| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
||||||
| How to Join | Member's Area | Private Library | Search | Sanctuary | Login | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main Forums | Discussion | Tech Talk | Mature Content | Archives |
A home without a wall, |
|
|
|
||||||
| The Alley |
|
Decadence and Hedonism |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Why is it that our culture is not declining decadence and hedonism, but preferring them? The prevailing vogue of this time seems to be to ostend perversity, and explicit indulgences in mingles of images and attitudes. These are all over music lyrics and videos. And more in the mainstreams of general things altogether of art and entertainment. There is little avoidence but artists are pursuing them. The maincourse of the internet itself seems now pornography above all other content. Is there a pie chart? I bet it takes up more than 60% Doesn't this reflect something of what is happening to the natures of people? Aren't you a bit shocked to see the kind of things people are accepting casually in way of speech, dress, and behavior? The way people are influencing and the way people are letting themselves be influenced in these? I thought we were supposed to edifiying this civilization not destroying it. Are these going to go away on their own? I don't believe that this is the fault of the government. This of the choice of the people that is ultimatly a higher government. I wouldn't even want to see the government change much at all in fact. But just wish I could see people make better choices for themselves and for others. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-12-2002 12:47 AM).] |
||
| © Copyright 2002 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'Aren't you a bit shocked to see the kind of things people are accepting casually in way of speech, dress, and behavior?' Nope.  Looking at the bigger picture of your complaint, I guess it all depends on what you mean by decadence... are you just talking about sexual 'perversion'? It doesn't surprise me at all that sex is so mainstream, all it signifies is that people are being more honest about their need for sexual stimulation. And the proliferation of porn sites doesn't surprise me either- people who have trouble admitting their oddball fetishes, or people who are just bashful about sex but still need the stimulation, can access it in pretty much complete anonymity. However, if you are talking about how society glorifies depravity as something cool... I have to agree with you, at least in part. For example, look at how Elizabeth Wurtzel makes her profits- a book about being depressed, then a book about 'bad' women (actually kind of interesting), and didn't she have another book about drug addiction? Bottom line: Misery sells. Decadence sells. It's why Kurt Cobain and Sid Vicious are cultural icons. It's why we get off on Marla Singer from Fight Club. It's why we like women in scanty leather with whips and cigarettes, it's why so many "good" girls in entertainment have hopeless crushes on "tough" guys who steal and spit and cuss. It's why we go to see Angelina Jolie films. There's my rant. I'm done. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is not serving beauty. To me, it is ugly . I don't care how much one sasy "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" when decadence and hedonism are the cheif "attributes" it serves obscurity and is unnatural--it is the opposite of beauty and art and civilization. There is no tenderness, nor modesty. This is the culture of image, attitudes, symbols we emulate, what our children will and what will be the culture of the future...do we want it in this direction? We are not unmoved. It reflects what we are becoming more about. Isn't religion what one is most devout to? If this is our culture, prostitution must be our religion. We are all prostitutes if if we are going to accept the prostituting of our civilization and morals to please this cesspool of base appetite. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-12-2002 04:30 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
It's all relative? Pornography isn't decadence, it's preference. So is religion, career choice, what kind of music you listen to, books you read, on and on. I'm not questioning your right here to define your own morals, but I will question your right to define mine.  |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'If this is our culture, prostitution must be our religion. We are all prostitutes if if we are going to accept the prostituting of our civilization and morals to please this cesspool of base appetite.' I just loathe it when people talk about prostitution as an ugly thing. I loathe that it's illegal. I understand that you might not even be speaking of it in literal terms, but it's the same concept as using "gay" as an insult- it shouldn't be. Nor should prostitution be seen as this awful thing... what's wrong with people (men too) making a profit on their sexual prowess? Why can we give sex away freely, but we're not allowed to pay for? utterly stupid, in my opinion. 'It is not serving beauty. To me, it is ugly .' You didn't really answer my question as to what you were referring to. Anyway, to you it may be ugly, but the majority obviously doesn't agree. I'm in Chris's boat- define your own morals, but not mine, or anyone else's. 'There is no tenderness, nor modesty.' I don't think these things are necessarily always good things. I like cutting-edge, rough around the edges kind of stuff. And modesty? I'm not going to open that can of worms again. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
