Dear Dwight, your argument it still sexist, demeaning and wrong (closed)
You write something, post it, a few days later you move on and you basically forget it. Then someday, often months later, someone brings it up again - sometimes even the person about whom you wrote. It’s my favorite weird and wild thing about the internet.
Case in point, this morning while checking comments, I found a response to a post I wrote in October entitled “The Burden of Owning a Penis.” The response appears to have come from the author of the Trib LTE I was mocking. I have to admit my original post was one of the harshest and most acid-tongued I’ve written here on OneUtah. Sexism dressing itself up as “concern for women” pisses me the hell off.
Anyway, so Dwight this morning left a defensive comment defending his original letter using basic tactics. The first was to implicitly claim that the LTE didn’t really represent his actual views because it was only 200 words and possibly edited. Therefore, it doesn’t accurately represent me. It’s someone else’s fault (the dog ate my brain!).
This argument would hold water if Dwight’s next defense weren’t:Â My argument is sound, women should be modest to help men control their sexuality:
Truth be told, I have less trouble with immodestly-dressed women than most people I know. I am simply man enough to admit that it has an effect, will always have an effect, and that women should be more responsible with themselves. How would they feel if men walked around stimulating them tactilely all the time (grabbing their breasts, etc.), no matter how miniscule that stimulation might be? Women would be OUTRAGED. Men have just gotten used to it. We shouldn’t have.
Dwight needs to get himself to Gender Studies 101 if he really believes his example is comparable. Notice carefully what Dwight is arguing here - he’s arguing that men seeing women dressed attractively is the equivalent experience of having people you touch you whether you welcome it or not. This is not a valid counter-example.
Dwight, however, isn’t done. He wants to talk about rape. Dwight says:
Immodesty won’t cause rape most of the time.Â
Immodesty never causes rape. Never. Never. Not once. When men claim such things (”She was asking for it by wearing that slinky red dress) what they’re doing is blaming the victim. It would pathetic if it weren’t so reprehensible. Dwight’s not done.
But I know personally of times when it is probable that it did. The rape was the man’s fault. Period. But women would be safer if they were more careful. If a woman is out walking in a dark alley late at night, we don’t say it’s her fault if she’s raped. But we still say that walking in a dark alley late at night was stupid and possibly even wrong. Modesty falls under the same rule.
Oh, so the rape is the man’s fault but that slut asked for it by daring to wear something other than a burka. Dwight is being a concern troll here; he’s really concerned about women’s safety. Dwight is again offering false equivalencies. Walking down a dark alley at night is not the same as dressing “immodestly.”Â
Dwight trots out a “fake feminist” talking point:
You should respect the fact that some of us are more comfortable allowing women to be primarily HUMAN BEINGS, and their gender secondarily. I know women have breasts, buttocks, and vaginas. I like that they do. It’s nice to be stimulated and to be able to appreciate them. But some of them go too far when they say “look at my breasts” with their clothes and “respect me for my mind” with their mouths.Â
This not a serious argument. I think Dwight is trying to say it’s only possible to respect a woman as a person possessing intellect if she’s hiding physical indicators of her gender. So then Dwight offers a variant of the “blame the victim” argument:
I have known too many men who succumbed to their lusts, and I’m sick of it. They were like starving men having feasts paraded in front of them constantly. It was their fault they took what wasn’t theirs, but who can truly blame them for eating? And however strong you and I may be, there are men out there who are not so strong, and there are A LOT of them. Unfortunately, before they get treatment, they end up raping someone, or ruining their families with pornography addiction or adultery, or molesting, or any number of other grievous errors. Is it so wrong for me to ask that we tone things down to reduce the likelihood of them losing control?
Notice again - Dwight is saying women are responsible for men’s sexuality. He’s dressing it up in apparently enlightened language but he’s saying women are responsible for men’s bad behavior - by daring to show their slutty selves out in public in provocative clothing like t-shirts and jeans they so overstimulate poor, uncontrolled men that they can’t help themselves.
Dwight also uses a familiar Utah tactic - sure I said something offensive in public but I’ll only talk about it in private - hence giving us his email. Call is the Chris Buttars approach. It’s an attempt to save face rather than actually publicly apologize or defend your comments.Â
There are a wide array of unstated problems with Dwight’s arguments. Let’s unpack a few of them.
First, there is no universal standard for modesty. What might be considered modest in my community or group of friends might be considered incredibly immodest in another community or group of friends. Standards of modesty also change over time and reflect cultural attitudes toward the body. Taboos about exposing the body have changed dramatically over the last 200 years. Compare attitudes in most European nations toward the body with North American attitudes and you see that our standards of “modesty” are far from universal. It’s not a stretch to say that repressive attitudes toward the body are intimately connected with the belief that “immodesty” causes sexual violence. It’s also not a stretch to say that beliefs about necessary modesty fuel the kinds of attacks the Dwight claims to wish to prevent.
Men who are indoctrinated with the believe that women should dress “modestly” (however defined) come to believe that any woman not dressed “modestly” must be sexually available and that men have a “right” to a woman’s body. Sexism and sexual violence are connected. If Andrea Dworkin taught us nothing else, she taught us that men in our culture are socialized to believe they have the right to a women’s bodies. Dworkin also taught us that male sexual violence - perpetrated by a small number of men but implicitly defended by a much larger number - serves to keep women in line. Dwight’s argument that male sexual violence arises from female “immodesty” is part and parcel of that sytem of oppression.
It may not be fully applicable to our culture, but watch any National Geographic special or Living with the Mek on Discovery and you see cultures in which men and women are almost naked with one another all the time. These cultures are relatively free of the kind of sexual violence Dwight says he abhors; these cultures also surround sexuality with ritual, restriction and taboo that could not and would not function in our society. The fifties era morals so beloved of many cultural conservatives were the last vestiges of western cultures ritual, restriction and taboo about sexuality.
Arguments about modesty and display of he body are culturally based, not, contrary to other claims, inherently part of human nature.
Second, Dwight is arguing for a sexual double standard - one in which women and men are held to different standards of both dress and behavior. I reject this absolutely. As a sexuality education instructor in the United Church of Christ, one of my core values holds that there is a single standard of sexual morality for both genders, as well as for all persons without regard to their sexual orientation. IOW: if we expect women to dress and behave modestly, we must hold men to the same standard. If we forgive male sexual misdeeds with the argument that women’s immodesty caused them, then we should forgive female sexual misdeeds for the same reason. Dwight is arguing that the behavior of poorly socialized males justifies treating women differently than men; that is a morally questionable argument at its base, as well as a profoundly sexist argument.
Third, and finally for now, Dwight’s arguments about gender differences (notice they aren’t backed up with actual links to scientific research!) are suspect. Men and women are more similar than dissimilar. Gender differences are relatively trivial in a wide array of areas including sexuality. Women like to look as much as men - if you don’t believe me, ask women. Women and men are socialized to respond differently.Â
March 11th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Well said. But I think it bears pointing out that when you send in a letter to the editor and the paper chooses to publish it, they contact you. And if they opt to trim down the letter for space reasons, they give you their draft and ask for your approval. So his claim that his letter was taken out of context is just a lie, plain and simple. Even if they somehow decided not to contact him, his subsequent comment on your blog proves that he was not taken out of context.
Dwight has the same mindset about gender–that boys will be boys and women have to dress ‘appropriately’ to prevent men’s carnal appetites from getting out of control–that Western society had from the Victorian era until the 1960s. It seems Dwight should move to places like Saudi Arabia where the morals police patrol the streets. He would feel a lot more confortable there were his lust would not be tempted by a flash of ankle skin.
March 11th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Dave B- thank you for reminding me about the trib’s LTE policy. I know in the past they’ve always contacted me before publishing an edited version of one of my LTE’s.
March 11th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
DaveB:
I’m waiting for the titillating Saudi Arabian video production of “Ankle’s Gone Wild!”
March 11th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
It always pays not to be bleeding when swimming amongst the sharks.
We would like a perfect world, however our prisons wouldn’t be full of rapists if it was one. When it’s raining bring a raincoat, until our society improves.
As an interesting side note, Germans castrated rapists for quite some time, and though it is not likely to be accepted by people here, the trouble comes to its end for the vast majority of particular individuals.
That is that only 10% of men castrated ever re-offended. Works for me.
There is more to it than a simple crime of control.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I will provide a more lengthy response to defend this blog soon, but let me say simply: I am promoting responsibility among women, not laws regulating their behavior, and I’m sick of everyone thinking I’m some kind of social dictator. I have never once stated that a law should be made, nor that morals police should enforce modesty.
Until I repost, one proviso: Glenden sent me a warm e-mail, thanking me for my input and kindly requesting that I continue to participate. It was wonderful to discover that he only wants ammo so that he can continue to misinterpret information, exclude my statements to further his attacks, and, well, bash. Glenden: Perhaps you should try out a little conversation tool we call “mutual respect,” and we can have a productive conversation on this topic. Sound good?
March 12th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Dwight - You wrote a letter to the editor of the Tribune; they published your letter. You wrote a lengthy reply here at OneUtah. Those are eminently public fora. There is no reason to now try to hide in email.
I read and analyzed your offerings. It’s a simple skill, one I was taught in way back when in high school - read a text, examine it for themes, ideas and consistencies, and then ask yourself what those are, what they mean and what they imply. I was taught that is one of the basic ways in which we practice critical thinking. I had an amazing professor who likened it to finding a loose string then pulling on it to see what happened. It’s not ammo - it’s taking your words seriously enough to actually read them and read them critically. Almost every one who writes consistently - even on widely disparate topics - quickly develops themes that emerge in their writing. Read several things by me and you’ll see there are themes in my writings. In two pieces you’ve shown a consistency of theme.
So if you feel a lack of respect, I suggest the problems is yours. I take your words seriously enough to read them and analyze them and disagree with them. You are for some reason placing the blame for male misbehavior on female dress. That’s simply not acceptable. It’s not “promoting responsibily among women” to ask them to cover up because some men use female “immodesty” as an excuse for their misdeeds. Furthermore, the fact that most men are able to see women in bikinis at the beach and not begin sexual rampages strongly suggests that the problem is not female attire but poorly socialzed men.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Glenden - you laud yourself for your high school critical thinking skills. You don’t seem to realize, however, that interpreting literature (or any other written work) is negligent when it fails to consider the biography, cultural context, and historical context of the author.
Of course, you and I are of the same historical context. And it is likely that we at least understand each other’s cultural context. My biography, however, is vested solely in 200 words that admittedly summed up rather crudely and inappropriately an enormously complex issue.
Beyond that consideration, however, you piously imply that your critical thinking skills have allowed you to create a perfect internal image of my ego, superego, and id (or whatever mental model and its components you wish to use), to the point where you can insert your interpretations of unspoken words and opinions as if they were absolute reality, with perfect accuracy and argumentative impunity.
If you don’t see the error in your critical thinking claim, consider this one little factoid: You (and at least one of your readers) has drawn from my comments that I believe that women should wear burkas. I DON’T, NEVER HAVE, AND NEVER WILL. Your ever-so-useful critical thinking skills have made a critical error. In the present cultural context of the use of the “he likes burkas” argument in the American mainstream, I have to assume that, if you are aware that you misrepresented me, you did so not out of foolishness as an innocent mistake would have been done, but out of a malicious desire to extend the image you and your readers have of me into the realm of sensational extremity and emotional immediacy. I can only wish it was an innocent mistake (in which case you see the fallacy of your critical thinking method). If it was not, I can only say: Shame on you. You’re a dirty liar for defending your position behind the guise of your self-esteemed critical thinking. Either way, you have made an error. Are you man enough to admit this, Glenden? I admitted that my original comments were crude. I made a concession. Can you?
Don’t even try to say that you didn’t directly state that I believed in forcing women to wear burkas. Your comment regarding burkas was a direct response to my comment, with the full implication that what you were presenting were MY beliefs. Any adept critical thinker (which you claim to be) will know full-well the effect that juxtaposition has on readers.
A second, and equally grievous offense: You demonize me at every turn, without sufficient evidence to do so. You claim erroneously twice that I have shyed away from public discourse; that I have employed the “familiar Utah tactic” of providing an e-mail address to deter public confrontation–to close the issue without being proven wrong. First of all, I wasn’t aware that this tactic was especially prevalent in Utah, nor restricted to Utahns. You, of course, are immune to it. You employ the familiar internet tactic of creating a specialized blog with predictable viewership so that you can rant and feel important, benefiting from the natural inferment that you are published, therefore you must be superior, insightful, or authoritative.
Was that an accurate judgement of you, Glenden? You show as many signs of this trait as I do of what you accuse me of. Maybe you should pay attention to the facts before you critically think (or is it critically imagine?). Consider: Why in the world would anyone who wanted to hide his argument from public view bother to comment on your site more than 5 months after the issue has quieted down, welcoming a revival of the issue, with the concurrent rapid increase in the ferocity of its awakened contenders? If I wanted to avoid a confrontation before the eyes of the public, I would have simply let the issue go. Also: Why would I provide an invitation to others to create a UNIFIED understanding of the issue (implying more than one person involved in the creation of such an understanding) if I wanted the issue to end at ME? If you thought a little more critically, you may have put it together that I LIKE discussing these things, and publicly (hence submissions including my full name to the Tribune). Perhaps, just maybe, I put my e-mail address (and clicked the link to inform me of further comments on this blog) so that I could know if and when I should return to the site to comment further. And just maybe, within the penumbra of a doubt, could it be possible that I felt that others might wish to talk about the issue without having to post comments on a five-month-old blog that no one is likely to ever read again, to give them a chance to confront me? Case in point: I have NEVER backed away from an important discussion, not even when faced with opponents who outnumbered me GREATLY. I feel compelled, Glenden, to say “duh!”
Before you write any more, Glenden, you should think about this: Your conversational style is crude and sensational; you deride when you should explore; you are creative when you should be analytical; and you dichotomize my and your opinions at the same time that you profess a universal uniformity of thinking patterns. You seem to have no desire to progress the discussion. I feel as though, even if I said something worth considering, you would be too stuck in your own desire to scream at the crowd and be heard that you wouldn’t understand a thing I said.
If you wish to rant, then please stop doing so under the false assumption that your rant is directly approaching my arguments and opinons. You have no idea what my arguments and opinions are, short of a very small amount, which you have obviously misinterpreted. Yet you set me up as if I were the Hitler of male sexism and you are a valiant Roosevelt moving in to save those who I would persecute. You take no attempt to truly understand me; yet you speak as if you understand me completely.
That said, if you are capable of creating a valid argument, I will be happy to analyze and comment on it. You have made several claims already that have made me think. I respect that you can do that. I intend to comment on your primary argument soon. However, I am faced with the immediate need to defend myself from defamation. If you can turn me into a monster in the eyes of the readers, then my arguments, no matter how reasonable, will sound on hollow ears. And I think you know that. It might just be true that you sadistically enjoy it.
It would be sheer affectation to thank you at this point,
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 13th, 2008 at 1:56 am
In response to your last post:
Themes are not the same as attitudes. A writer’s conscious injections into his work are simple to judge, and simple to make assumptions about. A writer’s attitudes, his subconscious injections, are complex to judge. Even a skilled therapist takes months of regular visits (if not more) to make an even partially accurate judgement about his patient’s unstated anxieties and perceptions. You are treating the attitudes you perceive in me as if they are stated themes, with less material than even a single complete essay. You have seriously jumped the gun on this one.
Furthermore, as you would know if you had taken a single literature class (and if you have, you must not have learned anything), every single person in the world will find different themes and different ways to interpret them in a single work–even in a three-line haiku. No person should have the gall to presume that their interpetation is everything, or even accurate. Truly, perceived themes are more often a representation of the themes within the reader–his own attitudes that are elicited within himself by an author’s work. What you say about my work and its supposed “themes” is merely that which my work has reminded you of–and likely a response to an issue for which you have inadvertently trained yourself to respond poorly or excessively emotionally to. Not to say your assumptions about my themes are incorrect; that would take further discussion and analysis to determine. Just to say that they originate within you, not me.
I feel a lack of respect because, quite frankly, you have no conversational etiquette. And this is not a theme; it is a FACT. Etiquette requires a lack of excessive assumptiveness. It requires the choice to avoid emotionally charged language. It defies inflammatory writing and bashing. You violate all of these rules. The problem is that I find myself falling into your habits as I respond to you. When one person yells, the other is far more likely to yell back. Truth be told, Glenden, you have not made a good impression on me. The only people you will make a good impression on are people who agree with you, who choose to ignore your lack of tact or regard. I may have not made a good impression on you either–but it is because of what I said, not how I said it.
And don’t try to put yourself on a pedestal. I of all people know how easy it is to read and respond to someone’s words when you are in passionate disagreement. You only take my words seriously because of what they are, not because of any respect for who I am. Am I incorrect in this assumption? I’m gonna enjoy watching you rebuild the pedestal.
Finally, Immodesty is not a question (primarily) of males and their misdeeds. It is a question of inter-gender, inter-culture respect. Cultures of loose standards (and I don’t say “loose” depracatingly–simply definitively) should be respectful of those with strict standards. It is easy to cover up physically. It is hard for a socialized individual, whether male or female, to cover someone up mentally. Consider what would happen (specifically in our culture) if men started walking around exposing half of their penis. Most women would be disgusted, whether they were stimulated or not. Just ask them. Yet women are constantly flaunting half or more of their sexual organs at men. We should likewise be disgusted. I know you’ll crucify me for using the word, but it’s just a matter of DECENCY.
You speak of other cultures who walk around mostly naked all of the time. Yet can you name one culture (or a significant number) in which everyone walks around completely naked all of the time? In one African culture, a small triangle-shaped spot on the female back is the most desired. Yet these people still have more sense than you–they still cover it up, because they, without any quasi-Freudian psychologists or modern studies or Christian oppression, recognize that constantly exposing a source of sensuality is not only a distraction–it is socially destructive. Have you considered, sir, that rape has only become as prevalent as it is in the United States since the advent of socially validated immodesty? You blame rape on men who want modesty. Have you even postulated that rape might be caused by the men who DON’T want modesty? Who thrive off of immodesty? You are likely between those who don’t want it and those who do. But you might be blaming the wrong side.
A simple verbal poll of pubescent males exposes how dramatically they are affected by immodesty. It doesn’t mean they’ll rape someone. But it will affect them, it will encourage exploration into pornography (which, by the way, can become a destructive and unhealthy addiction), and it will teach them for far too long (if they ever get over it) to associate their graduation into male sexuality with an excessive focus on female sexuality instead of the whole of femininity. Perhaps they’re poorly socialized. But it’s a reality THEY have to face. If YOU don’t have to face it, good for you. Perhaps you can have a little Christ-like compassion on their predicament. You want to change the way it’s done? Then do so slowly, through education and careful analysis. Don’t force it rapidly in the name of “rights” or any other such thing.
And by the way, you neglected in your blog that visual stimulus almost always occurs before tactile, and is more difficult to avoid. If a woman is walking down the street naked, many people will not be able to protect themselves from seeing her at least once. Their mind has been physically violated–through the eyes, which have a longer and more powerful memory than tactile sensation does. On the other hand, if you try to grab a woman, it is likely either someone will intervene, the victim will stop you, or she will flee–not to mention the legal deterrant. It’s much harder to violate a person that way. Simply put, an immodest woman IS touching me whether I like it or not. I know, you’ll say “then look away!” Of course I look away, if it is severe enough to present a problem. But that’s like telling a woman that if she backs off when she’s groped, it’s all a-ok. Wouldn’t that be ridiculous?
So you aren’t affected by immodesty like I am. So what. Some women would not mind being groped. Does it make it right to do it indiscriminately, without any respect for the person’s preference, and for hours at a time to potentially hundreds of people? Of course not. Some men don’t mind being raped, either (and it happens much more often than you might think). Does it make it ok to rape men? What about those who don’t like it?
So whose rights are truly being trampled here? Women are walking around jumpy, nervous people, waving a loaded gun in their faces. Is that right? Shouldn’t we try to protect those who will be harmed by immodesty, rather than those who simply have a preference for being immodest? Come on, Glenden. Think about it.
And for the record, I never said it was right to BLAME women for men’s misdeeds. I said there was CAUSALITY betweeen immodesty and rape, which is not the same as blame, and that it was an issue for concern and caution, not accusation. So quit pretending that I did.
Finally, you might want to avoid phrases like “sexual rampage” when we’re talking about possibly subtle alterations in brain chemistry. Such phrases are yet another form of verbal abuse among the many forms in your repertoire that excites readers into nonsensical assumptiveness. I never said (though I may have erroneously implied) that a sexual rampage was the only result of sexual stimulation. It is one possible but unlikely result. I have been talking about subtle alterations which vary in their severity from person to person, but which constitute an inappropriate external intrusion into a person’s mind, and possibly their self-authorship.
I await your response,
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 13th, 2008 at 1:59 am
Side note: Thank you, Pop goes the list, for your comments. I don’t know where exactly you stand on the issue, but I agree with your metaphors. Thanks again.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Thank you too, Dwight for the thoughtful exposition of how these interactions might be informed. And while these issues are of great importance, snark, snipits and entertainment are also at play (however offensive the results may be).
March 13th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Dwight,
After a quick skim, a couple things jumped out. You’re not very good at being insulting. But I appreciate the effort.
You wrote: “have you considered sir that rape has only become as prevalent as it is in the United States since the advent of socially validated immodesty?” This statement is factually wrong. Susan Brownmiller’s “Against Our Will” is one of the original books exploring rape as an historical and social phenomenon; Brownmiller published in 1973 or 74. What has changed is not so much the incidence of rape but our cultural and individual willingness to acknowledge that is occurs. In the book “Transforming a Rape Culture” one of the essayists makes the point that a large number of women who are victims of sexual assault don’t acknowledge that they are victims. The problem is one of awareness and willingness to recognize when a crime has occurred. Our cultural awareness of sexaul assault has risen, more rapes are reported than before, but law enforcement research tells us that rape is among the most under-reported crimes. There are still people in our society who deny that spousal rape occurs.
You also seem to be implying that rape is a crime of sex not power. Rapists don’t just assault women in low cut cocktail dresses. They assault older women, younger women, women in business suits, women in bikinis, teenage girls in jeans and sweaters. Rape is about power. Excuses for rape - such as “I was stimulated by seeing a woman in a revealing dress” - are nothing more than excuses and window dressing. We wouldn’t say that a person who sexually abused prepubescent boys was doing so because he saw men on the street in revealing clothing; change the genders and that is argument you’re making.
Male victims of rape are among those persons least likely to report the crime. The folks at Stop Prison Rape claim that as many rapes of men occur in prison every year (often the same man being victimized multiple times) as occur in the rest of American society all together. I have no illusions about men and sexual assault and it is an area which our society needs to begin exploring in a meaningful rather than sensational way.
You wrote “If a woman is walking down the street naked, many people will not be able to protect themselves from seeing her at least once. Their mind has been physically violated . . . ” - consider this statement. It’s difficult to read such a statement without seeing a deep distrust, dislike possibly even revulsion for the human form. People should “protect” themselves from seeing a naked person? People who see a naked person will be “violated”? I can think of a situation that happened to a friend of mine. She was walking down the street naked. What if everyone had turned away? No one would have helped her, which she needed because she’d just been raped in car. I assume you’re not suggesting that “modesty” should take precedence over compassion.
Seeing is not the equivalent of touching. Being touched against your will is not the same as seeing someone whose level of modesty you dislike. You keep arguing they are equivalent experiences and they are not. As a matter of body integrity, I have a right to be touched or not as I wish. If you touch me against my will, you’ve committed a clear wrong. If I’m wearing a t-shirt that says “Beat Dick and Lick Bush” you may be offended but I havevn’t violated your body integrity. I haven’t forced you to read it, I haven’t held you down and made you read it or forced you to say I was right.
You can call it causality if it makes you feel better but you are still making the claim that women are responsible for the way men act. You are still saying that if women would cover up men would not misbehave. Hugo Schwyzer calls this the “myth of male weakness” - that men need women to help with their weak sexual controls, that women are accountable for making men control their impulses and to blame when men don’t. Here’s an example you: Two people are having a yelling match on the street, the police might show up but won’t intervene until it becomes physical. Say what you want, yell insults, say dirty things, but until one persons strikes the other, no crime has been committed (maybe disturbing the peace but that’s likely to be ignored). Now one of those people goes home and stews and frets over what was said, get angry about it, writes a nasty letter, what ever; he’s been physically affected by what was said, his heart rate is up, his breathing is faster, his body is pumped full of adrenalin. Suddenly he has a heart attack and dies. Is the other person responsible for his death? Of course not. Now lets say instead of having a heart attack, he gets a gun, drives over to the other person’s house and shoots them. It’s not self defense. It’s cold blooded murder. The person with whom he was arguing isn’t partly to blame because they said something that upset someone.
Finally, why should more open cultures and people have to defer to less open ones? That’s like saying, religious people get offended if you “God damn it” so you should not be able to say it. Why shouldn’t the less open people learn to live with a more diverse set of attitudes and behaviors? Why shouldn’t less open people learn that their issues with the body should not take precedence over my lack of issues with the body?
March 13th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Dwight a very cogent analysis of the internet persona. It does lend itself to the ego, and to excessive moralizing on the part of some. It is very difficult to get replies when logical responses to ideological arguments are made. We all select what we defend, dispose of what we cannot, or what is uncomfortable. Human nature at work.
I have created charactetures to highlight peoples emotional responses to them. The study has been fascinating, as within responses to differing “personas” are the obvious contradictions in responders themselves(if they are known), as they banter back and forth with what they believe to be different people. True Believers of any stripe are very malleable in this way. I believe because they are reactionary as opposed to analytical.
My true feelings on the issue is that what you described “decency” extends to more that dress and attraction. If your behavior is inflammatory no matter the irrationality of those affected by it, at some point a person is now engaged deeply within the psyche of the peoples they are affecting. Unless it your specific intention, it is unwise to do so, and in the case of stirring sexual urges, probably dangerous.
Your point that the spectrum of predators out there ranges, is well taken. No one can know what is on a scantily clad suggestively dressed persons mind. Do they want attention? Do they want sex? Are they clueless? More than a few men have their day changed by the smell of women, let alone what they wear.
I ask Glendon, during the Pride parades, is the spectacle of scantily clad suggestive males a stimulant to member of the gay audience? In my own life I knew gays from Toronto. They stayed at our family business, an Inn, which was known as a gay friendly establishment. We were in the gay travel handbook.
I would call them “conservative gays” who explained that for them the exhibitions were crass, and in their view caused their cause difficulties in general society. These hardly moralizing or closeted these gay men to a T said that the parades were disrespectful to those whose sensibilities were offended. Like burlesque in public, with children in the audience. Are they gay prudes?
As for why people should defer to those who are offended, it is called respect, and if you want it, you have to give it.
Or live somewhere that the differences are not cultural issue. To see ii evenly, ask those offended to get over the displays is just the flip side of them asking you to step back into the closet, or denying you equal status. Both sides would benefit is they were not overtly in each other faces attempting to apply their will to the other. Keep in mind the Hegelian dictum Glendon. Cui Bono as you clash?
As a matter of law Glendon, it is not required to touch someone to be charged with assault. Our overt actions though not physical are consequential. The crime of menacing requires no physical element other than the assailed being aware of the threat. Even then, if pointed out to the Law by a 3rd party, it is still menacing once proven, though the menaced may have been unaware of it. Care is needed, this requires respect.
Where the effects of your body presence on others begin and end is defined culturally and codified. For example, in the Arab world it is farther away, the boundary of where that is purely subjective. The siren call is deadly(laugh), wear a blindfold, get some earplugs, not so easy in American culture today, is it?
March 13th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Dwight - btw I don’t know what kind of neighborhood you live in, but in my neighborhood if we see someone walking along naked, we’re likely to think something is wrong and they need help not “Oh my God! Turn away you might see boobies!”
March 13th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Ah there is the post, it disappeared for several minutes.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Glenn/pop your comments were in the moderation queue . . . your suspcious nature is cute though.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Well that is a relief. A suspicious nature is an evolutionary advantage in maintaining your evolutionary independence. Without it, you tend to follow the path set out for you.
It could not have been in the “cue” as it was posted for at 10 minutes, then disappeared. I am suspicious of what may not be ” genuine” in your statements.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Dwight,
I must point out that rather than devoting your energy to expand upon your point, you have instead given us a really exhaustive criticism of Glen’s methods, with really specious arguments, without giving the reader the complete expression of your position.
You go so far as to complain that LTEs are too short and therefore it is not possible to accurately “know” anything about you. Thats kind of a non-starter isn’t it? If you are engaged in an argument and someone makes a claim, you refute the claim by providing the needed information about yourself in this case. To say things like, “, you don’t understand me” is lame sissy shit. Be a man, and state an argument that does not depend on our “knowing” you.
Then after your big long rant, you remind us that you never stand down from a fight. You must know that the truth of that statement does not serve to validate your arguments…does it.
