Ironically, I've found that men my age, being raised on modern porn, probably have 5x more appreciation for the femininity that is shown in the top pic and some of Audrey Hepburn's iconic images than the men that were the contemporaries of these women.
You know, several women have tried to recreate the chair shot since then and none capture the eroticism of the original. If you Google "Christine Keeler Tribute" you will see what I mean.
I think a big part of the eroticism of the photo stems from the viewer's knowledge of her illicit involvement with a member of the British cabinet two or so years earlier, leading of course to the Profumo scandal of the early 1960s and the end of the Conservative MacMillon government (contemperanous with JFK's administration, interestingly enough).
Just as an aside, you might enjoy this article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/NC13Dh01.html). I really like David Goldman (aka Spengler),but I'm not sure if he is right or wrong (or partially wrong) about why middle-aged women like this new S and M fantasy book Fifty Shades of Grey so much.
Hey, Jack. Yes indeed I too had lots of dreams about flying when I was young.. Such an exhilarating feeling. Then I would wake up and be so disappointed.. It seemed so real.
Not too many dreams now of flying.
Mind's too cluttered with other stuff.
Ah, the innocence and wonderment of childhood.
Didn't have to worry about paying the bills either. ;)
I think a big part of the eroticism of the photo stems from the viewer's knowledge of her illicit involvement with a member of the British cabinet two or so years earlier,
I can remember seeing this photo as a young adolescent and being aroused by it.
I think its powerfully erotic not because of her past but more because of her and its composition.
She looks at you as if you are being judged by herself to be worthy. You know she's naked but the chair covers her in such a way that it enhances her sensuality. Covered in a way that lets the mind fill in the blanks, and part of the thrill is wondering if the reality matches the imagination. All she has to do is stand up, but only if she deems that you have the goods.
Yeah, I had a look at the Spengler article and think he is wrong.
The whole appeal of "Shades of Grey" is that it sexually excites women. Porn production is ultimately a business which survives on a profit. Therefore porn that is popular tells us something about then nature of female sexual desire.
The fact that women want a strong man is nothing new in the manosphere. The fact that women are quite capable of impressive sexual depravity, in the presence of such a man, is also not new. Spengler's operating from within a traditional paradigm.
If women cannot control men by bearing their children, what other means to they have to control them?
Spengler her is operating in Hegelian mode.
I don't stick with my wife because she controls me through my kids, it's because I love her, even if she were barren I would love her. No control there. His approach is totally un-Christian.
We find the answer in the sudden popularity of dominant-submissive fantasies.
The "sudden popularity" of female S+M has nothing to do with the sexual crisis, rather as sexual morality and modesty have totally dissolved, the restraints which have kept women from expressing their desires have disappeared. The "Story of O", published in 1954, well before the sexual revolution, deals with the same themes. It's primitive human nature reasserting itself in the absence of cultural restraint.
Many social conservatives have been shocked in the discovery that women are enthusiastic sexual beings.
I like reading sociology. I fear I shall be waiting a long time before the truth about what really turns women on reaches the sociology textbooks.
Some good sociology is written, but the field seems to attract more than its share of dimbulbs. And it is increasingly dominated by feminists and other blank slaters.
So, it is good to see the Manosphere leading the way in applied sociology.
On the sexual depravity of women, I have never been a Don Juan, but years ago I had a couple of highly revelatory experiences with young women, including the one to whom I am still married these many years.
It genuinely puzzles me that most social conservatives, of whom I am one, have been so slow to learn the truth about women. Pedestalising, I suppose.
I think it was Warren Farrell who pointed out that the best way to understand what motivates men and women is to look at what they actually spend money on. What magazines they buy. Or, in the case of this new pop s&m book, what books they read en masse.
You know SP, I do believe that you are a romantic.
Your eloquent writing and depth of feeling is palpable..
Men ARE the romantics not women. Men write the poetry that is sensual, deep and full of longing.
No woman can match that depth of feeling.
"Remind me not, remind me not, Of those beloved, those vanish'd hours, When all my soul was given to thee; Hours that may never be forgot, Till Time unnerves our vital powers, And thou and I shall cease to be.
Can I forget---canst thou forget, When playing with thy golden hair, How quick thy fluttering heart did move? Oh! by my soul, I see thee yet, With eyes so languid, breast so fair, And lips, though silent, breathing love.
When thus reclining on my breast, Those eyes threw back a glance so sweet, As half reproach'd yet rais'd desire, And still we near and nearer prest, And still our glowing lips would meet, As if in kisses to expire.
And then those pensive eyes would close, And bid their lids each other seek, Veiling the azure orbs below; While their long lashes' darken'd gloss Seem'd stealing o'er thy brilliant cheek, Like raven's plumage smooth'd on snow.
I dreamt last night our love return'd, And, sooth to say, that very dream Was sweeter in its phantasy, Than if for other hearts I burn'd, For eyes that ne'er like thine could beam In Rapture's wild reality.
