How to Enslave Women

[Marquis]

Ok, I'll add my piece down. People deny this one to the hilt, too, but there is something to the idea that in ordinary sexual relationships, including fellatio, almost all hetero males feel dominant and agressive and imagine their female partners as submissive. As a woman, that's a weird idea to wrap you head around. I don't feel that most of my male partners were particularly agressive or dominant or that the act made them that way and I didn't seem myself as particularly submissive, but a recent article I read about the experiences of a woman who used a strap-on made me think...

http://www.salon.com/urge/feature/1999/01/28feature.html

Anyway, if the above is so, then Marquis, I could extend the analogy and say that your sexual scores with women are actually brief episodes of female enslavement (or at very least, domination of her), and seduction is the art of getting a woman to submit to your will to pleasure.

Shoot, I had a question for you too, but in the time it took to find that article it slipped my mind. Ok, here's a substitute question: what happens after a seduction? Is there a typical scenario? I mean, does she want to see you again; do you want to see her again; do you feel repulsed by her or she you? Are you both still attracted to each other? Were you both just looking for a one-nighter? Etc.

Interesting article.

Well articulated, but not entirely surprising.

As to your question, that varies tremendously on the scenario.

I have been in a few situations where we were both obviously looking for a one night stand. I have been in many situations where I was looking for a one night stand and I believe my partner was hoping for more, although probably not convinced she was going to get it.

I have also been in a handful of situations where I was hoping for more, and did not get it.

 

[Marquis]

fuck, i don't have the time to really write this up, but basically if you distill kantian ethics to what has almost become a kantian cliche (the categorical imperative; formulation the second)---actions must be ends in themselves and not means to ends---you'd have a hard time justifying many of your thoughts as "ethical" (although i'm sure you could do it if you wanted to).

my read of you, however, puts you more in an aristotelian light, particularly if you are familiar with goal centered ethics and eudaimonia (kind of diametrically opposed to kant's second formulation)

we on here would all fail aristotle's character qualifications (we not only promote, but celebrate, his "evils" on here) so i am ignoring those for the sake of this discussion because i'm intellectually lazy like that.

I have both the Metaphysics and the Nichomachean Ethics in my bookshelf and I think I might have to do some quick reading before I can engage you on this, but I considered your observation intriguing because I always considered myself a Kantian moralist since I originally read these works in college.

Could be my understanding of these views has faded with time, I will refresh my memory when I get the chance.

 

[Hester]

I have both the Metaphysics and the Nichomachean Ethics in my bookshelf and I think I might have to do some quick reading before I can engage you on this, but I considered your observation intriguing because I always considered myself a Kantian moralist since I originally read these works in college.

Could be my understanding of these views has faded with time, I will refresh my memory when I get the chance.

you know yourself a hell of a lot better than i do (hopefully), so please take my comments with several grains of salt

 

[poppy1963]

I have both the Metaphysics and the Nichomachean Ethics in my bookshelf and I think I might have to do some quick reading before I can engage you on this, but I considered your observation intriguing because I always considered myself a Kantian moralist since I originally read these works in college.

Could be my understanding of these views has faded with time, I will refresh my memory when I get the chance.

I just can't bring myself to refreshing of it all...whatever. Kant or Aristotle...there is no "one or the other" mostly. The ideas, while interesting initially, made me weary....all pretentious really in the end. There's no defining a human by theoretical philosophies. We're all unique.

 

[Hester]

I just can't bring myself to refreshing of it all...whatever. Kant or Aristotle...there is no "one or the other" mostly. The ideas, while interesting initially, made me weary....all pretentious really in the end. There's no defining a human by theoretical philosophies. We're all unique.

i can't imagine any social structure in which there is no codification of morals. even a dog pack has behavioral standards to which it's members are expected to adhere. humans have gone a bit further and have explored this on a more abstract level, but it seems to be some kind of universality to this among social animals.

besides, we are discussing ethical philosophies here, not defining a human, per se.

 

[poppy1963]

These are fluid Hester...in all species. We live on a continuum ranging from "The 10 Commandments" to "Natural Born Killers". *shrugs* Those are just examples of the span.

i can't imagine any social structure in which there is no codification of morals. even a dog pack has behavioral standards to which it's members are expected to adhere. humans have gone a bit further and have explored this on a more abstract level, but it seems to be some kind of universality to this among social animals.

besides, we are discussing ethical philosophies here, not defining a human, per se.

 

[Hester]

I have both the Metaphysics and the Nichomachean Ethics in my bookshelf and I think I might have to do some quick reading before I can engage you on this, but I considered your observation intriguing because I always considered myself a Kantian moralist since I originally read these works in college.

Could be my understanding of these views has faded with time, I will refresh my memory when I get the chance.

i used to define myself as a kantian moralist. it's the more judeo christian of the two, and in many ways seems to be the more "noble" (for lack of a better term). but kantian morality is not as practicable as other schools of thought. don't get me wrong, i think it's a great idea and one to strive for, and is a concept inherent in many of the great eastern philosopies (if you read deeply enough into them). but the reality of my life is that i just don't live that way most of the time (if i'm being totally honest) in the purest sense and i don't want to be hypocritical about it. that's me. only you can determine what fits your way of life.

 

[glamorilla]

everybody knows what you're sposed to do is club them over the head and then drag them back to your cave by thier hair.

i mean duh.

 

[hogjack]

i can't imagine any social structure in which there is no codification of morals.

They seem to be doing quite well in Colombia, Solalia and Sudan without them. And a few frat houses.

 

[Hester]

They seem to be doing quite well in Colombia, Solalia and Sudan without them. And a few frat houses.

do you own any shirts with sleeves?