So why don’t you just re-state whatever point you did not make in your LTE, so you can stop using the “you don’t know me” canard, and we can get back to the substance of your point.
Personally, I think the issue here is social engineering vs respect for individual expression. The debate in my mind is, does social engineering really work? There is little historical evidence of successful social engineering in any culture.
I can see how from your cultural perspective, that a given. But most, I think, would disagree based on simple empirical evidence (i.e the Mormon culture has NOT demonstrated less sexual deviance, less infidelity, or less divorce than the general population.
But, as long as your argument is based upon the assumption, that everyone thinks like you and feels guilty about their sexual urges the way you do, we won’t get anywhere.
Just between you and me, I think you are coming from a place of guilt about your sexuality and therefore cannot imagine how others might not have a personal problem with curves, cleavage, and skin. What if you were told that sexual fantasy is ok and strong sexual urges for other women is perfectly normal.
When you no longer need to forgive yourself for these normal urges, you will be free.
March 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
glenn/pop - you’ve got it backwards. The more open standard says, for instance, if you believe women should cover in public - even the most extreme burka - you are free to do so; if however, if you disagree with that, you are free to live your live as you please - neither side has the right to force the other to conform to their standard in their personal lives. To put it another way, you may believe the burka is absolutely wrong and you and yours refuse to have anything to do with and so long as you don’t force those who believe it is right to abandon it that’s fine. That means however that in the public square both sides have to agree that both standards of dress are acceptable. The price of being free to wear burka is the freedom of others to not wear it.
To return to Dwight’s point - if some men cannot control themselves, that is their fault, not the fault of the women around them. Asking women to dress modestly won’t actually have any effect on the way men behave. Some men have a long history of managing to do horrible things to women no matter the socially acceptable level of modesty adopted by women. Dwight’s solution - however well intentioned - won’t achieve the stated goals. Allow me to put it another way - even in nations with the most restrictions on female freedom, men still manage to mistreat, abuse and sexually assault women, only the restrictions on female freedom serve to produce a population of women who can’t defend themselves.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Whew, what an exchange!
Congratulations to both Glenden and Dwight for making some good points—albeit small chips of rational thought in a sea of ungentlemanly conduct.
I’m not sure EITHER of you is all that skilled in the art of the insult. Which perhaps for your own sakes, is just as well.
In the heat of argument, we always forget that the best way to win is to avoid insult altogether. But I won’t pretend that I have followed that advice myself.
But who cares about winning? What IS “winning� In the context of a blog, “Winning†could as well mean a willingness to LOSE on civility-demerits for the Greater Good of pure ENTERTAINMENT. If there is entertainment-value in a well-crafted insult then being fearless about insulting each another may be the highest form of ALTRUISM.
Think about that and get back to me, Dwight and Glenden. And you too Pop—Ye of a Thousand Faces and Names. (For all we know, both Glenden and Dwight your fictional creations. Or then again, all of us may be but fictional creations of the unscrupulous Cliff Lyon….)
————————————————-
Never one to back away from a dangerous subject, and with—as ever–only the best interests of this blog at heart, I will now do my duty to throw fuel on this flame.
Dwight’s sweet reason may be scalable in this way:
I have long thought that the slavish devotion of women in our culture to certain conventions of makeup and dress—namely those which appear (to me) intended to convey sexual arousal in the WOMAN (breasts uplifted to display erect nipples; rouged cheeks, reddened lips, eye shadow, eye liner, eyelash-brushing/curling, and plucked eyebrows (all of which have the effect of making the eyes appear larger and more widely open and the eyebrows lifted—miming arousal)—I have long thought that such devotion to sexualized conventions of dress and makeup is the penultimate expression of male sexism –directed, so interestingly, AGAINST women, by THEMSELVES.
I would think that at least some, perhaps many, feminists would agree with this point.
(Lest Glenden waste any more breath accusing ME of sexism, I hasten to add that I do NOT suggest that sexy clothing or makeup are a justification for rape or any other form of harassment of women by men. I do NOT ask women to wear the burka. In fact, I am perfectly OK with short skirts and high heels, though I personally do not find makeup very attractive in most cases.)
While on the one hand, I quite like the way that high heels or a short skirt or tight sweater make the sexually attractive anatomical features of a woman more visible, more accessible—on the other hand, I can’t help feeling a little appalled at how DISABLING high heels or tight-fitting clothing are.
High heels are not good for your health. They are both dangerous and extremely hard on the toe joints.
I now have osteoarthritis in my toe joints—and have had surgery for it. If I tried to walk around in high heels, it would be very painful All The Time. If I tried to run on them—say, in escaping from an attempted rape—it would be very nearly as dangerous and difficult as if I were wearing a burka. Why, then, would I chose to wear high heels, if no one was in fact forcing me to do so?
So Glenden, I would ask you to cheerfully come on board with Dwight and the rest of us, in at least offering to women the option of dressing and decorating their skin less provocatively, purely for their own sake.
I think lipstick for example, is on balance, gross. Messy. YUCK. If you LIKE wearing it, fine. You should NOT be discriminated against, insulted, raped, or otherwise abused, just for wearing lipstick. But please at least consider the fact that the wearing of lipstick, throughout our media culture, is in fact, a classic archetypal symbol of the domination of women by men. As are short skirts, push-up bras, high heels, and all the other accoutrements of male fantasy as projected upon the female body.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I would like to add that it wasn’t log ago that it was legally impossible to “rape” your wife. And that rape hasn’t been listed as a crime for that long, but the act of rape has been around since well before “immodesty” was invented.
The idea that a man can do whatever he wants to do with his wife is borne of the same idea that women could prevent rapes by dressing in a way that covers their “garm” zones.
March 13th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
To all involved:
I apologize for becoming overly emotionally involved with this issue. Glenden and I have been engaging in a two-person bash session instead of approaching the issue or considering the needs of the other participants.
I can only provide the following explanations for my behavior and arguments: I have personally observed the negative effects of immodesty (or, more accurately, excessive visual stimulation) in many people, many of which were close friends and family members. So you can understand why I feel as strongly as I do, and perhaps understand that I come from a position not only of postulation and consideration, but of observation and experience.
Also, as I have stated, I have felt the need to defend my position not only in its own facts but in facts regarding the presenter (myself); or at least facts regarding the primary source of perceptions of me; namely, Glenden’s erroneous claims regarding myself. I have been involved in far too many touchy arguments where the perception of the presenter and not his presentation has closed the minds of the perceivers. I believe that Glenden has been trying to reduce trust in my person (hence the ad hominem nature of his arguments) rather than reduce trust in my arguments, so that he doesn’t have to do as much work to refute what I say. I prefer to not let that happen. It’s not “sissy.” It’s practical. If that is not his intention, then I would simply admonish him to alter his style, because he’s having a negative impact on our ability to comprehend and discuss the issue at hand. I admit that I have likewise had a negative effect.
Let us all try to avoid sensationalism in rational arguments. Interactive or participatory entertainment shouldn’t let facts take a back seat to fun unless it regards issues of no importance. In that vein, I will attempt to restrict my arguments to facts, reason, and inquiry from now on.
While most of the sexual crimes I have been informed of are not related to visual stimulus (at least not directly), I have adopted the belief that the rapid transition from negligible stimulus in a particular culture or sub-culture to dramatic stimulus is largely part of the reason why we as a culture are so obsessed with our individual sexuality and with finding ways to involve ours with that of other people. I have observed a common tendency nowadays to respond to many life-changing events by questioning one’s sexuality, as well as one’s sexual relationships, even when gender and sex had nothing to do with the situation. This seems counterproductive and obsessive to me. It could, however, simply be a result of an increase in idle time.
Honestly, I don’t know if what is currently considered immodest in my local culture is wrong in human terms (though I dislike it on a religious level), but I do know that, within a cultural context, it is foolish to encourage its expression with such temerity. Responsibility more often requires caution than excess.
As an example of this principle: In parts of the Middle East, it is customary to breathe on the face of your conversational partner. This shows respect. To not breathe on his/her face is a sign of contempt or shame. On a first visit, it is understandable that an American diplomat might not be aware of this. Once he learns it, however, how is he to respond? He could either refuse to breathe in the Arab dignitary’s face, insisting that he has the right to do what he wants and denying his own responsibility in the two-person exchange; or he could explain his own customs and follow his host’s preference, hoping that his host will do the same for him. By simple respect and responsibility, he can avert a potentially detrimental cultural clash. But the first step was to give honor to his conversational counterpart, not to himself.
As an extension of this principle, let me make the argument that the person who is less likely to be offended, or who will be offended or damaged less, is the one who should make the first accommodation. After all, his offense is one of convenience, and is likely less strictly set in his subconscious reaction base. It would be good for both parties to concede something, but the first step should be taken where the step is shortest.
If nothing else, let us promote modesty for teenagers’ sakes. While not directly comparable, the similarity in the following circumstances is notable: A teenage girl victim of a sudden and short-lived breast groping; and a teenage boy being mocked because he (against his own will) acquired an erection from an immodestly dressed substitute teacher. One is tactile, and likely observed by many uninvolved parties. The other visual only, and likewise will likely be observed by many uninvolved parties. Aren’t they both likely to cause damage to the victim? Yet one victim was not even touched. Which is likely to be more damaging in the long-run? In truth, the girl will be protected and sympathized with, the perpetrator punished; while the boy will be mocked and humiliated, himself being the only one to receive punishment for the sexual violation of his mind and his manhood.
We must learn to acknowledge that my life is not really my life. We are social animals–possibly the most social animals on the planet. What we do affects one another. Everyone deserves accommodations from everyone else on SOMETHING. When we begin to say that “it’s my choice,” we neglect the social element of our construction. How wrong it is for a person to commit suicide under the claim that “it’s my life.” If it was their life and their life alone, it wouldn’t affect anyone around them. Yet we see lives ruined every day by something that someone else did to him/herself. Immodesty is not an individual choice; it is a social choice.
