difference.


.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
159 posted 2007-06-24 05:44 PM


Why?  

How do you attribute "more" or "less" understanding to a group based on its gender?  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
160 posted 2007-06-25 03:55 PM


.


"vulnerability, (which every woman has no choice
to experience), to mortal reality "


.

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
161 posted 2007-06-25 06:35 PM



agree!

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (06-25-2007 10:44 PM).]

sullivanthepoet.com
Member
since 2007-06-28
Posts 154
Devon, England
162 posted 2007-07-02 04:11 PM


  As a man... There is vulbnerability in all men. Some men bury it in the inner graveyard that is their libido - others confront it - none of them are comfortable with it.

  It is beaten from them from birth by their fathers as an unmanly weakness; and beaten from them, in word and deed, by their mothers who see it, perhaps more accurately,  as a dangerous strength.

  Its perceived absence has become an excuse for women to despise and dismiss a man as a 'neanderthal' its perceived manifestation has become an excuse to despise and dismiss a man as being emotionally 'needy'...

  Woman demands of man that he be what she needs him to be, regardless of his character, because she holds all the biological cards; while demanding in return that he accept her for whatever she is... fair or foul without fear or favour.

  Thus man has become what woman, in all her guises, has made him. If you care little for the result, then perhaps you should have spent more time heeding your own workmanship?

   When will men and women learn to play to each other's strengths and compensate for each other's weaknesses; To reach for the stars instead of eternally arguing whether the pair is taller with the man stood on the woman's shoulders or the woman on the man's?
  
  Or is it easier for woman to blame man for all of her ills? To abdicate responsibility for her life so that she can be eternally the martyr and man eternally the villain. Is that bravery or the worst form of cowardice?

"Live free in the world and owe allegiance to no man"

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
163 posted 2007-07-04 06:40 PM


.


In the context of the title subject,
what defines the presence of “grace”?
What is there in its absence?


.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
164 posted 2007-07-04 11:50 PM


Grace is the kindness in their thews
Forsooth, without it, they be shrews!

Drauntz
Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905
Los Angeles California
165 posted 2007-07-05 05:11 PM


Dear Sir Yi Huan,

Grace is a social label.(from others) an object can be a graceful subject.  A tool can be graceful too.

[This message has been edited by Drauntz (07-05-2007 07:04 PM).]

rwood
Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793
Tennessee
166 posted 2007-07-06 10:22 AM


quote:
In the context of the title subject,
what defines the presence of “grace”?


"How well we rise after falling."

quote:
What is there in its absence?


Someone with a camera.


Mysteria
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Laureate
since 2001-03-07
Posts 18328
British Columbia, Canada
167 posted 2007-07-06 12:39 PM


Reg, you slay me!

In answer to the original question by Juju.  If you are asking scientifically - yes, I am an object according to physics, as I am definitely a collection of masses         In this Philosophy Forum according to definition, I am an object as well defined as an entity, or being.

In real life, let anyone treat me like an object and I will simply deck them!     There are exceptions of course, so if it works to my advantage to let a man "think" I am his object, then I let him "think" I am a very graceful object!    


Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Are women objects?

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary