Literalism is troublesome though. I'd rather leave that to the conservatives.

Im on my ipad, right now, so the quality of my writing goes way down. Mea culpa, for sure.

I'll throw some stuff on.

It seems interesting that liberal ideology can sometimes find its way to alignment with conservative positions. It seems a curious path to tread.

It’s been many years since I read it, but in The Scandal of Pleasure Wendy Steiner argues, as I recall, that the understanding of an image can be informed by one’s political ideology. While liberals tend to deemphasize the relationship between the symbol and the thing it symbolizes, conservatives are much more likely to be literalists and feel that a particular image will result in a given response because there is little distinction between the symbol, the thing it symbolizes, and its meaning to the viewer. Thus, liberals are less likely to be bothered by the burning of the flag, while conservatives may consider its destruction a personal insult. And if the image is confrontational, conservatives are more likely to accept the confrontation at face value rather than an opportunity to deconstruct its content or their response to it.

But it seems that liberals are not immune to literalism, although we are much less likely to indulge in it. From liberal positions regarding the psychological impact of firearms, images of women in popular culture, and religious practice liberals sometimes seem prompted to seek solutions to their perceptions of these problems more suited to our political opposites. The question is how do we create a liberal literalist, which is to say, how do we make a liberal respond to an image like a conservative?

Willingness to submit to authority, or authoritarianism, is ubiquitous and necessary for the proper function of any society. Sooner or later we have to stop asking questions and let somebody call the shots. There is a little authoritarian in all of us. To be an authoritarian in the United States generally means you’re willing to submit to the authority of a white, male, Christian, capitalist. The conservatives attract the attention of the bulk of the most overt authoritarian followers for that reason. But we are no longer bound by the constraints of immobility or isolation from the ideas of others. We can interact with people all over the planet.

Like I said, there is a little authoritarian in all of us. And the impulse to submit to the appropriate authority could, with the miracle of modern technology, be the source of a revenue stream not previously available to the enterprising capitalist. Given a properly developed ideology and sufficient distribution, we can profitably drill for pockets of authoritarianism in places where before it might never see the light of day. And through the miracle of marketing, the promulgators of an ideology don’t have to prove it works in any measurable way, since the object of such an approach is to prompt consumers to submit to the authority of their own opinions (helpfully provided by the producer of the ideology). All you have to do is tell people what they want to hear and attach that message to something that is ubiquitous, simple, malleable, and personally identifiable to the ideological consumer.

We spontaneously fetishize everything around us to one degree or another. Given our tendency to over consume everything from red meat to video games, can our sensitivities to a social issue be excluded from such excesses? All it takes is some purple prose, a few extreme examples, some tangential relationship between the ideological consumer and the individual or group impacted by some socio-cultural situation, and an object or characteristic to fetishize and viola, a movement is born. Those objects can be almost anything it seems, good or bad. So if the above holds true gender, firearms, sexual orientation, the environment, the NRA, religion, atheism, drugs, illegal aliens, raw food, and a host of others offer a focus to objectify our feelings about ourselves and our relationship to others. The object of interest can be good or bad, real or fictional, current or historical, animal, vegetable, or mineral. It doesn’t matter. It is only important that one identifies with issue through the fetish object.

When that identification is secured, the producer of ideology only has to adjust the message for maximum impact balanced against the intensity of identification. It seems that the larger the target market for ideology, the more lukewarm the identification, while at the other end of the scale a cult like following will have a generally smaller market for followers.

So, it could be that the degree of authoritarianism created in the viewer will determine how literal, or right(p.9), is the object of their fetishization. So for example, for the most authoritarian liberal there would be only one way to interpret an image of a scantily clad woman, an AR15 rifle, a grove of trees, a yacht, or any other politically divisive notion in the political landscape. It doesn’t matter if the interpretation is correct or not, for the authoritarian interpreter theirs is the only legitimate one. And it appears that such devotion to that interpretation has less to do with an actual understanding of the issue at hand than with skillful marketing by the producers of ideology.

The Scandal of Pleasure
http://www.amazon.com/The-Scandal-Pleasure-Art-Fundamentalism/dp/0226772241/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344467820&sr=8-2&keywords=wendy+steiner
Steiner (English, Univ. of Pennsylvania) takes on the Mapplethorpe/Serrano/NEA blowup, the Ayatollah's death sentence on Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses, the Dworkin-MacKinnon anti-pornography movement, political correctness, and the disparity between the scholarly and political activities of Anthony Blunt, Martin Heidegger, and Paul de Man. Her intelligent, evenhanded presentation of the events and issues involved in each argues against the literalism of the Left and Right, which both see art as identical to reality. Steiner instead emphasizes that art is a virtual reality whose pleasurable enjoyment can enable us to master the difference between fantasy and reality. Her book is calm and rational?qualities in short supply in the current climate of hysteria over the questions she treats. For literature collections.?Richard Kuczkowski, Dominican Coll., Blauvelt, N.Y.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

You've given me some stuff to think about. Thanks!

Sometimes trying to explain stuff helps me understand it. Sometimes it even keeps me from being full of shit.

I don't watch either men's or women's beach volleyball. I like the college game better.

If the women who play the game like the skimpy uniform, I fail to see the issue. Has anyone bothered to ask? Or is that not important? You know....the women involved?


Kerri Walsh and Misty May-Treanor have taken the gold medal at the last two Olympics and will be vying for their third in London this summer. But in order to do so, they say they'll need the increased flexibility that comes with the lighter outfit. "It's something I feel empowered by, not distracted with," Walsh told SI. "I'm not a sex symbol; I'm an athlete. I want to be streamlined out there."


Oh, well. They just don't understand this is bigger than them.

...when men were wearing skimpy loincloths for this sport?

I had to say it. I'll take my chances with a jury.

....there might be a pile of shit under it.

We could be "treated" to the current version.

What's really offensive is the quality of his music, though.

...and here's more from the women's beach volleyball team..

Olympian Misty May-Treanor and her fellow competitors on the US women’s beach volleyball team vowed yesterday to keep wearing their sexy bikinis at the upcoming Games — despite a new rule that lets female players compete in dowdy shorts and T-shirts.

“We’re not uncomfortable in our bikinis,” said team member Jen Kessy.

“Growing up in southern California, that’s what you wear from when you’re a little kid to now in the summertime.”

Treanor said she loves to compete in her skimpy, bottom-baring bikini because “what you see is what you get — there’s no airbrushing.”

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/us_gals_bare_up_JmD8nS5fFXrp59nTztSvVN#ixzz21rs4ESuT

....we have "experts" who've never worn one of these outfits, or competed in beach volleyball, telling them they are wrong and don't really feel that way. So clearly, these ladies need some reeducation.

an expert opinion.

. . . I wouldn't call it empowering either, even if he's given a broadsword and a chain mail loincloth.

I point this out because there are guys who argue that nudity or sexual poses empower women. I think this is delusional, but I know guys really believe it. Being material for a masturbation fantasy is not exploitation (with consent) but it's not empowering either. Guys who go that far defending it are crazy, and yes, are shown to be sexist about it as soon as you question the nature of the "empowerment."

However, some women, especially in the sex industry, might defend it as empowering, too. This is simply because sexual arousal can give a feeling of power, a sensation which usually doesn't match the reality.

As always with human sexuality, the issue is far more complex than it first appears.

To my mind, if something makes someone feel empowered, it is "empowering", QED.

And holding a broadsword is probably empowering, regardless of context.

. . . you've lost sight of the big picture. Overall, sex touches a lot of contradictory emotions and instincts. So, it's emotionally complex.

You'd be correct about "empowerment" if your definition were standard, but I don't think anybody else has in mind a purely internal, emotional effect. There are already better terms for your definition, like "a thrill" and "a rush."

Empowerment can have one of two definitions in these debates. It refers to something motivational, building of self-esteem and confidence. I don't know whether sexual thrills are translatable into general self-confidence, but I think they rarely are. Otherwise sex workers would be some of the most together people on the planet. No, I think that's a fantasy, part of the emotional complexity I refered to.

It could also refer to increase in status and prestige. That's easy to test: would you vote for a woman for president only because she was a stripper? Would you seek advice from her about important personal decisions? Would you trust her with your life in a stressful situation?

I'm not talking about if she was once a stripper, or if she's a stripper and something else, but just because she was a stripper.

I think not, unless you're crazy, and I think my point is made. It might not hurt your opinion of her, but it's not empowering, by any definition anybody else uses.

Empowerment, from my perspective at least, begins with the self. One simply has no power if they have no choice or are coerced into a position of making a "right" choice versus a "wrong" choice, the quotidinous right and wrong choices being determined by some external agency from self. To "empower" then, must be defined as to "imbue the self with the ability to make choices free of coercion from external agencies". I see the right to an abortion as empowering. I see the right to speak as one feels as empowering. I see the right to seek employment without consideration of gender or gender role as empowering.

So why would I see the right to dress as one sees fit as any less? Regardless of the intent or goals of an external agency, if it conflicts with self, it is not self, ergo, has little to do with the idea of empowerment.

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 10:07 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . it has to do with your relation in the world. A prisoner can make himself feel better with the illusion that he has power, but the fact is, he will still have none. Now, you might say if he feels "empowered" he'd then be able to escape, but the problem with that is, he has to escape to actually have power. Now, he can gain "power" without any will toward it. I mean, he might get a parole.

You cannot define empowerment without the individual's relationship to the world. None of us are free of our environment, whether it's dominated by human relations or not.

Yes, you can change your emotional state, if nothing else. But that's the default if you have no power. Even there, emotions act on you and prompt you more than you can change them. The very act of wanting to change your emotion is actually one feeling dominating the other.

Rights are empowering only if you have them. Not before.

The right to dress as you see fit is an interesting way to see this. Tell me, when you're at work, do you feel free? I mean, you might love your job, but I doubt you would call it your "free time." So, the question becomes this: how many models or porn stars would dress that way (or undress that way) if it wasn't work? How many of them want unwelcome male attention on them all the time? That is, without any compensation? (There may be a few, and there may be some who go through a stage like that, and then fall out of it, but they generally also don't get any real power as a result.) Now, what if they can't get a wage above impoverishment without it? Isn't that a subtle form of coercion.

Now, I have no objection to nudity, and even public nudity specifically for arousal. I enjoy some kinds of porn. But there's nothing empowering about it. This, however, comes down to a question: if a person were free from any environmental concerns such as comfort, protection from the elements, or the judgment of others, or status, how would they dress? If the idea were just to satisfy yourself?

Nudity would probably be dominant, but a lot of slovenliness would be, too. Human effort tends to go toward what's important, therefore, it probably wouldn't be a beautiful form of nudity. It's not really something we can emulate, especially when the real object is to sexual arouse another person, for whatever reason. A bikini misses the point.

So, other than sexual fantasy, there's no reason to think that every beautiful woman, or even most of them, want to dress in a way that's enticing to men. In fact, women of every grade of attractiveness generally get nauseated at unwelcome sexual attention. This is one of the reasons why they're given pay to go nude or have sex on camera. That disturbing sexual attention is something they have to receive extra compensation for to learn to live with.

Then again, there's nothing disempowering about it, other than the way others will treat sex workers, and the cuts they will take in their self-esteem as a result.

But that's really the problem with the word empowerment is it? No one seems to be really clear on what it means.

What it means is this: realization that your rights and your choices are yours to take, and once taken, are yours to lose. Empowerment MUST exist in the acquisition of rights. It is the prime mover in the effort. Rights are never given. They are taken.

It is the ultimate arrogance, the idea that the will to see oneself as valuable and purposeful and potent is your responsibility and yours alone. Once realized, the choice is yours what you do with it. Choice is the entire point.

It can't be taken away from you by someone else's actions unless you think it can. No woman was ever disempowered because another woman likes to wear bikinis to the beach. No woman was ever disempowered because another woman dressed in a way to garner male attention. No woman was ever disempowered because another woman desired male attention.

Empowered people don't really think too much of what other people may think of their choices. But that's really what the problem is. Many people who throw the word empowerment around seem to implicate that these things DO disempower women, and what they miss is that empowerment isn't and never was about a group dynamic.

I don't know what to say to the rest other than it sounds like an intrusion of the "ubiquitous male gaze" looking to "disrupt the flow of consciousness" and a deep dismissal of the idea that some women like male attention. This is hard to square with my own personal experience with women which has been almost entirely male positive. So I don't know about this "nausea" you're talking about. Most of them don't find their sexuality or its expression disturbing, either within themselves or their male partners. And where this sexuality is expressed it is by choice and choice alone. And the porn? They are given pay to go nude or to have sex on camera because they choose to have sex on camera for money. They are in a position to leverage their "assets" for a financial payout. Disturbing?... or just good negotiating skills?

. . . is a difficult route, and that's how I'd describe what you've written in the first part. Jefferson, definitely one of the originators of the concept of individual rights, said they were inalienable and endowed by the Creator. In contrast, you said, "Rights are never given they are only taken." This is a different philosophical tune entirely. Jefferson said all men (read people) had them, they couldn't be taken away, but could either be recognized or denied, respected or violated.

Jefferson's main concern writing the Declaration was to present a counter-argument to the Divine Right of Kings. He was trying to argue how a rebellion against a king who held his position by the will of God wasn't a rebellion against God, or for the more secular people, against good. He said the King had become a tyrant because George III refused to respect individual rights endowed by the Creator.

Unfortunately, without a Creator in the equation, none of it makes any sense.

You've subscribed to a more secular, materialist notion of rights. So, you've kept the concept and you've supported it instead with Nietzsche's Will to Power. There are a few problems with doing this. Nietzsche rejected rights as a legal construct. He thought the only rights anybody should have were the ones that could be immediately enforced. Another problem is he never saw the struggle ending in the equilibrium you describe, where somebody has won their rights and they're satisfied to have overthrown their overlords. No, the oppressed shouldn't be satisfied until they've destroyed the oppressors or have become them. And you imply this when you say empowerment must exist in the acquisition of rights. After a point, it's not rights you'd acquiring if that's how you seek empowerment.

Now, I doubt you were thinking of Nietzsche as your source, you probably absorbed this approach to rights from a different channel. However, Nietzsche still thought it through, and that's what he came up with. It might seem that you're channeling Paine and Jefferson when you speak of rights, but actually, it's Nietzsche with a Jefferson mask. I suggest thinking this over again, because you're not talking about any concept that can be described as "rights," at least in the American-French version.

Therefore, I don't agree with you. If rights are taken from oppressors, there's no reason to stop the struggle there. Indeed, oppressors are likely to engender a lot of resentment with the oppressed. Plus, what are rights after they've been won, then and there's no more empowerment to be had? And it's not true, in reality. I was born with certain rights I didn't struggle for. Free speech for one, and worship (not one I take advantage of) for the other. Truth is, I might have to defend them.

And with the lauding of arrogance as a virtue reminds me of Rand. Is that where you're taking this? I rebut that making the choice means nothing if you then don't succeed at making the goal. Empowerment doesn't come with the choice.



What? No. Another party can damage your rights whether you believe it or not. This happens all the time. We're in different universes if you think empowerment can be isolated from a group. In nature, the alpha dog is only alpha compared to the rest of the pack. Take him from the pack, and he's a dog. In human affairs, the only type of power that involves no relation to another person is fantasy power. Even in fantasy, your mind simulates other persons or beings. I think that could instinctively be in preparation for performing in a group, a form of learning in lieu of when you can socialize it.

For examples that are pertinent to this subject: I know, at least, in Hollywood, some actresses can't advance their careers because they won't do nude scenes or sex scenes. On the IMDB, I see guys on discussion boards who expect actresses to go nude in a movie if those women want to go anywhere. These aren't porn stars, these are actors who consider their profession to be quite apart from porn. This is better now than it was in the 70s, where almost every actress had to expose her breasts in films.

Is Hollywood too far from the real world for you? I know of some women who advanced their careers by blowing the boss. If it happens so often it becomes the expected norm, and you could bet it hurts the reproductive rights of women who want nothing to do with that game. Because other women have provided sexual satisfaction, other then can't get jobs or promotions from male bosses without doing it. So, I beg to differ with you here. Expectations are created that are imposed on women who want to keep their right to say no on a job that has nothing to do with sex without being penalized. Women, not just feminists, are extremely aware of this, and don't want it to happen. It's one reason why women who sleep around are resented by relatively monogamous women. The latter sees sex as becoming an expectation in any dealing with men. And it has happened before, such as in the 1950s-60s, and it's the norm in some other parts of the world.

Only type of empowerment can be isolated from others is the dominance of one part of an individual's mind over another part. This is internecine and has no effect outside the person's mind.


((Emphasis Mine))

No. It wasn't a dismissal of that, much less a deep dismissal.

To explain a the term nausea: I'm going by what an ex-girlfriend told me, and other women I've talked to have concurred. She had had more than fifty sex partners in thirteen years, and she was used to the "ubiquitous male gaze." Also couldn't turn the sex appeal off (and if ever saw her, you'd know why). She lost her virginity to four guys over one weekend. I'm emphasizing: she was not a porn-averse prude.

She told me when a male's attention wasn't wanted, what she felt was not arousal, it was more "like a nausea."

Why did it work like that? She didn't know. It just did. I've never forgotten that. Other women have agreed with that when I've discussed it, I've observed others behaving in a way consistent with that. It has explained a lot of female behavior to me. In fact, it has explained a lot of male sexual behavior as well.

If you don't believe me, ask some of those female friends how they feel when the attention or advances aren't welcome. Ask them about things that could raise the creep factor with the persona non grata.

Maybe you'd understand why I would call unwelcome sexual attention disturbing to females. When they compare it to nausea, it plainly is. I'm talking about things various women have told me they found disturbing. I'm not easily rattled about sex.



That's not disturbing to me, so you're misunderstanding and mis-applying the term. I was talking specifically about "disturbing" to some women. Maybe they get over it with experience, and maybe many didn't feel it.

Good negotiating skills? lol. That's a stretch. I think it usually goes like this: "If you show up tomorrow for this shoot, we'll pay you a thousand dollars."

And she says "Fuck, yes!"

For example, Christy Canyon was working in a clothing shop for minimum wage and Mike South's first offer for a single day shoot was an amount greater than what she would make in a month. Guess what? She took it in a millisecond. Yeah, great negotiating skills there. Perhaps she developed them later.

But the point is, posing nude didn't offend Christy, didn't give her that "like a nausea" feeling. Most women who read the ad probably felt it, and hence never showed up. Many were probably working for minimum wage or worse.

You ever wonder why anti-trafficking people didn't just set up an organization that looked through Craigslist ads, found the ones that seemed to advertise underage girls, and then turn them into the law enforcement and Craigslist, instead of say, closing down all adult ads on the site? I'll tell you why. They couldn't stand it. The anti-sex crusaders can't get through one of those ads without gagging. Too much "like a nausea." That's only one of the crazy effects porn has on them. I swear, hallucinations are another.

So, why do I either have to agree with "great negotiating skills" or "disturbing"? What a false dilemma. Having a guy hand a woman a buttload of money photogenic tits doesn't take skills. Just like posing nude isn't empowering, either.

"You've subscribed to a more secular, materialist notion of rights."

Yes. Because there is no other notion. The problem with modern philosophical argumentation is that, rather than avail itself of obvious truths, honest in their character, there is this romanticism in invoking Godwin's law. In your post, you've ascribed to me several philosophical disciplines to which I do not ascribe or give credit.

While I am impressed you would invoke Nietszche, I am a little less impressed by Rand. You've invoked Jefferson and Paine too, if only to say, "I know Jefferson and Paine, and you, sir are no Jefferson and Paine".

If you understood thing one about me, you'd have left the Capital Creator out of it, being an atheist as I am, but since you've managed to conflate my personal observations and views on the world as some unholy grabbag of mixed metaphors and quasitheology, I suppose "getting it right" isn't something you do very often. I can always tell when someone is educated in the philosophical disciplines, because they take great pleasure in noting which part of what you "borrowed". I should know. Part of the fun of being educated within the philosophical disciplines is figuring out who ripped off who, is it not? Of course, this is the modern philosophical state, everything is derivative, nothing is original, which explains why no real philosophical luminaries exist in the modern age.

So I'm not even going to dignify your interpretations. I am no philosophical scholar by any stretch. It is a fuckton easier to understand the world if you just do your own thinking without trying to figure out if that thought filtered its way out of someone else's gray matter. If some things that you think bear any resemblance to something that came before, it is at worst accidental.

"If rights are taken from oppressors, there's no reason to stop the struggle there."

Taking this at face value. What is the rest of the struggle (assuming there is a purpose) intended to accomplish? An oppressor can only oppress if those oppressed do not have the rights of the oppressor. When the oppressor and the oppressed are on equal footing, neither is the oppressed nor the oppressor. So what does further struggle accomplish. What is the goal? To become the oppressor? Patriarchy vs. matriarchy. Hmm. What a choice.

"And with the lauding of arrogance as a virtue reminds me of Rand. Is that where you're taking this? I rebut that making the choice means nothing if you then don't succeed at making the goal. Empowerment doesn't come with the choice."

And a variant of Godwin's Law shows up. Congrats to that.

You make some interesting claims with this. Choice must be met with success ergo it means nothing. I sense an entitlement there. I made a choice, ergo, I must be successful at achieving my goal or it was meaningless. Who is ascribing to a material view here? You sound more like Rand than I could ever hope to. Choice is empowerment, empowerment is choice. Empowerment guarantees NOTHING but the opportunity to see through to a goal, it in no way guarantees its achievement. You see this fallacy in the modern feminist view of equal opportunity being subservient philosophically to equal outcomes. It's bosh, to be blunt.

"What? No. Another party can damage your rights whether you believe it or not. This happens all the time. We're in different universes if you think empowerment can be isolated from a group. In nature, the alpha dog is only alpha compared to the rest of the pack. Take him from the pack, and he's a dog. In human affairs, the only type of power that involves no relation to another person is fantasy power. Even in fantasy, your mind simulates other persons or beings. I think that could instinctively be in preparation for performing in a group, a form of learning in lieu of when you can socialize it. "

No, another party cannot damage your rights unless you are unwilling to defend them or believe that such defense is the responsibility of another and they fail to provide this service. And I am not immediately dismissive of the idea that we live in different universes. Empowerment can mean isolation from a group, specifically if one's desires and goals run counter to the desires or agenda of that group. If you cede your self to a group so wholly that you believe that your esteem and worth is intimately attached to the rising or falling approval of that group, you are precisely the OPPOSITE of empowered. It is the idea that one's power exists only in relation to a group is odd. If self-esteem is a factor in all this, it is nonce. One cannot have esteem absent of group in your universe, so esteem must therefore be group originated. People who derive their esteem from a group cannot be said to have self-esteem. Therefore, empowerment from group identification is not empowerment at all but the relinquishing of one's power, placed in custodianship of others.

"Is Hollywood too far from the real world for you?"

What, you mean the world where people get paid millions of dollars for pretending to be other people, where if anyone else not in the business of entertainment tried this, they'd be labeled a phony and no one would take them seriously? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty fucking far from the real world for me.

"To explain a the term nausea: I'm going by what an ex-girlfriend told me, and other women I've talked to have concurred. She had had more than fifty sex partners in thirteen years, and she was used to the "ubiquitous male gaze." Also couldn't turn the sex appeal off (and if ever saw her, you'd know why). She lost her virginity to four guys over one weekend. I'm emphasizing: she was not a porn-averse prude.

She told me when a male's attention wasn't wanted, what she felt was not arousal, it was more "like a nausea."

So, you know a highly attractive woman who, obviously, got attention. Of course, you look at that from another point of view, it sounds like a so-called First World Problem. The problem of "plenty", of "ennui", of aristocratic boredom. Many women would kill for half of that kind of attention, and you present it like it is some sort of burden. It sounds like a rich person complaining about all of the people who serve him/her standing around waiting for big tips. "Oh, why oh why won't they just see that I'm just a regular man/woman" as they fan themselves with a big stack of C-notes. People complain of male fantasy, but let's put her loss of virginity in terms of fantasy, how many men would have loved to have lost their virginity to four women? The point of all of this is that she is living in a real-life fantasy. No real life workaday person gets to have that. Yet, this is the rule and the rest are the exception? So precisely where are your fringe examples going to end? Moreover, through all of her sexual exploits, were her encounters her choice? I'm willing to bet they were. Every time. So I am supposed to feel sorry for a so-called victim of the insane burden of "the ubiquitous male gaze" who is so attractive that she can pick and choose her mates?