hush, while I agree that sexual prostitution should be legal (and need I say it, REGULATED), that would in no way make the word less derogatory. The word has little to do with sex, but rather connotes the selling of one's self. Most people believe there are "some things" that exist outside the fiscal system and which are cheapened when you set a price to them. How much money would it take to buy your integrity? Your respect? Your love? If you had the ability to rival the effect Shakespeare had on humanity, but you instead spent your time writing jingles for Wall Street, would that not be a travesty? Prostitution, I think, entails the sale of something that cannot be bought. Should sexual favors be in the same category as integrity, respect, and love? I don't know. I can see arguments for both sides, either of which would get this thread moved into the Adult forum. But I can guarantee you, even if sexual prostitution was legalized today, the world's oldest profession would not suddenly become respectable. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Christopher, That is the problem. We little at all anymore share or observe a "core" personality of morals and behavior. It is scizophrenic state where everything is based on the diversity of the individual personality and the eye of the beholder. We are accepting every personality of art and entertainment for these, and thus we no longer have any overall cultural identity or personality to hold onto, but just a blur for the individual ones at once. Most people in our culture have extremly scizophrenic tastes because of it. It is diversity and preference in excess. People are too selfish and too ecclectic, and this is why civilization is disintegrating. "Pornography isn't decadence, it's preference." I disagree. I know what people are doing in pornography today. People know it's base and wrong--if the individuals were put on the spot by all of society they would give eventually, and eventually when they are in their old age they will feel feirce shame for the shamelessness of their doings, they will ache of having made nothing of love and tenderness in life. Once upon a time I think pornography even had some standards in a way, explicit sex was explicit sex, but it also had a bit of an erotic element. Today it is decadent, and dehumanizing, --it is complete pornography. Women and men are both doing anything and everything. There is no tenderness, nor erotic aspect. The decadence and pornographic personalties in sexual behaviors today is much the result of the broadcasing of pornography, the mergings into the mainstream of it, and the casual ability to access the extremes of it all very promptly. Hush With decadence I mean most of all perversion with indulgence, lechery, and vicious luxury. Being disposed to no morals nor modesty, but showing things deteriorate, surroundings, people, social structures, beauty, and admiring and glorifying in a perversion with indulgence. "I just loathe it when people talk about prostitution as an ugly thing." Then you must be living on different planet, where prostitution of the body for sex can be between people in such a way without the disease, the violence, the drugs, money, and the hate, that all go along with prostitution. Overall, sex is often the smallest theme of prostitution. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
A friend of mine that lives a few fields over is Amish. Fred feeds his family from the fields he tends, heats his home with an old wood burner stove, and lights each room in that home with candles. He lives entirely without electricity and drives the horse-drawn buggy that so characterizes the Amish in the Midwest. Fred is a very spiritual man who is honestly convinced that simplicity is the key to happiness. You need to realize, Essorant, that if you are going to judge others, you will in turn be judged. To Fred, YOU are decadent and hedonistic. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am not excluding myself from these things. but If you are in an extreme making a judgement like an amish person is in simplicity-- that is only relative to being "extreme"--extremes are the means. Amish people are more part of the culture than they think, pursuing an extreme to respond to an extreme-- it makes extreme overall more the nature of things--that is what I am opposed to most of all, excess and extremity. Amish people see a truth of decadence and hedonism in extremes, but are retreating too far I think. Running that far away from the problem doesn't help change the problem very much at all. My objection is not at decadence and hedonism themselves but the excess and extremity of them of in our culture--that is very ugly to me. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-12-2002 02:55 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-12-2002 02:46 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Ron, 'If you had the ability to rival the effect Shakespeare had on humanity, but you instead spent your time writing jingles for Wall Street, would that not be a travesty?' I'm not sure if I'm interpreting your analogy correctly? Do you mean that if someone has the capacity for great love in their sexual endeavors, but they sell their favors as a commodity, it's a travesty because of the wasted potential? Just because I have Shakespeare's talent for writing doesn't necessarily mean I will want to utilize it. What if writing Wall Street jingles makes me happier than being an icon of the literary world does? happiness and profits aren't always mutually exclusive. I know plenty of sexually promiscuous people who enjoy their lifestyle- why not make that lifestyle profitable to them, as well? I guess I don't see it as a conflict of interests, but a way to kill two birds with one stone. Making money isn't always synonymous with selling out. 'Prostitution, I think, entails the sale of something that cannot be bought.' Without going into details, I respectfully disagree. Essorant, I think your problem is more that the world doesn't share your morality, rather than the world not having a "core" morality. Who defines core? What if the "core" morality was vastly different from yours, and your ideals seen as trashy or inadequate? This is why diversity is necessary. 'It is scizophrenic state where everything is based on the diversity of the individual personality and the eye of the beholder.' Yeah, I guess I think relativity's a pretty cool concept that allows me to enjoy my lifestyle, while my father enjoys his, and my friends enjoy theirs, and none of us are forced to congeal into one mass morality. 'We are accepting every personality of art and entertainment for these, and thus we no longer have any overall cultural identity or personality to hold onto, but just a blur for the individual ones at once.' What's wrong with this? Your argument presupposes the negativity of diversity, something I have trouble even conceptualizing. 'Most people in our culture have extremly scizophrenic tastes because of it. It is diversity and preference in excess.' You mean it's bad for me to like different types of things? 'People are too selfish and too ecclectic, and this is why civilization is disintegrating.' So, do you mean that people, in holding onto their individual tastes and preferences (which may traverse a wide scale of things) are selfishly eroding the morality of society? Conformity is comfortable, and it should stay that way? 'I disagree. I know what people are doing in pornography today. People know it's base and wrong-' Speak for yourself. You feel that it is base and wrong. I feel that extraverted people with a strong sex drive and a streak of exhibitionism can stand to make a profit while having fun with their natural preferences. 'if the individuals were put on the spot by all of society they would give eventually' Yeah, most people tend to cave in when they are berated and coerced by a majority. You're right, that's just what we should do- force people who don't hold our morality to conform. Good idea! 'and eventually when they are in their old age they will feel feirce shame for the shamelessness of their doings, they will ache of having made nothing of love and tenderness in life.' Pornography is a job. That doesn't mean that porn stars can't have loving relationships. You could make the same argument about lawyers. It would still be a moot point. 'Once upon a time I think pornography even had some standards in a way, explicit sex was explicit sex, but it also had a bit of an erotic element. Today it is decadent, and dehumanizing, --it is complete pornography. Women and men are both doing anything and everything.' There wouldn't be the supply without the demand. You can't expect demand for what ou consider decadent to stop just because you don't like it. Why try? How could it possibly hurt you? 'Being disposed to no morals nor modesty, but showing things deteriorate, surroundings, people, social structures, beauty, and admiring and glorifying in a perversion with indulgence.' So, by no morals, you mean morals other than yours? 'Then you must be living on different planet, where prostitution of the body for sex can be between people in such a way without the disease, the violence, the drugs, money, and the hate, that all go along with prostitution. Overall, sex is often the smallest theme of prostitution.' Yeah, I guess I'm living on a planet where it's legal, where women are protected from violence of pimps and clients, where all people involved are mandated to use protection and receive STD testing, where it's operated as a business rather than a black market. Jeez, I guess I better pull my head out of the clouds, and quick. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
No, hush, just move to Nevada. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"... forced to congeal into one mass morality." You are perceiving me wrong. I don't want to see people "forced" into any such thing. I believe there is a common sense, a dignity and strength of morals that our ancestors in creating and fighting for theses our freedoms and edifying our culture and civization established--a sense of direction from more their more desperate situtions and experiences which we are little honouring and respecting in this age. They fought, worked, created, not just for a future of freedoms but for a civilization that would retain the quest of the civilization in being a retainer of the morals that made it as well--a civilization and government not just without, but within. There are ones that are theories never applicable very long to practice, but there others that are almost applicable in everything. And I believe one that is of the latter is avoiding excesses or extremes in decadence and hedonism. We have the constitutional right to take our freedoms almost as far as we want,and be most extreme and unnatural, but our own established moral sense of direction should keep us by choice within respectul reason. It is having a common government within by choice. "So, do you mean that people, in holding onto their individual tastes and preferences (which may traverse a wide scale of things) are selfishly eroding the morality of society? Conformity is comfortable, and it should stay that way?" When In decadence and hedonism there is perversity and indulgence at once. There is little taste for "beauty" but it must be luxury, and must feed the corrupt appetite or addiction, and trangress the "classic" moral system. I'm not against tastes being like this "on the side" or in private grudge, but when they are the cheif nature, or the main" of something meant to be art or entertainment, that something ceases to be art or entertainment, to a noble mind. Most of the forms ofdecadence and hedonism out there today include drugs and pornography, these create addictions. I would rather conform to avoiding addictions than conform to addictions that are unhealthy to me and society. "You feel that it is base and wrong. I feel that extraverted people with a strong sex drive and a streak of exhibitionism can stand to make a profit while having fun with their natural preferences." If the core of pornography was "strong sex drive" "streak of exhitionism" and "natural preferences" I don't believe there would be ground to call it pornography at all. I think you are referring to "erotica" if that is the case, I agree with you. But pornography is very different. "There wouldn't be the supply without the demand" You are right. People appetites have become corrupt in addiction, and we are giving them all the right bellytimber for them to stay corrupt. "...I guess I'm living on a planet where it's legal, where women are protected from violence of pimps and clients, where all people involved are mandated to use protection and receive STD testing, where it's operated as a business rather than a black market." It sounds reasonable enough in theory, but I don't believe it would work in practice. Sex as a business invetibally becomes dirty and cruel. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-12-2002 05:33 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I can assure you, Essorant, that the Amish don't feel they are being in the least bit extreme. They live life not greatly different from those ancestors you tout, because they believe the more spices you throw into the pot the less you can appreciate the taste of the meat. Their simplicity allows them to focus on what they consider important, without the distractions of neighborhood car pools, television or radio sets that are only turned off when everyone is asleep, or a phone that rings at two o'clock in the morning because Junior just got thrown in jail. The Amish believe that most of what you do all day long is unimportant, even trivial, in a world that should be dominated by the spiritual and not the physical. How do you justify yourself? Do you really need a car or public transportation? What's wrong with your feet or the strong back of a horse? Do you really need electricity to run your televisions and computers? Why not read by the light of fire, as did Lincoln and countless generations before him? None of the modern decadence that you engage in daily makes you a better person. It is simply excess to which you've become accustomed. How do you justify that excess? Should you really have to? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
When was this time? Who were these ancestors? What specific morality are you talking about? The more specific you get, the less grand a vision I think you'll see. But of course I like those gritty, dirty details. |
||
majnu
since 2002-10-13
Posts 1088SF Bay Area |
i don't get any of this. there is so much suffering in the world that who really gives a damn who sleeps with who, and what clothes they wear. the only offensive decadence i see and am guilty of is driving an suv and having game shows where they douse people in gallons of milk while people freeze and starve to death. when we cure suffering we can worry about morality. -majnu -------------------------------------- Timid thoughts be not afraid. I am a Poet. [This message has been edited by majnu (12-12-2002 08:46 PM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I was thinking along those lines Brad. Pick an ancestor - they probably had slaves, were racist, sexist, violently aggressive. Many pillaged, raped, used children as sexual objects. On and on, and I'm not even getting specific. But - we aren't our ancestors. Our children won't be us. Our morality is what we see it as at the moment. If we're going to base it on something other than what we believe in, then, as Ron suggested, we should also give up those things which accompany it. (And you'd have a hard time taking away my truck... much less my computer!) What I see here, Essorant, is that you're trying to convice others that your perception of what is moral (ergo, decadant as well) is how we should all see it. But as this entire thread shows - that's just not going to happen. Nor would most of us even want that. It would indeed be a sterile world if everyone looked at life from the same perspective. I've a feeling even you wouldn't care for it much. On the subject of prostitution - I think you're barking up the wrong tree here as well. As hush was saying, you can't claim to know what something means from one person to another. To suggest that sex - for everyone - should be a thing solely about love is no longer realistic (I question if it ever was). Some people enjoy it for its own sake, recognizing within their morals that it is a action of bodies, not necessarily of hearts and minds. In my mind, there is nothing sacred about sex - it's a physical / chemical urge that has been confined into a tight monogomistic ball of selfish ideals. There is even evidence that suggests that polygamy is natural - the body's need to spread its seed toward the end of propagating the species. This is not to suggest that we should allow our bodies free reign. But I don't believe we should completely ignore our pleasures based on (what I feel) is an outdated moral system developed in puritanical shortsightedness. |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Very interesting thread here. Wish I had more than a moment for comment, perhaps later tonight I can return. Morality and 'honor' are killing women every day in Pakistan. Children and adults are starving daily in Ethiopia, again. I don't care who you sleep with or what images you require for stimulation. What are you personally doing about the REAL problems of humanity? I don't think the real issues are sex, drugs, or rock and roll. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ron, That seems to say if we don't want to abide at this opposite we should go to the other opposite--to almost complete abstinance and halting ourselves into one lifestyle or station for good. That would be too selfless, and too ignorant to the human nature which I believe is very visionary, diverse and desirous of change which our culture more reflects. If the way you make additions to enhance your lifestyle is respectful to nature and society, I believe that is respectable, and being respectable is justification. If we could find a place as close as we could to the point right in between, in the center, I believe that would be a golden mean, where life would be most in balance secure for the individual and society at once. Moderation always affords a better prospect for prosperity. Right now I don't think there is much security. Now a days morals are not upheld in moderation for both self and society, but are full of bias for selfish appetites. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-13-2002 01:17 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"When was this time? Who were these ancestors? What specific morality are you talking about?" It was when honour and morals were living constant things, men used to say "moderation in all things" or "by my honour" and people would not always keep moderation or follow their honour, but at least for the most part they seemed to, and knew shame when they didn't. When men sought to be gentlemen and women gentlewomen. Morals is plural, but it refers to a single quality--respect. There was more respect when people were more like that, but the widewallowing of decadence and hedonism that broke out of all strings in the twentieth century, has razed away the spirit and pureness of that quest, and turned it into a quest for anything but civilization. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-13-2002 01:40 PM).] |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'When men sought to be gentlemen and womaen ladies.' Essorant, do you know where the phrase "rule of thumb" comes from? If so, I can't see your plea to return to simpler times. If not, I suggest you research your stance a little better. Thanks, but if being a lady means I am a housemaid to keep a house clean, have supper ready for my husband, and bear children while staring at the walls of my house and occasionally host tea-parties, then thanks but no thanks. Nothing ticks me off more than when people tell me to be more lady-like when they mean more dainty and subserviant. And, to me, it seems that Ron is saying you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to be fundamentalist, why not tke it all the way? You can't just look at the world and say "I want this, this, and this, because they please me, but get rid of all this other tripe. It has no place in my world." If you want to lead a modest life, then do it. Just don't try to dictate my right to be 'hedonistic.' |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
So be it. I know I will see this age go through more graduations of devestations utmost for less and less moderation in the overall lifestyle. The extremes are the means, people of the past went through similar devestations on different levels and passed on warnings in the light afterward about selfishness and excess, it is in history, literature and in philosophy. The whole world now though, is in our danger, if we have to hammer ourselves to the same realizations again, but through the devices of this age, there might be no ground left to realize upon in the end. That is where the extremes go. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-13-2002 03:27 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Isn't that a little extreme, Essorant?  