Tuesday, May 23, 2006

One more thing

It may interest you gentlemen to know that throughout much of the history of civilization, chastity has only been valued as a commodity in wives, who were then considered as chattels for the purposes of breeding legitimate heirs, and nothing else. These wives were rarely esteemed for their companionship; they were not loved or cherished as individuals, and they were chronically betrayed by their husbands, who often brought home putrid sexual diseases as wedding presents.

The women with whom these husbands betrayed their wives, if they had sufficient income and social standing, were known as 'courtesans,' or in Japan, as 'geishas.' These women had all the elegance of wit, education, sophistication and experience that their wives lacked, and their services cost a fortune. The commodity value of a courtesan was actively enhanced by the number and social standing of her previous lovers; any number of nobles would give half their estate for a chance at a tryst with a king's mistress.

The point that Pretty Lady is making is not only that temperamentally, she has much more in common with a courtesan than with an illiterate brood mare, but that reducing a woman's value to that of a commodity is not conducive to mutual affection and security any more than flagrant promiscuity. Also that sexual chastity is not inherently a desirable thing in a man's eye; also that wit and sophistication have their value in the sexual economy.

Also, that much of the petty snarking to which Pretty Lady is occasionally subject comes across as nothing more than plebian sour grapes.

51 comments:

scooterhawk said...

I should apologize to you PL for touching on an obviously delicate subject. I didn’t mean to berate you or cast any dispersion upon your character. If I did so, I’m sorry.

Courtesans and geishas were indeed highly prized for their wit, intelligence, beauty and charm by the nobility of Europe and Japan while marriages were more or less a business transaction. We, however, live in different times. Men and women are not given in arranged marriages and can freely choose who they wed. As I said before, I’m not exposing that men seek out simple broodmares for wives. What I am saying is that of all the virtues described in our discussion, chastity, intelligence, beauty, charm, and wit; chastity is the only one which every woman has total control over. To discard it as casually as most woman now do ensures that while you may not be seen in terms of a “broodmare” you are, more often than not, viewed as a sex object.

scooterhawk said...

Er, that should have read espousing not exposing. Blast my publicly educated fingers!

prettylady said...

Apology and clarification accepted. It IS a sore subject, for the very reason that women are seen as sex objects whether they are virgins or not; in my experience, particularly when they are virgins. I held onto my virginity a lot longer than the average female in my social milieu, and was treated like a freak for doing so.

Oh, and that should have read 'aspersions,' not 'dispersions.' Pretty Lady has dispersed her own character freely enough.

nescient said...

Scooter -

1) I don't see how it follows that discarding chastitiy ensures been viewed as a sex object. As a male, I discarded my "chastity" (do men even have such a thing?) and I will be darned if I can get people to view me as a sex object.

2) If woman had "total" control over their chastity, rape would never happen.

3) Anyone can be charming.

Billy D said...

"...petty snarking to which Pretty Lady is occasionally subject..."

Tell me who. I will crush them.

scooterhawk said...

“I don't see how it follows that discarding chastitiy ensures been viewed as a sex object. As a male, I discarded my "chastity" (do men even have such a thing?) and I will be darned if I can get people to view me as a sex object.”

Since I do not take an egalitarian view of the sexes, I believe that men and woman view sex in completely different ways. Just so I’m not being perceived as a hypocrite, I do believe that men should remain chaste until marriage.

“If woman had "total" control over their chastity, rape would never happen.”

Rape is a rare case. Since the sex is forced I believe the woman’s chastity remains intact.

“Anyone can be charming.”

Really? I’ll take your word on that nescient, but I know some really boorish people. Hmmm…still Rex Harrison was able to transform Aubrey Hepburn.

scooterhawk said...

“I held onto my virginity a lot longer than the average female in my social milieu, and was treated like a freak for doing so.”

It is apparent that you and I traverse in vastly different milieus PL.


“…for the very reason that women are seen as sex objects whether they are virgins or not…”

I probably should have taken more time to think about how I wanted to express my thoughts on this topic to you and your patrons before I opened my big trap. Being a Lump is a decided disadvantage! Women are the objects of men’s sexual desires. Always have been, always will be. That being said, a woman decides through her actions whether or not they she treated like one. Her chastity is the key.