She's empowered. She gets to choose. And it's a burden. And you would put this forward as an oppression of sorts?

If you don't believe me, ask some of those female friends how they feel when the attention or advances aren't welcome. Ask them about things that could raise the creep factor with the persona non grata.

What this sounds like is that they find the societal necessity to turn away these advances as somehow burdensome, that all of their interactions in life should somehow come with a prescreener. You will only be approached by people you want to be approached by. You will only have to talk to people you like. What a bunch of entitlement nonsense. They sound like the entitled rich.

I would love to know precisely how anyone is supposed to know that an advance is unwelcome unless they make the advance and experience the rejection... I have a feeling I'm never going to get a reasonable answer to that question...

I'm not easily rattled about sex.

You keep saying shit like this. I'm starting to wonder who you are trying to convince.

Good negotiating skills? lol. That's a stretch. I think it usually goes like this: "If you show up tomorrow for this shoot, we'll pay you a thousand dollars."

Yes. And the video grosses a mint. So the next one she negotiates 3 grand. Then 5. Or whatever. Just ask Jenna Jameson. In porn, women drive the industry and are the most well paid. They dictate who they will work with or won't. Only a fool would not realize this, and then claim this a burden.

"So, why do I either have to agree with "great negotiating skills" or "disturbing"? What a false dilemma. Having a guy hand a woman a buttload of money photogenic tits doesn't take skills. Just like posing nude isn't empowering, either."

I didn't create the false binary, you did. I suggested that empowerment exists in the ability to negotiate your salary with the leverage these women have, in response to your suggestion of it being disturbing. You are the one making the choice here, not me. Empowerment isn't about skills or the "quality" of choices you make. It's in the choice. Posing nude isn't empowering if you were coerced, but it is if you made the choice of your own volition.

Empowerment is the realization of a mental framework from which an individual can draw to take unitary action to serving their own sense of purpose and to seek fulfillment. It doesn't mean people won't MIND that happening. Choices have consequence and there is no guarantee of success. What's bizarre is that those who speak reams of empowerment deride those who are self-driven when they perceive that they are making the "wrong" choices. No, they are rising above the idea of oppression.

Oh, you don't subscribe to such and such philosophy. Didn't I say there were ways other than the direct source to absorb them, unascribed? Or even develop something parallel to what they said? I would think I could refer to them without drawing your ire, and it was the practical way to discuss it because that's the reference point I have.

Did I say you even read Nietzsche? No. I said he thought through the same points you were presenting. Whether you got them from Nietzsche or independently is irrelevant. They're still the same points. I get the feeling I've insulted your over-estimate of your originality.

And if I'm somewhat off the mark, you can correct me without getting petulant and insulting.

You had to write all that uselessly now. I'm not interested in reading you when you start out misunderstanding and misconstruing what I say and then you rant on angrily from there. When you do, I don't expect it to get any better.

We're done. Good-fucking-bye.

I will admit that is what you said. It matters to me precisely zero. I am not in the slightest insulted in the way you describe. I make pretty clear that originality is not my concern. What I say is what I think. If it is or isn't original really isn't my concern. So how could I possibly take umbrage except to say that I really am surprised at how you came to the conclusion that I somehow was borrowing. I'm actually quite pleased, with the exception of Rand, of the people you think I may have been, even if accidentally, channeling. It's a pretty elite bunch.

I would correct you if you were somewhat off the mark. I could do it without being insulting. I'll dismiss "petulant" as the silly dog-whistle that it is.

But you are not "somewhat" off the mark. You are WAY off it. And even then I could do it without being insulting, except for the same irritatingly boring tropes you throw out that I've long since deduced are the sign that a sane and rational conversation is no longer possible. We can discuss so long as we're discussing, like rational adults in control of our own brains. But that's not what I get. I find THAT insulting, so pardon me for returning the sentiment.

Oh, and just so you know, your claim that you "stopped reading on the second paragraph"? Yeah, not true. Because if you found my words insulting, you had to have gotten to at least paragraph 4, and even that was me stating that I wouldn't dignify your comparisons. Terse, but merely a statement of fact.

On edit: in the interest of accuracy, it was paragraph 3 where I stated that "getting it right" is not something you do very often. I apologize for my error.

This is a very common form of sign-off to these sort of arguments. I like it. Simple, direct, and a little tag-line-esque. It's like the DU version of Seacrest...Out!.

Would you seek out non-medical advice from a person just because they were a neurosurgeon?