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is not just a little, but extremely. There is little ground upon which to realize extreme right now while we are in a state that is inured to extremities and obscurities in not just reality but in what we pursue in arts and entertainment for our culture. Morals are now a cloud that people shape into what ever they please to create a countenance through which destructive obscurity and arrogant selfness find a passage and a way to fullfilling scope, gaining the hand that is becoming more predominant over the better nature of the human heart--the decadent and hedonistic, in excess beyond reason. It will only ensue more and more faster and faster, when we are a culture made of addictions like this. It will not work, it will become more and more necessary for us to tone our human world down eventually, but we are destroying the ground upon which we will have to realize that and look through a common moral eye and make a common choice to change for better, and may never be able to avoid the destructions it will lead to if we dont change a bit now to open our individual eyes more beyond our own person and our human world because others and other animals and states of the world are in our danger and responsibilty too. In sum, I just believe we need more moderation in our culture right now. But moderation should be in moderation too. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-14-2002 10:50 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Christopher, "But - we aren't our ancestors. Our children won't be us. Our morality is what we see it as at the moment." What do we base morality on, in the moment, if we don't base it on the past? [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-14-2002 11:07 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, "if being a lady means I am a housemaid to keep a house clean, have supper ready for my husband, and bear children while staring at the walls of my house and occasionally host tea-parties, then thanks but no thanks." I don't think that makes a woman more of a lady at all in most cases, but it doesn't mean she is not a lady for those choices. If in her truth she has esteem, seeks honour and dignity she is a lady; if she has not or seeks none of these and has no shame for that, she is not a gentlewoman at all, to a noble mind. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-15-2002 12:12 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Essorant, there is no nobility to a mind that would judge others except in how they treat others. Seeks honor and dignity? Anyone who thinks to determine those for another will never know what they are. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'I don't think that makes a woman more of a lady at all in most cases, but it doesn't mean she is not a lady for those choices. If in her truth she has esteem, seeks honour and dignity she is a lady; if she has not or seeks none of these and has no shame for that, she is not a gentlewoman at all, to a noble mind.' there is a definite connotation with the word 'ladylike'- that connotation is a quiet, gentle, pretty woman who doesn't raise her voice or burp in public or put her needs in front of the needs of others... And besides, you are using biased terms. Honor? Dignity? Those things, to you and I, are obviously quite different things- and Ron's right. No person has the right to define morals for another person, or jusge them based on that. In my opinion, the only morality for which there can even be the argument for universal good vs. bad is the idea that you shouldn't willfully hurt other people. But even that is fuzzy, situational, and relative (IMO). I seek honor and dignity in my own way. But, as my definitions of these terms are quite different than yours, and (far from shame) I feel only an immense pride in having my own individual morality, am I no longer a 'lady'? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Essorant - there is nothing wrong with looking at the past and incorporating it with the now. It is living in the past (or attempting to, since that is impossible) that I find silly. We learn for a reason - what we believe now is so different from some of the times in our past as to be unrecognizable. Does that mean that it's wrong? Of course not, no more wrong than it will be tomorrow to live with the adjustments today bring you. Even the days which you speak of (and i'm with hush 100% on my views of how 'ladies' were looked upon) had their share of debauchery and evil. You're only considering fairy tales, the ones that show the women being respected and the men being gentlemen. It doesn't cover the large populations of prostitutes (it's not called the world's oldest profession without reason), the out-of-control drinking, violence, thievery, rustling, etc. There is no point in man's history that you can find a scene of idyllic peace. It just doesn't exist. Instead, what you find is that the authors accentuate what we define as valued traits (honor, integrity, etc.) while playing down the opposites. (This is arguable, of course, depending on what source you're pulling from. I'm thinking the ones you're looking at are more romanticized than realistic.) I guess in the end it still comes down to the same thing: You can define your own nirvana, but you can't mine. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
You can claim subjectiveness or individuality to as much as you want but decadence and hedonism will never be able to be honour or dignity, or make a lady more true, or make the better truth of morals, respect, prosperity or civilization. There are cheif natures of these things, that though they are not absolute, they always will be associated with the words historically and naturally. They have never, and will never be perfect, but in them there is knowing of what is cheifly better to pursue and what is better to avoid. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-15-2002 08:52 PM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Did you know that in many eastern cultures (cultures far older and more established than ours), prostitution is looked on not as decadence, but rather as an honorable and necessary profession? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