Morgan said...

"The point that Pretty Lady is making is not only that temperamentally, she has much more in common with a courtesan than with an illiterate brood mare.."

I do have to step in here and express grave disappointment with my good friend Pretty Lady, who was doing so well before doing what I hate to see women do: define the Other Woman as inferior.

Not all wives - current or historically - were or are "illiterate broodmares," my love, not even those of us with unusually large broods.

In fact, with the number of women racing to beat the biological clock, a brood is much preferred to sitting in a lonely apartment while The Married Boyfriend is celebrating Christmas with the wife and kids.

I have a beloved sister who is - if you will - a well-kept courtesan, and she will tell you that her existence isn't always a happy one.

On the flip side, married mothers who turn their noses up at single career women often do so because they themselves are desperately unhappy with the limits a family places on their freedom.

It's easy for unhappy single women to paint married women as Miserable and Missing Out, and vice-versa. But the fact is that happy women - regardless of marital and/or parental status don't waste time examining the lives of others in a negative light.

They don't have to.

dlkjdfsa said...

Smack! :D

Morgan said...

It was not a smack, Robert, and I don't appreciate your terming it as such.

There are things in this life that I am unable to do with small children in tow. I am happy with my life and my career, but do confess to some regrets, particularly when I speak to a well-traveled woman like Pretty Lady, who's had some wonderful adventures.

But to make mature choices is to accept them with grace and realize that you can't always get what you want. It means not resenting other people who have what you missed out on, and being grateful for what you've got. It certainly doesn't mean blunting the regrets by minimizing others' happiness. How silly would I look if I snidely commenting to Pretty Lady that I didn't want to see filthy old Mexico anyway.

I see a tendency among unhappy mothers to bemoan those "poor dried up career women" or a tendency among unmarried career women to term married women as "breeders."

It's just so divisive, is all. And I hate to see it. Pretty Lady's comments about "plebian sour grapes" cuts both ways, I'm afraid. Women are quick to accuse each other of that. But no one should speak of sour grapes if they've vinegar running down their chin.

danonymous said...

Morgan said....
It's just so divisive, is all.

I am always brought back to nature's cartoon characterization of a dog peeing on a hydrant only to have the hydrant peed upon by another dog, each asserting their definition and "last word" or in this case, last squirt ...on the conversation.
It seems such a human characteristic to have the last say. It makes it so difficult to take conversations from the ping pong stage to the communication stage.
The worst part of it all is that there is probably nothing wrong with that, how frustrating to think that the problem is me.

dlkjdfsa said...

Dananonymous I think we think too much. pong. Smack. Dap.

danonymous said...

SOuthside, you are right. Back to the drawing board a.k.a. I go to find an unclaimed hydrant.

Morgan said...

So it's a slap to suggest that we not cope with disappointment by minimizing other people's happiness?

I don't think it is.

I do think in a time when women are pressured to have it all, there is great fear of being denied a measure of happiness, and society has fed that fear, pitting mother against career woman so effectively that now women find themselves looking over the fence, envying what they see on the other side.

Life is such that we can't always get what we want. And while we can try to get it, we shouldn't forget to be happy for what we already have.

prettylady said...

Not all wives - current or historically - were or are "illiterate broodmares," my love, not even those of us with unusually large broods.

Now, Morgan. You, dear, are no stranger to the use of hyperbole for literary effect, and surely you can understand when I am doing it, particularly on so grave a provocation as being accused of having discarded my commercial value along with my hymen. And if I were to go so far as accusing all wives of being 'illiterate brood mares,' this would also have to include my mother, my sister, innumerable close friends, and, not imposssibly, myself.

No, my point was merely to demonstrate the gaping flaws in Scooter's economic reduction of gender politics, which Scooter himself has now conceded.

And Morgan, I am the biggest fan of your happiness on the planet, as well you know. :-)

prettylady said...

It is apparent that you and I traverse in vastly different milieus PL.

Yes, we do. The fact is, unfortunate or not, that the world has changed a great deal in the last century, and that adherence to a rigid code of fundamentalism, of whatever stripe, necessarily ghettoizes a person, creatively, intellectually, and socially.

Sending your daughter to college is sufficient to get her treated like a freak for remaining virginal around her peers. Vox would be down with keeping your daughters out of college; I am not.

That being said, a woman decides through her actions whether or not they she treated like one. Her chastity is the key.

I would amend that to say, 'through her actions AND HER ATTITUDE.' Women who conduct themselves with calm, confident self-respect are respected. Whining doormats are not, no matter how virginal.

prettylady said...

Tell me who. I will crush them.

Oh, Billy. How darling of you. The petty snarking of which I speak generally occurs upon VP, and it stems from the element which pathologically snarks at everything female anyhow, so I do not take it personally.

However, these individuals exemplify the epitome of 'plebian sour grapes,' as Morgan well knows.

dlkjdfsa said...

squirt.... ahhhhhh... :O

BUZZ

Morgan said...

"No, my point was merely to demonstrate the gaping flaws in Scooter's economic reduction of gender politics, which Scooter himself has now conceded."

Point taken, Pretty Lady.
And speaking of Scooter, I do wish he'd return long enough to answer my question of whether or not he was a virgin when he got married. I'm trying to gain insight into character, as he assigns it, and such a revelation would be *most* helpful.

danonymous said...

In concurrence with Southside...
pppppppsssssssssssed
~ ~
OO
/\
VV
you can see in this conversation how quickly we men revert back to our apish understanding.

dlkjdfsa said...

I said "squirt!" and "BUZZ" god damn it! :)

scooterhawk said...

“No, my point was merely to demonstrate the gaping flaws in Scooter's economic reduction of gender politics, which Scooter himself has now conceded.”

PL, I conceded this point? If you say so I must have.

“Yes, we do. The fact is, unfortunate or not, that the world has changed a great deal in the last century, and that adherence to a rigid code of fundamentalism, of whatever stripe, necessarily ghettoizes a person, creatively, intellectually, and socially.”

See, this is where you lose me, because I never attempted to impress my “rigid code of fundamentalism” on anyone. To paraphrase myself, all I was saying is if you want a man to treat like more than an object then trying being less accessible.
I’m assuming I get lost when you elucidate about the true nature of things because I am simply not as erudite as you. If defined by your above statement I’m some Victorian troglodyte who wishes that all women be locked in towers with chastity belts chained to their waist. This is only partially true.
We all live by a set of values. I’ve seen the “progress” the modern feminism has made for western civilization over the last 40 years. I’m not impressed.

“I do wish he'd return long enough to answer my question of whether or not he was a virgin when he got married.”

Sorry, I missed your question Morgan. The answer is no. My first sexual experience was with my 1st wife but we were not married. Like PL, I carried my virginity for longer than most. I was 24 and still in the Marines. When I met and married Anna, my 2nd wife, we waited until our wedding night and as I stated earlier she was a virgin. Divine what you will about my character from this.

prettylady said...

I’m some Victorian troglodyte who wishes that all women be locked in towers with chastity belts chained to their waist. This is only partially true.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

I rest my case.

Morgan said...

"Divine what you will about my character from this."

I can only divine that you are a complete hypocrite for judging Pretty Lady for giving up her "virtue" when you did the exact same thing.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me, wherever there are prople, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence...

Maybe I will start relieving myself in the neighbors yard... whilst I weareth thine wifeth beaterth outfit....


Sorry for the vsual PL, I am after all just a guy.... ;)

By the way PL, is there anyone you want rubbed out?

-rlh

dlkjdfsa said...

OO
-


ahhhhh.....

prettylady said...

By the way PL, is there anyone you want rubbed out?

Thank you for asking, my darling! At the moment, no. I prefer to let them all live. Just so long as they understand that this is by my allowance, and not due to any intrinsic merit of their own.

;-)

dlkjdfsa said...

wwhheeeHhuuuuuuuuu.....

scooterhawk said...

“I can only divine that you are a complete hypocrite for judging Pretty Lady for giving up her "virtue" when you did the exact same thing.”

Why did I know the hypocrite card was about be played by you Morgan. You are the master of sophistry. My argument was not that PL “gave up her virtue” but rather that she was whining about how men view women as objects when it is women who perpetuate this by their actions. Second, let me just add that if you make a mistake, learn from it and consequently don’t repeat it, its not call hypocrisy its call wisdom.

scooterhawk said...