Would you trust a person with your life in a non-medically related scenario just because they were a neurosurgeon?

How about a mechanic, or sculptor, or an architect, or a salesman, or nurse, or a chef, or about anything? I bet those folks might get some worth out of what they do.

I don't see the test as reasonable. President seems like a fair fit to the questions but to be honest, the job it's self considering many, if not most of the occupants, doesn't seem to qualify either. I bet with easy access to one of the Bushes many here would just call a friend or a family member that does hair or is a cube rat, or cuts grass, or what the hell ever and feel much stronger about the choice.

The answer is there isn't a job in the world the solely qualifies anyone to meet the criteria. They might result in situationally meeting one or more like if trusting your life to the heart surgeon who might not be as trustworthy with fixing your brakes. Or you might feel comfort and benefit talking to Peggy about your taxes because she is also an accountant but her advice on the affects of infertility on a couple maybe less than useful.

You may or may not be on target but I believe your test is poor.

Perhaps I can improve the example for you: if a neurosurgeon was a stripper working for her premed degree and then runs for office after years in the operating room, which part of her resume would she be wisest to promote, even if the culture changed and there wasn't any shame in being a sex worker?

Even if we try to equalize the stigma carried by the sex industry (difficult to do in any example), stripper was something she did prior to having any skill and expertise. Perhaps she took dance lessons as a kid, but perhaps not even that. I bet most customers who saw her as a stripper would not be as inclined to think of her as a leader, to defer to her leadership in important matters, or even see her as adept as people who knew her as a neurosurgeon.

Point being: except for the self-contained fantasy or immediate situation, being a sex worker is not something that puts anyone in a leadership position. That's usually true of sex in general. Even if the a person blows the boss to advance their career, they gain something not because the boss thinks they're qualified. Rather, it's a quid pro quo trade, and not because of any added respect from the superior. (The person might be qualified anyway, but that's irrelevant to the boss' final decision.) Moreover, there's not a boss in the universe who would make anyone his or her own superior only for awesome sex.

This a little off-topic: but I'll add that we should have specific criteria considered for the President. The fact that most people have been compelled to throw it aside due to our awful candidate selection process is because of decay of social-political system. Still, even without the stigma that's hard to separate from other psychological factors, there's little about being a sex worker that would gain anybody status. They may gain a lot of confidence and boldness from it, but that's all psychological, and they might not be to apply it to anything outside of sex. Though there's probably more to be gained in it than something like fast-food worker or telephone operator.

I'm not saying its something that would disqualify anybody from higher status, but it's not something that, by any stretch of my imagination, will help.

More off topic: if empowerment refers only to something psychological, that is a liberating feeling, it should go without saying that hetero males and females would have a totally different idea of what this looks like in a woman. Hetero males will judge female empowerment on what they feel in empathy with a woman. Of course this is filtered through their libido, and it comes out as something which, to women, looks like empowerment in a fun house mirror.

Therefore, empowerment shouldn't be judged solely as a subjective psychological effect.

What power does a great looking body confer? The power to manipulate others into doing your bidding, of course.

Empowerment and objectification: flip sides of the same coin. If I'm looking at you because your intent was to attract the attention of people who can promote your interests, that's empowerment. If I'm looking at you when that intent was absent, or I'm not in a position to promote your interests, it's objectification.

The optimum uniform for any sport is the one which least interferes with your athletic performance.

. . . to induce mass sexual arousal is the empowering use of physical attractiveness, though.

Whether more benefit can be derived by other means using the same tool is a different question.

There aren't that many Jenna Jamesons. Money is only empowering if you can keep it, and if you're trading away the opportunity for other power for it . . .

A good looking stripper, for example, could make an incredible amount of money. But there tends to be high overhead, along with other pitfalls.

Money would be the main argument for it and a principle source of empowerment, as opposed to status and respect, which go down. So whether it's a net gain in empowerment is arguable.

The empowerment of attractiveness is real. I think guys should think about the nature of that power as they're reaching for their wallet.

Money is empowering ESPECIALLY when you spend it. Dying rich is the ultimate in wasted potential.

I disagree. Money is merely thrilling when you spend it, but it's real power when you own enough of it. The way the 1 percent control this country, could you really say their cash is wasted potential? If they spend it all, they don't have that power

Not only that, but money has a law of gravitation. If you have enough, you could park it in bank accounts, diversify it, and pretty much live on the returns mere ownership of it brings. Compound interest alone lets you do that.

In today's environment, it can guarantee aristocracy for your offspring for centuries.

I'm probably not telling you anything you don't know, but what they mean for power is my point. I think people part with money far too easily, and in doing so, they've been giving a lot of power away to very few people.

The Koch brothers are influential because they spend such large amounts of money on politics.

Granted, from their perspective, buying politicians is more "investment" than "spending", but simply having money in the bank isn't power.

They're out of power aren't they? If they spend every penny on it, they also undermine it as a renewable resource.