And in Eastern religions, there is much more emphasis on human interconnectedness, not just with other humans, but with nature as well. Selflessness is key in Hinduism and Buddhism, and (from what I know) they often place great emphasis on abstinence as a path to God, or enlightenment. Maybe you should look into these alternative faiths/means to God/the ultimate/whatever you call it... the lifestyle seems like it would fit you. I haven't heard much about eastern prostitution, other than that I read (according to some radical feminist book that I can't properly cite here because the title is innapropriate...) that in ancient easter cultures, prostitution was revered. But I don't trust Inga Muscio, so, like I said, I'm not quite sure... Anyway, your last post just shows a terrific hard-headedness about accepting other points of view on anything, and an extreme determination to stick to your guns (even if they are Revalutionary [did I just misspell that?] War era muskets) without considerating tolerance for the subjectivity of human nature... even though that's about all I see in your argument. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Christopher Many of those cultures bestow little protection and equality for women, so prostitution is a constant predominant part of the living condition that they are raised in. They don't know much better, and have no escape from decadence, and are forced to make the most of it. It is mostly the governments in these cases, not the people. If the people had a passage away from these things the main of them would leave them because they would see the truth that they deserve a better lifestyle and better respect. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-15-2002 11:39 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, Those emphasis on abstinence though often put abstinence to extreme. I do not follow extremes. When we abstain we should also abstain in moderation or else abstinence is in excess, which makes just as little progress and less balance! I am not aganst subjectivity or individuality either, I am just again saying they should be in moderation! Moderation is not just a key, but it is the master key! It is what keeps nature and civilization in best balance. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-16-2002 12:31 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
I'm agreeing with hush once more here and led to ask a question that I'm sincerly curious about: Essorant - what are your definitions of honor and dignity, and how in the world did you come to them? |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
'I am not aganst subjectivity or individuality either, I am just again saying they should be in moderation!' But you provide no facts to support your extremely subjective argument. Tell me how decadence and hedonism harm you, me, or anyone else. I can think of examples to support your case that you haven't yet presented (children involved in pornography, women from third-world countries sold as sex slaves, animals abused in bestial pornography). They don't change my mind, but it seems like they are key points that you'd be addressing in an argument weighted with any factd. Instead, you just consistently reiterate morality- not convincing enough for me. Morality is not as absolute as you are presenting it to be. your moral opinions are subjective, and do not carry enough weight to hold a substantial argument. Tell me exactly what should be done away with? All sex in the media? Make the argument for where you would draw the line, and why. Tell me what you would replace this with? How do you propose to reacclimate people you consider sexual deviants into what you consider sexually acceptable? How do you justify this? Give me something other than your subjective feelings. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I think honour is the highest constitution of sacredness that keeps one true to the good of her or himself and to the cheif good of others and the world in general. There is no absolute unwavering set substance that honour is of, but in its cheif nature it involves seeking to do courtesies, keep word and faith in doings, protect the honour of others, and believe in others to do goodness as well. It is an individual government influenced by chivalry and nobility-- a steadfastness of the self in approach and way of will toward all things in life, trying to serve as an example to follow of goodness and integrity, that others will admire for truth. That is I believe one of the cheif truths of what honour is. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-16-2002 11:46 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Hush, I don't know. I think now that I've just lost my mind. [This message has been edited by Essorant (12-17-2002 01:21 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
without even questioning your definitions, Essorant, where in that is 'decadence' and 'hedonism' disallowed? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I never said that decadence and hedonism shouldn't be allowed. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
*shaking my head* but I thought that's what this whole post is about? Maybe not that it shouldn't be allowed, but that in your optimal world, they wouldn't exist. I don't see much difference in the arguments between the two, one's just mroe extreme than the other. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