As a side note: It also irks me that so many women expect men to treat them as though they were ladies, by their own definition, while they expect men to be gentleman, also by the woman’s definition and preference. I prefer to be a gentleman as much as possible, to any woman, to show deference to them. If I fail to be gentlemanly to a woman based on her etiquette preference, I try to comply once I am aware of the violation (short of doing something foolish or self-destructive). I would just appreciate that women try to do the same for me. I have an image of what I would like a lady to behave as–my anima, if you will. I will still be respectful, even if they don’t fit that image. But this is an issue of give-and-take. Would women rather show their cleavage? Or would they rather have respect? Perhaps they deserve both, but it is likely they shouldn’t expect both.
I guess I am saying that women can choose an image that describes what they are or an image that describes who they are. We all have a body. But our body is not our self. It is part of our self, one that most women claim they don’t want to be the primary element. I think that it is fairly obvious that, while sexual crime at present may not be very different from previous eras (though this is hardly provable one way or the other), sexual attitudes most certainly are. And though the old always wish to promote their era as the one true era of human respect, there is still truth in what they say. Let me just ask: Is it more valuable to learn to ignore what a person is and thereby remove the ability to respect and value those differences? Or is it more valuable to understand and celebrate those differences through cognitive consideration rather than sensational exposition? These are not mutually exclusive options, but their interaction and defiance of one another is telling.
Yogowotsi: I have heard many women lament the fact that they can’t be modest and fashionable at the same time. They blame this on men. Yet they fail to realize that many, if not most, of fashion designers are women. I completely agree with you on the principle that make-up and stimulating outer and underwear are oppressive to women. I have long made that argument. I had a friend who was uncomfortable all of the time because she had an oversexed self-image to uphold. That image was hardly the fault of the pro-modesty crowd. She was a slave to an image promoted by those who claim that immodesty is freedom. It is more often the modesty advocates that accept women who are not physically above-average than immodesty advocates. Immodesty advocates seem to approach overweight or homely women with the desire to help them hide their physical self behind their cleavage or a swathe of make-up. Thank you for both this and your other insights.
In discussing this, we must also remember that modesty/immodesty is one side of the larger issue of emphasizing the sexuality of the human form. Don’t let this conversation assume that women are the only ones who have an image to uphold, or that are being controlled by both those who desire overt sexual expression and those who want it hidden. Men are under similar constraints, just in different areas. In many ways (as you may learn in studying human sexuality), men are more openly objectified than women are, by a greater percentage of the population. The truth is that men and women are objectifying each other and themselves.
Glenden: I would prefer that we remove “fault” and “blame” from the discussion. They are counter-productive concepts. I would prefer to think in terms of “responsibility,” especially responsibility for the effects of one person’s chosen interactions with another. This responsibility for overt and subtle interaction is the basis of my claim, not selecting which single individual to pin absolute blame on for a particular event. For example, our overly-aggressive disagreement has been the fault of neither of us. It is, however, the responsibility of both of us. This, and not polarized blame, is the nature of human interaction.
Truly, this issue (modesty) is a question of socialization as the primary contender within a complex interaction of socialization and physical predisposition. Both elements are poorly understood, poorly defined, and constantly in flux. Where do we go from here?
Thank you,
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 13th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Where did you learn that many/most women’s fashion designers are women? I thought it was the other way around.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Women designers were the chief influences of fashion in the 1920s and 1930s when women’s fashion became accessible and attractive to the average woman (at least in the United States). Their influence has driven modern fashion, and while modern fashion designers are not necessarily MOSTLY women (notice I said “many if not most,” not simply “most”), the establishment of a common woman’s sexual expression through clothing, which is mirrored in today’s fashion, originates largely in women’s design. On top of that, women are finding more and more jobs in fashion design these days.
And let’s think about it. Is there any suprise that women’s liberation from male expectations and bondage in fashion coincides closely with women’s suffrage and women’s rights movements of the 20th-century? That the book on Puritan modesty (which I dislike, by the way) was closed with the women’s rights movement of the mid-1800s? I think we can say that these events heralded new freedoms for women, freedoms they well deserved. But the excesses so common when gender clash is involved led women to become slaves to a whole new set of expectations, in defiance of male-constructed conventions. Hence modern fashion.
March 13th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I don’t believe women should cover up, what they should be cognizant of is the EFFECT they have on males when clad in a suggestive manner. The same is true of males and their behavior, be that leering or other apelike behavior.
If you like to dress in such a way, there are consequences, in the same manner if a male dresses a part he may well attract a particular mate. I once had a girl I later dated that told me that she wouldn’t go out with me initially because of my shoe style choice. I on the other hand can’t even breath patuli, and she was a hippee chick no go. Needless to say, we both overcame our initial “preferences”.
Glendon, it is matter of common sense. Do you not imagine that the moralists look at the open life style and see the possible destruction of their own in it, in same manner you see their ways as interfering with yours?
There are many forms of abuse, and women are entirely capable of dishing it out. It is just often less reported.
I can’t help but thinking in reading your reply with a statement like you got it backwards, that we might be saying the same thing. I merely point out that in the flexible moral reality that is becoming more common, there is no backwards, only an honest an attempt to co-exist with each others preferences.
If you cannot there is always relocation. My point is that if you know something bothers someone, and you can change it in their presence, do you keep doing it? That can be interpreted as disrespect.
As Ghandi would say…”if you will not have peace, you will have war”.
March 13th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong, for this is purely MY perception, backed by only a small amount of testimony from women: A disturbingly high number of teenage girls (not women–and aren’t we more concerned with our effect on children and their rights than on adults?) think that expressing their newly-obtained breasts activates the “how cute!” or “how beautiful!” side of their male counterparts’ brains, rather than the “wowee!” side of their brains. Hence sexy shirts being called “cute” instead of “sexy.” I think that women and girls are confusing their breasts with their faces, or are mistaken in assuming that men will–they think that men appreciate their breasts in the same way that we appreciate their facial beauty. Breasts and butts can be cute, but bringing attention to them typically makes them sexy instead. That’s not bad in and of itself. What I dislike is that I don’t think teen girls are aware enough to make an educated choice.
March 13th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
May God in Heaven BLESS Glenden Brown for opening this TREASURE CHEST of a Pandora’s Box!
At LAST we have discovered a topic that is fractally infinite and unfathomably deep!
I for one am tiring of the usual fare on this blog. Blah, blah, blah. Don’t any WOMEN visit here? Maybe if we had a few women things would be more interesting. They are so much more intelligent… But of course, that may be why we do not find them here in the wolf den….
It’s time for a thematic paradigm shift beginning with this proposition:
“Women are confusing their breasts with their faces.”
It SOUNDS kinda silly on the tongue, but the point is a subtle and even deep one:
“Cute” versus “Sexy”. Good one, Anonymous. Let the linguists and anthropologists parse that one!
Give me so much as a styrofoam cooler top, and I could ride the great wave of that single idea all the way in to the beach.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The innocent, young escort made elliot do it with her provocative cleavage, er, smile.
This will be my last comment on this thread as I have a book to write, a very long explicit book!
March 13th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Wow, Yogo! I can’t tell when you’re being sarcastic and when you’re grabbing your beach towel! :-)
This is interesting: I just read a study that says that, when viewing arousing material, women focus on the male genitalia, while men focus on the woman’s face…hmm…how does that interact with this breasts-face comparison? If women like sexual organs and men like faces, does that mean that women expose their breasts to stimulate sexual feelings in men the same way they want sexual feelings to be stimulated in themselves? And if men care for their faces well, does that mean that they are likewise trying to stimulate women? If this is true, is it possible that men who stare at women’s breasts are not looking for traditional stimulation? If so, what are they looking for? A quarter they dropped? Maybe men who like women’s breasts don’t take care of their faces as much…Hey, I have no idea about ANY of this, just a bunch of questions, so I would be interested in anyone who has a clue.
“Cute” versus “sexy,” eh? By definition: Cute: Attractive, esp. in a dainty way; pleasingly pretty; Sexy: sexually interesting or exciting; radiating sexuality; excitingly appealing; glamorous. You’re right to bring up linguists, though. They would consider these words in common usage and connotation rather than definition. I guess my natural comparison is that “cute” implies youth and innocence and “sexy” implies experience and sexual maturity. That’s how I think of it, anyway. I would like to know how you think of it, thought, Yogo, since you are a woman. Ah, insight into a woman’s mind: A labyrinth unsolvable, a priceless gem unaquirable. Was that sexist of me to say?
March 13th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
The young escort made 1 million dollars today when her fans downloaded 1 million of her songs at .99 cents a pop.
What a Great Country!! Only in America!!
Get a boob job girls, men are suckers for a pair of nice tits. Or is it a nose job or face lift?
Sorry for the pun. If you are lucky you have been a breast sucker. Makes you smarter from what I read, adds a few IQ points. Makes sense.
Whatever the theories Yogo, the whole rig up and accoutrements, are designed for one thing…gettin’ it on..the biological prerogative.
Babies are cute, women in rut are sexy. The biologocal prerogative, first it gets sexy, 9 months later, it gets cute.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:48 am
Dwight- you keep saying the same thing in different ways. The more you write, the more I get a sense of your perspective and I think you are making some fundamental assumptions about sexuality that are flawed. You argued, for instance, that a boy seeing a sexy teacher is a violation of his sexuality but that is not an accurate way of seeing it.
It feels to me as if you see male sexuality as subject to female appearance, almost beyond the control of males.
I also think this thread demonstrates the tremendous anxiety men feel about their own sexuality and the ways in which they project that anxiety on women. I’ll have more to say . . . in another post.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Good thing you are just thinking Glendon, but with your own orientation, would you really have any idea what men and womens attractive implications are?