I disagree with you. When the Koch's call any politician, the aids will put their call right through, and the brothers haven't spent a penny on politics there, nor expressed how they were going to, yet. Either one can call the President, and you can bet even though they're political enemies, the President will probably drop what he's doing and take the call, and listen. The guys don't spend a penny doing that. Neither of us could expect the same thing.

If you're a Koch or Gates, you can walk into any company and ask to speak with the President, and that person will likely make time for you very quick.

I'm pointing out the obvious to you: there's a lot more deferment to the wealthy above and beyond how they spend their money. There's an awe that's difficult even for the most egalitarian and socialist person to self-restrain. The very fact that so many people obey them could bring you under their sway. It's not just a phenomenon in this culture, either, though it's stronger here than most.

for instance getting a tattoo may be an expression of power or submission (are you doing it to express yourself or is it being done to you in prison against your will, to take an extreme example).

So I wouldn't say posing nude is defacto anything. Context matters as does the individual's attitude.

However I would grant a man the exact same rights I would a woman in this regard: I will assume that they are intelligent enough to make decisions regarding their own body and I won't assume they're being forced in to it by any nebulous secret organization or society or anything, that they are free adults doing as they wish.

I kid! I kid!

Do you object to skimpy outfits in general? Or just in sports?

women beach vollyball players in the olympics, is not something to be proud of when you represent the most talented of youths. You can be 'not sexy' but healthy and express yourself in sports clothes (think serena williams and all her amazing outfits). And you can still be sexy because you are young and talented and athletic. Just not falling out of your uniform.

Is the exposition of the female body shameful?

You did say that it "is not something to be proud of" at least in this case. Why?

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)

environment is the item being worn? I like to see beckham in underwear the same as the next gal. He's beautiful. But does he go shirtless when he was playing soccer at a high level? Nope. Why? Because something needs to soak up the sweat. See?-Practical. Bikinis were not made to give women the agility and support they need. And it shows when you are doing sports at a high level. And it seems ridiculous. Those sports bras they seem to be mostly wearing are great for beach volleyball. They do the job. I know. I've had a few sports bras myself ore the years. And that tight underwear is practical too. I know. I use to play on a woman's highschool basketball team that wore tunics with bloomers. Then we changed to shorts and a t-shirt. Bloomers left you freer to play the game.

and beyond that I would give some -a lot, really- weight to the opinions of the players themselves, i.e. what the people involved want to wear.

But my point; slightly facetious, but there you go; with this thread was really deflating the idea that somehow men would be outraged over, say, a men's volleyball team wearing revealing outfits, and by extension that somehow men who don't get upset about the alleged spooky "male gaze" and so-called "objectifying" images would immediately freak out and turn to blubber if confronted with pictures of sexy, scantily clad men instead of women.

When these sorts of things come up, and someone uses a word like "pride" or "proud" or "prideful", whose opposites are "shame", "ashamed", and "shameful", I often wonder if we still, after all these years, still have this mental artifact that exposition of the female form is, in and of itself, indecent.

I understand practicality, and that is precisely what should be the determinant factor.

If more dudes want to strip down to impress women (and women want to see it) then go for it.

Oh, HELL YES!

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/07/30/the-best-thing-about-the-olympics/#comments

A bunch of men ogling female athletes and commenting on their bodies: objectification.

A bunch of women doing the same to male athletes: totally fine because . . .

Admiration of someone’s sexy physique doesn’t objectify them any more than a discussion narrowly focused on their athletic ability renders them Water Polo Objects. It can be a different story when done in conjunction with pervasive cultural messaging that members of the admired person’s gender are only here for sex.

So in other words: it's always ok for women to do this, never for men.

/the list is even titled "33 *things* to love about the olympics" then only shows pictures of men. Doesn't get more blatant than that. But somehow that's still ok.

Absent that, they simply use the old fall back position of justice. "What's good for the goose, bla bla bla".

Which means "anything I do is justified, provided that I believe that you do it worse."

giggity giggity

FYI.

<-- outrage smiley.

I'm starting to see the appeal, though.

Guys don't get too jealous over physical appearance. That's why, for the most part, fashion is not male-dominated.

in the LGBT forum.

Gentlemen, don`t forget to be thoroughly offended. Only through penance can one lower ones erotoxins to less-than-fatal levels.

no, seriously. Butt.

If only it weren`t full of shih-tzu sized insects...

Im an adventurous eater, but that's too much even for me.

Between "A Cook's Tour", "Beyond Survival" and a few other shows on regional cuisines and fauna, I'm definitely thinking the cold, wet, upper left corner of the ole US is just about the only place for me.

no, sex toys. Women implies that they're people.

They are objects that exist for me to have sex with. I feel entitled to engage in PIV intercourse with them and they are obliged to comply under the rules of the Patriarchy.



/or at least that's how I've been told I think by virtue of that Y-chromosome.

If you DON'T want to have sex with them, you are still passing your patriarchal judgement upon them, deciding they are unworthy!