« "Hey, put a shirt on!" | Main | Matilde »

June 09, 2006

Comments

perplexed

Well, that would depend, wouldn't it? For some desires, it's not OK to try to achieve satisfaction of the desire (because the desire is for something inherently hurtful). For lots of others, it's just find to try to achieve satisfaction of that desire, in the proper time, place, and manner. But not OK in the sense that any means whatsoever is fair game. And that distinction works whether we're talking about sexual desires, or any other sort of desire.

I agree - for example, some men and women have a (pathological) desire to physically hurt children. You wouldn't want them to fulfill such a desire. Having a desire itself doesn't legitimise the consumation of the desire.

However, I draw the line where two (informed) consenting adults are concerned. If two people agree to do something that doesn't involve, nor hurt another 3rd party, then that's fair game. They may be breaking the law - in which case, the law is there to punish them. What I'm reading here though on these boards are some people trying to interfere with consenting adults and tell them they cannot make those free choices. If a woman wants to take part in a porn shoot, then she should be able to. If a company is selling porn to a man (or woman) who purchases a video, then that is a private agreement with no party not consenting. Where porn, or any other industry goes wrong, is when consent is bypassed and people are forced to do things against their will. Sure it happens in porn as it does any industry - but saying all porn is bad is a controlling point of view - trying to interfere with people's free choices (in my humble opinion).

mythago

While the "hamburger rule" may predate sexual harrassment law, I've worked in one large corporation which encouraged employees to socialize with each other, and was very friendly to the idea of its employees marrying each other.

Pretty much every company encourages employees to socialize. Very few encourage co-workers to ask one another for sex. You seem to be confusing the two.

bmmg39

Excuse my question, but what is the "Hamburger Rule"?

boy genteel

Orion

"Lately, the feminist response, as evidenced by lots of the comments I read here (and elsewhere) has been to characterize all men, or maybe all non-feminist men, as jerks or predators, in order to justify restrictions on their behavior" -- Anthony

Anthony, I hate to break this to you, but all non-feminist men ARE jerks. Not everyone accepts the feminist label for themselves, but feminism is the belief that women are human beigns with human rights.

If you don't think women are real people, you're a tleast 99% guarenteed to be a jerk, I'd have ot say.

perplexed

Anthony, I hate to break this to you, but all non-feminist men ARE jerks. Not everyone accepts the feminist label for themselves, but feminism is the belief that women are human beigns with human rights.

If you don't think women are real people, you're a tleast 99% guarenteed to be a jerk, I'd have ot say.

Orion, I treat women as 100% human beings. I treat them with respect. I treat them as equals - I am not chivalrous to them, I don't treat them with any greater sensitivity than I would a man. I also don't treat them as sex objects. I treat them as humans. I am most certainly not a feminist, or pro-feminist - in fact, I am at odds with a lot of the sexism coming from feminist circles. So where do I fit in your worldview? I guess I'm a jerk? Thing is, none of the women I know in the real world share that view - they are my friends, my equals. We don't even feel much need to discuss gender issues ad nauseum - we're too busy being friends, I guess.

amba

In my parents' generation (the "greatest," Depression/WWII), a significant proportion of men (I have no idea of the percentage) remained virgins till marriage (my father did, and he wasn't Christian or even particularly observant Jewish). Whatever thoughts and fantasies and feelings they may have had about the passing attractive woman, pictures of women, movie stars, etc., these guys were romantic about love, sex, and marriage. They were looking for a girl they were not only attracted to, but were in love with (granted that when you're young it's sometimes hard to tell which is which, but the older generation and norms of social appropriateness looked over people's shoulders and affected their choices more then than now, too -- we'd consider it all a restriction of our freedom).

Perhaps I shouldn't idealize "the old days." I'm sure there were plenty of scoundrels, adulterers, porn addicts, and whatnot always, in all times, in all places. But some people, at least, used to take a kind of innocence seriously. That proves that it's possible. That means that, in principle, we could get some of it back.

amba

And by the way:

"The only good penis is a soft one"

Um, aesthetically speaking, au contraire.

amba

And by the way:

"The only good penis is a soft one"

Um, aesthetically speaking, au contraire.

amba

Now why did that happen??

amba

Answer: "You can say that again!"

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004