The attraction between men and women and the effect that appearance can have is driven by the biological prerogative for reproduction, which in a natural state is not what being gay can accomplish.
In the mammalian world, males will generally pay females no sexual attention until they come into heat and then begin sexual display behavior. In the human race that is defined often by dress in women, and aggressive female sexual behavior, and the the tendency to body mimicry(the enhancement of parts of the body to mimic sexual organs) It’s what lipstick is for, red especially.
As you must admit, you aren’t in this world, and are only observing from the outside in.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Yogowotsi,
Thank you for you participation on this blog. And thank you also for your characterization of it and your mis-characterization ,”Think about that and get back to me, Dwight and Glenden. And you too Pop—Ye of a Thousand Faces and Names. (For all we know, both Glenden and Dwight your fictional creations. Or then again, all of us may be but fictional creations of the unscrupulous Cliff Lyon….)” of it.
You are clearly new around here and we welcome you for as long as you can last, (as a woman without a spine).
First, let me assure you, Glen Brown, Dwight, and I are all real people using our real names. One can easily see that by our writing style.
We also know Pop to be Glenn Hoefer. He uses different screen names because he fancies himself some sort of oracle and a vigilante.
As for why there are not women on this thread, I feel certain they think it is so stupid, they haven’t the time. With the possible exception of you, most of the women on this blog are highly education, liberated women who haven’t the time to debate a patriarchal know it all like Dwight who wants to blame women for his own sexual confusion/repression.
Lets be real. Throughout history women have suffered boorish men telling them how to think, act, dress, and behave.
I can just feel them rolling their eyes.
So what say YOU Ms. Yogo. Have you not found your liberation?
May I suggest, since you are so intent on fanning the flames and, as you say, “Never one to back away from a dangerous subject,” try using your real name. It adds a whole new dimension when you write under knowing that your words will live on with intractable permanency on the web forever.
Or are you unwilling to lend that weight to your arguments?
March 14th, 2008 at 9:30 am
We also know Cliff Lyon to be the as you described as Yogo, unscrupulous in his pursuit of truth, and in my view ethical.
I am no vigilante, just pointing the finger at those that feel they are above the law… of logic.
There is no advantage to using your reel name Yogo, the argaments are valid make sense or not, it makes no difference who is saying them. It is not requeired.
From the post above cliff I think Yogo knows who I am, I guess you don’t read any of this thoroughly.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Like the diminishing dollar, as more words are written everyday, the value of them becomes less and less, as time goes on. Soon there will be so much garbage floating in the Sea of knowledge, no one will be able to pick out what should be recycled.
Don’t pander to the ego, express thoughts that make sense without anyone knowing who you are, that way your real persona cannot be politicized.
You need only review the host of ad hominem attacks on any number of known writers to see there is no merit. It is no fun to call anonymous a name as Cliff is fond of doing if he cannot bring logic to an argument. No point in being known, unless you are getting paid. I guess spitzers girl knows all of that!!
“With the possible exception of you, most of the women on this blog are highly educated”.
Don’t look now Yogo, but I think Cliff is attacking your intelligence and personage despite the spelling and grammar errors. SEE? It doesn’t take long if you object to the agenda. You must have struck a nerve.
Be a wiley woman, if you are a woman(laugh).
March 14th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“We also know Cliff Lyon to be the as you described as Yogo” I didn’t write that, cliff changed it. If what I am to understand what is written now cliff is Yogo now. You’re on the run buddy. All the mis-spellings were added also. Infantile you look now.
I wrote, “We also know cliff lyon as you described him Yogo, unscrupulous, and in my view unethical”. Nice try cliff, but Yogo knows who you are. (laugh)
There you have it, my sentences have been altered by cliff the webnazi. If he can’t deny it, he can obfu-scate. Skate being the operative word.
My work is done here.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Glenn/pop - Don’t you think it odd that you keep bringing up the question of my sexuality?
That aside, however, there is no difference between the way gay men experience attraction and the way straight men experience it and no difference in the way women experience it and men experience it. Attraction is attraction. We all swim in the sea of sexuality - attraction, men, women, sexuality. And yet each of us experiences this vast shared thing in a deeply individual way. The words change but the melody is the same.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
No, not at all. As you are claimed to be a gay male, your attraction to males, or females and their effects on you for the inherent drives of procreation, don’t exist.
Attraction is not attraction. The subconscious drive between males and females to do what their drives are for, procreate, don’t exist in gays. Or I should say, cannot be effected.
This makes your opinions and outlooks less valid, much like me commenting on what it is that attracts you to same sex partners.
What I find odd, is that you don’t seem to be aware of these constraints in your outlook, and presume to equalize that which is in inherently unequal. You might like it to be, but it isn’t. Until the arrival of technology the only way a person oriented like yourself could arrive on Earth is through a male/female sexual union. It is a more important relationship biologically for survival of the species, to this point, and to say they are the same is nonsense.
If your Mom and Dad were gay, well, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
March 14th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
pop:
I have never been attracted to one of the opposite sex for the purpose of procreation … a good slab of beef for boinking, yes … but procreation, no.
Therefore, your premise is incorrect!
March 14th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
For you Albert O, and not that you know of anyway perhaps. Whether you succeed in procreating or not, it is the drive that gets you into bed, and the markers for attraction guide the way, and perhaps a healthy dose of alcohol. There is of course short circuiting the apparatus, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t following that.
The idea that anyone would shows how far removed our culture has become from the reality of what sex is really about in my opinion. It has been morphed into entertainment, with a dash of predation.
I have always maintained that the every man and woman is practising eugenics in their mate choices right on down to local meat market bar at 2:00 AM. What you will and what won’t.
They just don’t know it.
I don’t think that anyone can argue that sex and attraction was designed for procreation, for if it wasn’t nothing of the upper order flesh would be here.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Got me there, pop! Alcohol might lead me someday to procreate.
I am thinking maybe with Spitzer’s former side-bitch, “Kristen.”
She’d look good on my sailboat, when I get one…..
March 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Lets be clear Pop (Glenn Hoefer) your last three posts contained no less than 13 errors and several untruths.
I am not being paid to host this public forum. As you know, it is a labor of love intended to be a rich record of our times as reflected by Utahns.
Your justification for attempting disconnect your words from your real personage is in my opinion a reflection of their weakness and lack of merit.
But don’t worry, someday, I will go back and replace your real name with all your pseudonyms so you too can go down in digital history as either a lunatic self-proclaimed oracle…or genius far ahead of his time. TBD
March 14th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
PS. You are a poor chess player Cliff.
I believe you are losing it. Read this.
“But don’t worry, someday, I will go back and replace your real name with all your pseudonyms”.
Now, if I read you correctly, you are saying that you will take my real name, Cleft Lying, and replace them with my pseudonyms. Will you make them up? How would anyone believe you anyway anymore?
Which ones do you like best?
To attribute them all to a single name would rob them of their intent, but what is new in that from Cleft Lying.., for none of them are but a fictional character representing a particular position. Sort of like a historical novel.
Needless to say, you are mildly confused in whatever you are going to do.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:43 am
*The following comments are intended to illuminate the maliciousness which I perceive in Glenden’s and Cliff’s argumentative style, and of Glenden’s frame of reference. This is significant to all threads on this site in that it is an attempt to question the validity of all of their arguments on the basis of their approach. It does not contend the validity of the arguments themselves. In short, I am trying to establish that their own approach discredits them. I admit this openly. While some of my other posts contest specific arguments, this post is not relevant to the specific issue of this thread (immodesty and male sexual irresponsibility):
I deplore deception of any kind. Hence my outrage at Glenden’s characterizations of me. However, I am finding it in me to laugh at “pop’s” use of pseudonyms. It’s almost delightful. It has an anti-logical literariness to it. I don’t know whether to clap or shake my head.
Glenden’s characterizations of me are not appropriate, but my outrage is not centered on his treatment of me alone. It is reasonable to assume that many of Glenden’s comments regarding individuals will bear the same kind of deception that he has used in his comments regarding me. These deceptions include: Misrepresentation; willful misinterpretation; lack of necessary quotation; elaboration with lacking evidence; false positives; use of emotionally charged language; inaccurate accusations employing culturally charged topics; ad hominem attacks; etc. If you want examples, my previous posts address each of these (though not by name). Be aware of these tactics whenever you read Glenden’s posts.
Pop observed something I myself had noticed in Cliff’s posts, yet hadn’t time to comment on. Cliff has a nasty tendency to make attacks against persons (such as his undeserved ad hominem attack against Yogo, calling her uneducated) and attacks against collections of arguments instead of approaching the arguments themselves. In his first response to me, he called my arguments “specious,” yet failed to specify exactly how any single one of them was specious. He follows up by commenting only on my arguments that are directed against Glenden himself, and ignoring my arguments about the main discussion of this thread. In a later post, he claims that Pop has many errors in his posts. When confronted, he names a high number of errors, but points out only one of them, which is (in his own words) a “sissy” attempt at defending his person from attack. Be aware that if Cliff says something is false or uses a big word to deny its veracity, he is likely trying to diffuse interest in the arguments without actually disproving them.
Finally: It is disturbing to discover that Glenden is not heterosexual. While I have no problem with his sexuality, I do have a problem with him commenting on mine when he has very little basis for understanding it. Glenden wishes to claim that men and women are identical. Perhaps (and this is just an assumption, but one worth thinking about) this is an effort on his part to provide validation for or to alleviate the anxiety he feels towards society’s judgments of his sexuality. Or perhaps he is part of the common attempt to misidentify homosexuality and heterosexuality as homogenous experiences, and this insistence on universal experience is his vehicle.