Geesh, too early in the morning for cognitive thought I guess. That last part should have read..its not called hypocrisy its called wisdom.

scooterhawk said...

“Seems to me, wherever there are prople, the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence...

Maybe I will start relieving myself in the neighbors yard... whilst I weareth thine wifeth beaterth outfit....”

Discernment RHL is the hallmark of a mature mind. I greatly respect PL for her wit, charm, beauty and intellect. She is far superior in these qualities than myself. However, she made a comment, in a public forum, that I disagreed with. I expressed my opinion, in a ham-fisted sort of way it seems, which sparked this whole brouhaha. Once again, this Irremediable Lumpy Victorian Troglodyte, apologizes to her for any offence he may have given during this discourse.

Morgan said...

How many times did you sleep with your ex-wife before you married her, Scooterhawk. Once, twice, a dozen times.

You said:
"I find it strange that a woman who, by her own admission, engaged in casual relationships now expects a man to earn what she once so freely gave away. Why should he?"

You assumed that Pretty Lady's relationships were casual, but there's no guarantee that a marriage will happen or work. Yours happened, but it didn't work.
Whether you freely give up your virginity to one or a dozen, you still freely give it up.
I just find it extremely amusing that a man too weak to wait himself chides now lectures a woman on the value of chastitiy.
Oh the irony!

scooterhawk said...

“You assumed that Pretty Lady's relationships were casual, but there's no guarantee that a marriage will happen or work. Yours happened, but it didn't work.”

Morgan:

Blah, blah, blah…..She stated as much in her reply to the gentleman; Pretty Lady hastened to disabuse him. "Pretty Lady has achieved her 'old-fashioned' outlook through extreme progressivism," she stated. "I have been down all the other lines, and I know where they end. If you want a lady to take you seriously, you have to court her. Nothing else works."

Now, I may have misunderstood what PL was implying and if I have I’m sure she will correct me. I was engaged to the woman before we had sex. The wedding date was set. Be that as it may, it was still wrong and I regret it even if the marriage had lasted.

“Whether you freely give up your virginity to one or a dozen, you still freely give it up.”

So, using your logic, if I was a drug addict or an alcoholic, beat that addiction, lectured about its dangers to others, I would still be a hypocrite because I used to abuse alcohol or drugs. You’re a mother right?

“I just find it extremely amusing that a man too weak to wait himself chides now lectures a woman on the value of chastitiy.”

Here is what I find amusing. That you are unable to comprehend the difference between an instance and a lifestyle.


"I find it strange that a woman who, by her own admission, engaged in casual relationships now expects a man to earn what she once so freely gave away. Why should he?"

Let me clarify this. This statement was not so much direct at PL as it was to women who casually engage in sex and then wonder why their objectified by men.

Morgan said...

"Now, I may have misunderstood what PL was implying and if I have I’m sure she will correct me. I was engaged to the woman before we had sex. The wedding date was set. Be that as it may, it was still wrong and I regret it even if the marriage had lasted."

Scooterhawk, you've trotted out your sanctimony before. It doesn't matter if you were engaged. If you're the Bible-believing Christian you say you are then fornication is still fornication. But to people like you it only seems to be something worth examining when someone else is doing it.

Divorce is frowned upon by God, too, you know, and in the absence of certain criteria couples are supposed to remain together - at least according to the fundamentalists.

If that's the case, there are plenty of Christians out there still committing adultery, having cast off their old spouse for something a bit more agreeable.

"So, using your logic, if I was a drug addict or an alcoholic, beat that addiction, lectured about its dangers to others, I would still be a hypocrite because I used to abuse alcohol or drugs. You’re a mother right?"

I think I'd at least disclose my prior drug problem before lecturing someone on theirs.
If it makes you feel any better, Scooterhawk, you're pretty much indistinguishable from so many others in your "flock."

prettylady said...

but rather that she was whining about how men view women as objects when it is women who perpetuate this by their actions.

Scooter, it MUST be early, you keep inserting your foot into your mouth.

Pretty Lady DOES NOT WHINE. I defy you to pinpoint any instance of whining in any of her writings, unless it may be that of the humorous, ironic variety. In the instance you point out, there was no whining occurring except upon the gentleman's part, who was most definitely whining about how all the women he casually slept with were not returning for seconds.

Gender role-reversal, hmmm?

Now, then, Scooter, you have freely admitted that men objectify women. You have gone to great lengths to emphasize the fact that it does not occur to a man NOT to objectify a woman unless she makes it her main focus and agenda to FORCE him NOT to objectify her; your suggested mode of force is entirely concerned with the withholding of sexual favors until he proves himself.

Now, follow closely:

Man objectifies woman. This happens FIRST. This is what we call in philosophical circles an a priori phenomenon. This is something that has happened PREVIOUS to any action or inaction on the woman's part.

THUS, Scooter, ANY ACTION TAKEN BY THE WOMAN can not, a priori, CAUSE the objectification on the man's part. Whether she sleeps with him or not, she has still been objectified.

THUS, SCOOTER, BLAMING THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN'S TROGLODYTE MIND IS INCORRECT.

Is that clear?

Now, you may indeed have misunderstood what Pretty Lady meant by 'extreme progressivism,' but that is perfectly okay. Pretty Lady does not choose to explain, at the moment, exactly what she meant by that, because it includes things which would probably cause your head to explode, and this would serve no kind or useful purpose.

You must simply take Pretty Lady's word for it that this progressivism did not include 'casual sex' on Pretty Lady's part. Primarily what it included was giving too much weight to compartmentalized, masculine thought strategies, and not enough to her own holistic ones.

I find it highly ironic that in order to ultimately make a man happy, women must jettison a large portion of his notions, methodologies, ideologies, and desires, as utterly unworkable and unacceptable.

prettylady said...

P.S. Morgan, I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for Scooter. Perhaps we should lay off him for a nonce; I have a feeling we're starting to objectify him as the Hypocritical Fundamentalist Blame-the-Woman-for-Being-a-Foul-Temptress sort. Really he's a nice sort of person, or he wouldn't keep coming back for more punishment, apologizing all the while.

scooterhawk said...

Ladies,

It is really very simple. Women are objects of men’s sexually desire. Men think of sex first, relationship second. Women conversely, view in the opposite light, relationship first (intimacy) then sex. It is how the sexes are hardwired. No fault, no blame, it just is what it is. Hence, back in the day, when we troglodytes ruled the earth, you had a process call courtship. During this archaic ritual, a woman would force a man to prove himself and his commitment to her and often her family, before marriage. Now fast-forward, a meteor strikes the earth, we trogs die out and progressive thought rears its ugly head. Progressive Feminist believe that a woman should be engaging in sex with the same reckless abandon that they believed men have done for countless centuries. Men, of course, think this is great! No more of that pesky courting junk to get in the way of what is foremost on their brains. Whoopee ensues and life is good but there is a problem; men now no longer want to commit. Women, scratching their pretty heads, are now wondering why after 5 years of shacking up he still won’t ask her to marry.
Progressive Feminism has fed this beast for what 2 generations now? The beast expects to be fed and they expect it to be hungry. They feed it hoping that if they give it what it wants it will give them what they want. Problem is that it doesn’t and never will. The beast will just sit there asking to be fed and if they don’t there is always someone else who will.

If my little story does adequately illustrate my point I guess you can always pull up stats on divorce rates, unwed pregnancies, abortion committed or declining birth-rates during this golden age of progressive and enlightened thought.

rlh said...

"Thank you for asking, my darling! At the moment, no. I prefer to let them all live. Just so long as they understand that this is by my allowance, and not due to any intrinsic merit of their own." - Pretty Lady

Okay Me-Lady! Just so'se youse knows it. Thine has the shapest sword in the mainland, and whilst stands up and defendeth thou's honour at all costs. (Burp) pardon me. Justs so youse knoweth Me-Lady!

(sulks back home and waiteth for the sound of Me-Lady's voice)

(waiting....)

(waiting....)

(better go check!)

rlh said...

"Discernment RHL is the hallmark of a mature mind." - scooterhawk


What do you mean scooter?


(pick nose)

(FLING!)

rlh said...

PL,

If you have been stuck with a chastisty belt. I would help you out of it, and would only charge you a smile and a thank you!

I bet those things are uncomfortable.

(wipe nose)

scooterhawk said...