Just so you can be clear on this, Glenden: Men and women are different. If you are a man who is attracted to men, you might assume that you understand both men’s and women’s sexual attractions. After all, you ARE a man (so you understand male sexuality), and you are attracted to the people that woman are traditionally attracted to (so you understand female sexuality). So why not, right? Sorry. It doesn’t work that way. The truth is that you don’t understand the average man OR the average woman, because you are neither. I also noticed that it seems that most of the evidence you DO have comes from books by feminist authors, or the nebulously self-proving “women are this way; just ask them” argument.
I assume that you know the Kinsey reports. If you don’t, you should, especially since you profess pretty much what Kinsey professed. The following biological DIFFERENCES are left out of the Kinsey reports: Women have a much greater capacity for prolonged sexual activity than men; women are capable of having many more orgasms than men are; women’s arousal takes many times longer to achieve than men’s; men are more likely to be affected by and are more strongly affected by psychological sexual factors than women are; the elements necessary to achieve complete arousal are different in men than in women; women have more and different erogenous zones than men; and, by the way, have you ever actually SEEN a naked man and a naked woman? Furthermore, merely the fact of how sex is accomplished and its differing repercussions on each sex should indicate that there would be different psychological ways our brain encourages us to perform in the manner that is necessary for a successful sexual interchange.
It also helps to understand that there are differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. Studies show a difference in sexual organ characteristics, as well as a difference in the size of the hypothalamus.
In short, the directions of your sexual behaviors are feminine; the origins are masculine; the structures in your body that produce hormones (which are largely responsible for arousal and attraction) are likely different from the average male. So who do you think you are to claim that you have any clue what a masculine origin, masculine direction average male is experiencing? Maybe you should be asking us how we feel instead of telling us how we feel.
With that in mind, it’s no longer such a surprise that you would presume to so fully define my persona without sufficient evidence.
It will aid this and future conversations greatly if you two would modify the way you argue. If you do, I won’t have reason to write anything like this ever again. If not, I will continue to point out your deceptions and blatant assumptions. Eventually you’ll lose all credibility, not because your arguments don’t make sense, but simply because you don’t really know how to argue honestly. I hold no animosity for you if you are respectful. So let’s cut the crap and actually dicuss the topic, both on this and other threads. Ok?
March 15th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Dwight, Dwight, Dwight,
Now everything makes sense. According to your Facebook profile, you’ve barely emerged from hormone crazed adolescence AND expected to be a virgin (yes, I watch your movies). I admire the discipline. But I also find the “principle” horribly destructive and archaic to say the least.
But whether or not you are a virgin, I called it right away. You are sexually repressed. You must be bouncing off the walls.
If you are not a virgin, you are likely RACKED with guilt. Either way, you are angry because you cannot “go with” a hot nasty girl because Mom and Dad expect such a clean young man to come home with a nice virgin MollyMaid.
Kinsey would have a field day with you. And THAT my dear friend is why The Good Lord has deposited you at Glendan’s doorstep.
You see, Glendan happens to be a professionally trained, practicing Educator specializing in health and sexuality. Do not make the Davis County mistake of thinking gay men are SO different from you. They aren’t.
Should you ever have the privilege of having one of your long time buddies “come out” to you, after you get over the initial shock, you will come around to understanding what I’m talking about.
Your irrationally intense sexual feelings are normal. It is God’s way of forcing his agenda. Your repressive culture, however, is not normal, Not now, not ever. Never was and never will be. The only thing NORMAL about the Mormon practice is the divorce rate is.
If you are not having a normal healthy sexual relationship (yes, before marriage) like the rest of the healthy, good looking 24 year-old men in pretty much every corner of the planet, it is your problem.
Leave our nasties hotties out of it.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Pop/Glenn Hoefer,
Did you really write this: “If what I am to understand what is written now cliff is Yogo now.”
Again.
Now, now brown cow. I am not Yogo. Wrong again.
Hey, Glenn, I got a real kick out of your diatribe on the zoology of homosexuality.
It sounds a bit bigoted I must say….and fallacious I might add.
Where did you ever get the idea gay men don’t procreate. I can name oooh, about 5 examples totaling almost 30 children right off the top of my head.
Come on out of the cave man.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
You altered the sentence, you tell me. In the sentence you altered, that is what you wrote. I just point it out. Take more time while you manipulate and obfuscate the results may come out better.
This is what you wrote when you changed the sentence.
“We also know Cliff Lyon to be the as you described as Yogo”. I didn’t write that…you did.
So now it sounds like you mean to say you are Cleft Lying. Thanks for stepping in the trap Cliff. Remember about you and chess and quit playing.
All the comments are theoretical, not my own thoughts. They engendered the expected response. It is quite zoological, a lot like watching monkeys at the zoo. Is that shit I see in your hand Cliff?
I too, know supposedly gay men that have procreated en mass. Do you imagine that they were driven by their biological imperative as animals, or the simple intellectual reality that if didn’t have sex with a woman, they would have no offspring?
Don’t you mean that they are bi-sexual anyway? Please keep the politically correct orthodoxy straight. How do you claim to know what their orientation is, are you simply assuming? By definition, if you have fathered children, and maintain a homosexual part of your life, you would be defined as bi-sexual.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Cliff–I think that pop is right in saying that you’re not very good at playing chess. As an extension of this metaphor, I think it is more pointed to say that you don’t even know what chess IS.
You just don’t get it, do you? I comment on your actual statements, on behaviors that are easily observable and directly related to your own words, and you respond by trying to discredit me as a person, by making assumptions about me personally. What do they teach in International Relations classes in Vermont, anyway? You don’t seem to have developed any serious capability at participating in interpersonal debate. You don’t follow any conventions of respect, you don’t address the topic unless it suits you, and ninety percent of what you do say is simply an accusative assumption.
My whole point is to try to get you out of this habit. Hence my last post attacking the habit. Yet your follow-up post can be summarized as the following: “I didn’t approach what you said, so I tried to dig up some dirt on you. All I could find is that you’re young and Mormon, so I’m going to milk that for all it’s worth, by ASSUMING that you have no sexual experience, that you are sexually repressed (and “bouncing off the walls,” implying concentration and self-control issues), have no gay friends, and have never known anyone who has come out of the closet.” Isn’t it interesting that not one of those assumptions is correct? Once again, Cliff, you and Glenden’s practice of assuming traits in others has been self-destructive.
So, for the FIFTH TIME (and hopefully the last): Can you guys cut it with the assumptions about my personality and talk about the issues? If you have a problem with my arguments or claims, fine–address them. But this nonsense about assuming my nature based on stereotypes is just that–nonsense. Besides, aren’t you guys opposed to stereotyping, anyway? Assumptions are typically derived from stereotypes, you know.
For example: I COULD start claiming that, because you’re a middle-aged or older male hailing from the era when feminists were in their prime, and on top of that you feel personally repressed and shamed by the prevailing culture of the region in which you feel compelled for some masochistic reason to dwell, you are expressing a traditional rebellion response, with little but strongly elicited and highly emotional outrage that have been externally impressed upon you as a reason. It is also likely that you are trying to diffuse the shame you feel for subtle mid-life crises-related sexual urges and explorations that oppose your previously-experienced natural inclinations. I could also claim that your study into philosophy has subjected your mind to intrusions upon your emotional knowledge by logical and non-traditional, esoteric concepts, and that you have ever-more lived in a state of confusion as a result. Also, I think that it is likely that your aggression and disrespect must be tied in some way to a bad childhood and poor parentage, and that you must have experienced rejection when taking your international relations education into practice. Finally, you subconsciously need your credentials in services to humanity (and need to tell everyone about them) to help you forget your own guilt about the way you treat other people.
Were any of those correct? In that paragraph, I was able to make fewer false assumptions about you than you and Glenden have made about me. They were all pretty ridiculous, weren’t they? Yet each one is defensible. And, if taken too far, such assumptions can destroy a productive discussion.
Please don’t make a young upstart like me have to show a venerable, experienced elder of mine how to behave any more. While it’s a fun for practice, it is a waste of time. If we can get past the traditional male aggression and actually talk about the issues, we can all learn something from each other.
Thank you, Yogowatsi, for bringing my attention to the discrepancy of gentlemanly conduct in this discussion. I apologize for my involvement. I am being cautious now to ensure that, should I be ungentlemanly, it is only because gentlemanly conduct has had no effect.
Hoping for a peaceful reconciliation,
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 15th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Dwight:
Can you summarize your claims for me?
Reading the entire thread will most certainly give me a headache.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I went to the same school as Cliff, Dwight. For International Relations I had the good fortune of having Douglas Kinnard as professor. I don’t think Cliff did.
The dictum of all foreign policy… from his mouth, lest you be a danger to yourself and your country and all other innocents in between:
“No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent self interest”.
Don’t mistake Cliff, he is game playing. I know personally what he may support here, he does not truly support in his own mind. It serves a purpose is all. His goal is the dis-empowerment of the current culture in Utah, Mormon based, so that there is more room for himself and others like him to obtain positions of power. It is pretty obvious he doesn’t like it, or the value system it represents.
Your attempt to get him “out of the habit” will yield little, as the Spirit of true exchange isn’t in him. His is an agenda based outlook, one of cognitive consonance, where what he believes becomes what is right, and a proper decision, never mind the facts.
Assumptions about who and what you are, usually negative, serve to comfort both Cliff and Glendon that what you say has no merit.
If you cannot attack the message, attack the messenger.
It is the ultimate in primitive elitist behavior, which is why long ago, I simply began to write from positions not my own, that would reveal this reactive pathology at all turns.
It is truly quite breathtaking.
Cliff is true believer with ulterior motives, and is in fact, not that good a chess player.
March 15th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
You will well notice that assertions of fact are rarely of ever challenged with any evidence and support here if they do not conform to the progressive ideology. The person stating them, even if supported by links, articles, and people with “credentials” as Cliff likes to call them, are rarely challenged with anything more than personal attacks, and vague aspersions.