Morgan:

I intended to respond to your comments on my faith, my 1st marriage and to you, my apparent hypocrisy, in a vindictive and less than loving manner. What I will say is this, whatever I intended to say to PL on her relationship with the gentlemen in her post, I said poorly. My comments were intended to be a social commentary not a personal attack. I am aware that it came across as condescending and judgmental for that I humbly apologize to PL and to anyone else that might have taken offense at reading it. I also would like to apologize to you Morgan by being defensive.

I won’t post again.

God Bless.

rlh said...

Awwww.. Scooter.. I thought your comments were very warranted.

What I got from it was:
Women who made indescretions at a young age and learned shouldn't be treated as whores.

However women who act like whores shouldn't be surprised when they are treated as such.

Thats simple and makes sense. I thought morgan was off in left field somewhere attacking your Christian credibility, PL wasn't.. perhaps she took something wrong... but I can see you are a Christian and a fine one at that. Being a Christian isn't how perfect you are, it is the fait you place in Jesus. period. I couldn't possibly live up to the Christian Ideals, and I am not even going to try. I try to listen to God, through the Bible , etc..

If I flub up, which I do and have and will again.. I don't like it, But God is always there to set me right. If I don;t know I am messing up, he lets me know... sometimes not so subtle.

I wished people would stop judging Chrisianity and God based upon mens deeds and actions.

You're a sharp man Scooterhawk, don't let people get you upset. It's just a game to most.

nicolaepadigone said...

hi pretty lady,

I haven't read everybody's comments, but would like to add my own on your post. As one who treats his wife with the utmost respect and stays monogamous in his relationship with her, I can only say that there are still men out there who treat women right.

it is very unfortunate that so many men still look on a woman as a toy, something to play with and disregard the beauty found with. it's tragic because they surely miss out on a wealth of rewards were they to treat their female counterparts with even the least amount of respect.

rlh said...

I agree

dlkjdfsa said...

Scooterhawk - It is how the sexes are hardwired... when we troglodytes ruled the earth..... the hallmark of a mature mind.... too early in the morning for cognitive thought....

I must have gone insane because I am going to suggest a Scientology Auditing session. I think the LR Hubbard crew are a freaky cult but I don't discredit some of there self help techniques.

Scooterhawk - Men think of sex first, relationship second.

A man that is thinking is not controlled by there instincts.

Scooterhawk - pesky courting junk to get in the way of what is foremost on their brains.

LRon - This is your reactive mind commanding your actions.

prettylady said...

Pretty Lady officially causes a moratorium on the flinging of waste of any kind, be it biological or verbal.

Scooter, I still have much to say on your succinct and elegant paradigm; I will do so later. I concede that it is true as far as it goes. However, making the argument that one must turn the clock back in order to solve it is non-productive; equally absurd is the argument that 'it's all feminists fault.'

It doesn't matter who threw the bomb; we ALL have to deal with the shrapnel.

dlkjdfsa said...

Did I just fling verbal excrement? I must meditate on this.

Anonymous said...

No flinging.... okay, I will get a hanky.
-rlh

Anonymous said...

Can one digitize a boogar?

I wonder if one could be sent through the internet kinda lika virus... I should look into it.

That would be rude!

-rlh

Morgan said...

"It is really very simple. Women are objects of men’s sexually desire. Men think of sex first, relationship second."

Scooterhawk has flapped off in a huff, but I hope he'll wing back by to note that I'm disagreeing with him again. He'd bet well-advised to speak for himself. A relationship-minded man will not think with his penis, knowing that to sleep with someone without considering the quality of the person could be problematic. Like nicolaepedigone observed, not all men are base, rutting creatures.

I am impressed that he apologized to Pretty Lady, and give him credit for that. I just hate to see him go from broad generalizations of women to broad generalizations of men.

To RLH, I was not attacking Scooterhawk's Christian credibility, just his tendency to analyze another's track sexual record without first disclosing his own. It's a curious quirk of some Christians that they exempt themselves from the same criteria they apply to others.

I think Jesus addressed this, making some comment about casting the first stone...

I hold the fellow no ill will, and hope he understands that to pick apart another's life is an invitation to scrutiny of one's own.

rlh said...

to morgan.... (,fling,fling,fling)