You may have finally convinced me to quit bothering and let this blog become the partisan mop that it so desires itself to be.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Dwight -
You wrote: “Women have a much greater capacity for prolonged sexual activity than men; women are capable of having many more orgasms than men are; women’s arousal takes many times longer to achieve than men’s; men are more likely to be affected by and are more strongly affected by psychological sexual factors than women are; the elements necessary to achieve complete arousal are different in men than in women; women have more and different erogenous zones than men”
This whole statement is . . . well, “truthiness.” It’s not so much that it’s wrong - it’s just not really accurate. If you squint just right and hold the right assumptions about sexuality, then these statements are accurate. But . . . those assumptions are just that assumptions and not necessarily right.
For instance, “Women have a much greater capacity for prolonged sexual activity than men” - well not really. It depends on how you define sexual activity and what the “goal” is. If your goal is to get to orgasm, well that’s partly true. Men generally reach orgasm faster than women. But if your goal is to express and share mutual physical pleasure, then no it’s not true at all.
“. . . women have more and different erogenous zones than men” - Not so much. Women’s nipples, for instance, are more sensitive than men’s, but that doesn’t mean men’s nipples aren’t erogenous. Mutual physical pleasure between persons can and should engage the whole body. Lips, ears, neck, buttocks, chest, nipples, genitals, feet are all potentially erogenous zones. Men are often taught that only their penises are engaged when they are sexually aroused but that limited notion of male sexuality is false. Fortunately, many men as they grow older learn to expand their personal sexuality beyond their penises.
” . . . the elements necessary to achieve complete arousal are different in men than in women” - again not so much. Touching, stroking, carressing, embracing, and so forth are the necessary elements for orgasm for both partners. Direct genital stimulation is often involved but is in fact not required for orgasm - for that matter orgasm isn’t a requirement of sexual fulfillment.
“. . . men are more likely to be affected by and are more strongly affected by psychological sexual factors than women are” - this is more truthiness. It’s got some aspect of truth in it, but it’s not complete enough to be reliable. It’s uh . . . how to put this? It’s the eighth grade health class taught by the gym teacher approach to sexuality. Women are assumed to be, a figleaf puts it at realadultsex.com, the “no sex class” - women don’t have sexual drives and needs. We teach women that openly expressing their sexual desires are taboo, so they don’t, which reinforces the stereotype of women as the “no sex class.” Women’s very real sexual desires are often not admitted into public discussion.
As whole, your statement strikes me as heterosexist and sexist - seeing men and women as radically different. The differences are minor compared to the similarities. It also suggests to me a very narrow understanding of sexuality - seeing it as primarily penile-vaginal intercourse leading to orgasm. A mature sexuality, however, is not exclusively about intercourse leading to orgasm - rather mutual sharing and pleasure, expressing love, joy and delight.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Nutshelling (as usual, since the longwindeed have already made appearances): Make Love Not War (a relic of the 60’s / 70’s) & Sex for the sole puprose of procreation will only expand ‘There’s too many of us’, and the quest for resource acquisition.
Can I have my orgasm now?
March 16th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Dear Dwight Sheldon Adams of Davis County,
I’ve clearly offended you. I fear I’ve driven you to cast dispersions unworthy of your earnest intentions.
For that I am sincerely sorry.
In my defense, I thought it prudence to submit my premises in the hypothetical — i.e. “IF you are a virginâ€â€¦or “IF you are not a virgin†— so as to avert the very angst, which imbues your reaction.
I also concede that I have cast, by implication, an unsupportable characterization of you by virtue of the religious heritage of your birthright. Whether redundant or patronizing, no gentile in Utah has a right to such pretense without permission.
I kneel before you to be judged without mercy.
Finally, I did also write,
I didn’t mean that as an insult either. All of us are sexually repressed from early adolescence on with, I regret to inform you my good friend, negligible deterioration of presence as time passes.
I chose to address the cause of your malady out of concern for your fragile ego (which at your age is explicitly inseparable from your libido) rather than repeat the obvious, as Glendan has argued with such elegance and authority.
So, how shall we ascribe your ridiculously uninformed, hormone gorged, libido driven, apologetic social engineering advice?
You choose.
a. I am sexist. :(
b. I am uncommonly brilliant in all matters related to sex even though I live at home and pretend I never masturbate. :)
c. I am not a sexist just sexually repressed and spoke out of line.
Peace and Love, Cliff
March 16th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
For Cliff–It’s good of you to give me the options that are all pleasing to you. It is also interesting that, in the course of this entire thread, every personal attack, accusation, or assumption I have made has been a response in similitude of behavior already established by yourself. It’s so much fun to react according to another person’s paradigm. You make yourself a fool by making false claims that I can then imitate to show you your own argumentative inadequacy.
Let me do it (as I have done with other posts) with your most previous post:
Dear Cleft Lying (I rather like that name, pop) of “I Wish I Wasn’t Forced by My Own Oppositional Defiance to Live Where I Do” County:
The following is a historical reenactment of Cliff Lyon’s last post, narrated by himself, according to modern re-re-reinterpretation. Any likeness to real or living people is intentional.
“I (the imminently respectable Cliff Lyon) find it both relevant and beneficial to point out where you (Dwight Adams) live, simply on the basis that it will either enrage you to have your personal information distastefully distributed by a despicable detractor (alliteration, anyone?), or that location alone will discredit you.
I’ve clearly offended you. This was my intent, as I hoped that you would lose your head and be unable to provide a valid argument or to continue to see the invalidity of my own arguments. I fail, of course, to recognize that all I am doing is encouraging you to behave in the way I am; when you are finished countering me with appropriate disparagings, I will likely fail to see that all I have on my side are insults and outdated or misused credentials, while you have both insults and some actual arguments (I could try to talk about your arguments, but I will consistently delegate that responsibility to Glenden, and promote his arguments with irrelevant superlatives).
Because I have discovered that you’re young, I can now use words like “angst” that carry a negative connotation of youthful malcontent, rebellion, and general bad attitude. I haven’t used these words before, simply because you have shown no more signs of such traits than I myself have. But you’re young, and I’m old, so I can pretend that I have behaved better than you have, despite the facts that: You have made concessions without implying their denial through sarcasm (I have made no such concessions); you have attempted to restructure the argument so that it’s respectful…um…is it six times now? (I haven’t tried OR complied even once); and you have never initiated ad hominem exchanges or discarded whole arguments via charged language (I do this almost exclusively). Regardless of the what you say, you’re not credible because you’re young. Hmmm…almost sounds like old-person “angst…”
In addition, I have made an accusation specific to you that, now that I have been confronted about its fallaciousness, I wish to pretend that my statement is one of equanimity, shared by all persons within the umbrella of the whole human race. Thusly, it was advantageous to characterize you as “sexually repressed” until you called me on it, at which time I avoided responsibility for my false claim by insisting that it was a harmless reference to your similarity with all of humankind–all of this despite the obvious contemptuous context of my original statement.
Finally, I must admit that, rather than make any serious concessions on any topic at any time, ever, my only resorts are the consistent misuse of ambiguous language (using “if” when it’s obvious you’re implying that you mean “because”), pretensions of protectiveness and consideration (claiming that I was generously attempting to protect you from your own bad behavior), accusations to divert attention from my own maladies (referencing your ego as a reaction to your previous post regarding my poor conversational technique), and, of course, sarcasm.
So, how shall we ascribe my ridiculously disrespectful (see evidence of this above), self-evidently specious (several posts with much emotion and little content), blandly hyperbolic (contextually meaningless superlatives and euphemisms), apologetic “progressive” tripe?
a. I am an old man who never grew up, and will die with the mannerisms of a 10-year old.
b. I have so long fought against my concept of sexism that I am hypersensitive to it and see it even where it doesn’t exist.
c. I speak out of line constantly on assumed credibility, refusing to accept anyone else’s assumed credibility in the way that I demand that they accept mine.
d. I should just stay off the threads if all I’m going to do is disregard the opposition without reason and pat Glenden on the back. Hmmm…maybe Glenden can stand up for himself (and already has).
e. All of the above (plus a little more).”
Cliff, you have provided me with valuable information both about you and myself, our weaknesses, and our egos, which are sadly bloated. You can have the last word. I don’t intend to speak about any more of these little nastinesses you so thrive on, except for those which are especially grievous. I think that what I have written already is a sufficient catalogue of your lack of etiquette, your assumptiveness, and your general bad attitude. I regret to admit that I have shared responsibility in this little exposition on the frailties of human interaction. I am not establishing any superiority by this decision; if any exists, it is because you have unintentionally disparaged yourself. It’s simply not worth my time any more. The exploration was valuable, and I have learned from it, but the path was muddy, and smelled far too much of a sad, degenerate old man and a stubborn, reactionary young man. It’s time to step out and clean off my boots.
Thank you,
Dwight Sheldon Adams
March 16th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Glenden–your last post, paragraph by paragraph:
1) Those aren’t all of my arguments, and not even the most significant ones. Have you ignored the others for some reason?
2) Inaccuracy is not an admission of falsity. “Not necessarily right” is a cop-out. This is a cheap way of saying “you’re right, and I don’t like it, so I’m going to imply that you’re wrong.”
3) “Prolonged sexual activity” refers to time to reach orgasm and consequences of reaching orgasm. A simple study of orgasms in men and women (look it up) shows how different it is in each gender. In terms of shared physical pleasure before attempting to achieve orgasm, you’re right. But we’re not talking about choices and preferences, are we? We’re talking about innate differences in specific preset physical conditions. “Let me redefine what we’re talking about so that my argument holds water” is another cop-out.
4) “Not so much” is not an appropriate denial. I didn’t say to what degree my claim was true; simply that it was. That s