Then tell me not, remind me not, Of hours which, though for ever gone, Can still a pleasing dream restore, Till Thou and I shall be forgot, And senseless, as the mouldering stone Which tells that we shall be no more."
Some good sociology is written, but the field seems to attract more than its share of dimbulbs. And it is increasingly dominated by feminists and other blank slaters.
Not just it, but psychiatry as well. The amount of totally clueless people in that field is remarkable.
So, it is good to see the Manosphere leading the way in applied sociology.
David, I'm being quite measured when I say this, but I feel that the manosphere is probably the greatest rejuvinating force of Conservatism at the moment. No shit.
Unlike theoretical conservatism, which is too lofty for the average mortal, game, and it's theory, comes "front loaded" with traditional conservative ideas and it delivers practical and very pleasant results. It will take time, but it will sweep all aside.
The manosphere is probably the most exciting intellectual place to be at the moment. The fact that it is beginning to garner hate from the usual shrills is giving it the added kudos of being an underground movement as well.
@Kathy and David
Men ARE the romantics not women
and;
It genuinely puzzles me that most social conservatives, of whom I am one, have been so slow to learn the truth about women. Pedestalising, I suppose.
I don't think men and women love the same way. A man can be so awestruck by a woman that he can literally deify her, i.e Dante. Pedestalisation comes naturally to a man in love. Hence both the beautiful poetry and manifest stupidity.
"Pedestalization comes naturally to a man in love. Hence both the beautiful poetry and manifest stupidity."
I sort of find it kinda sad. This negative focus on pedestalizing a woman. There ought to be a balance. A man in love is capable of so many wonderful things. He creates beautiful music, poetry and art.. Sigh..
I want to be the only woman that my husband desires.. And, I am. And that's a powerful aphrodisiac (for me)And he knows that for me he is the only man that I ever want or desire.
Nothing wrong with pedestalization as long as it is reciprocated. I don't see it as weakness or stupidity.
I love the poetry. I love the romanticism..I love the heady rush..The bonding, mind blowing sex.. :)
Ah, where did it all go so wrong SP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP_-0TP-k2Y
I defy anyone to call Bogie a pedestalizer(in today's sense of the word it equals weak and acquiescing)... He was a man in love..He was both strong and sensitive. He had the right balance.And, his woman loved him with a passion in return..
I would go to the ends of the earth for my man.. As corny as that may sound it's the truth.
Perhaps that's what is missing from the equation, today.
Women need to pedestalize their men.
Because, if they did, they would in return receive undying devotion and love.
I was never really the pedestalising type when it came to women. Sometimes I got a crush on a girl, but I had sisters to give me a taste of reality, and while I like and get on with women I meet, I have never had the high opinion of women so many men seem to.
My wife did look up to me, and I think she still does a fair bit. Game has helped in this regard. But I don't think I have ever looked up to her in any way. I can imagine being very impressed with a certain kind of woman, but not many women fit into that category for me, and I have never seen my wife that way. I have always disliked the mother-son dynamic that many marriages fall into, and scrupulously avoided that.
I do have hopes that Game as applied sociology will eventually go mainstream, but there does seem to be a strong resistance among a lot of men to having their illusions shattered.
Nothing wrong with pedestalization as long as it is reciprocated.
The problem kathy, is that as soon as a man begins to pedestalise a woman it is she who sabotages the relationship. Her own biology repels any potential supplicant. This is why the beta lover is such a tragedy, he worships her, but the more he worships the more she become repelled; his own love the poison of the relationship.
That's not to say that you can't appreciate a woman for her qualities, or that you have to treat her as an inferior, rather, a man has to love a woman a certain way. The thing about Rick is that he loves Ilsa but not as a supplicant.
The thing about loving a woman, is that a man has to be able to see the whole world in her and yet have the ability to renounce it on principle. It's all about "he who loses his life will save it."
You can't will pedastalisation, it is a consequence of the appreciation of the beauty in another. The thing is that alpha behaviour in a man causes a woman to submit naturally, if a man lacks it then she cannot submit, it's in her nature.
Ah, where did it all go so wrong SP.
There were two big poisons to man-woman love.
1) Feminism, which castrated the men and defeminised the women.
The social trads and the feminists both had the affect of chopping off men's balls. Honestly, I just surprised at just how many men are "psychologically girly" these days.
Lot's of the manosphere criticises the women for being picky, they have a point to a degree, but they ignore that fact that many men have zero masculinity, they are the equivalent of the female fat slag. Women are naturally repulsed by the "wussiness" and lack of masculinity in most men. No muscle, no charisma, no style but an overwhelming sense of entitlement. I don't find it attractive in a woman and sure as hell don't find it attractive in a man.
@Dave
but there does seem to be a strong resistance among a lot of men to having their illusions shattered.
I think there are several reasons for this.
1) Amongst the traditionally religious, game forces them to confront the "carnality" issue, they are so habituated in thinking the flesh evil that any countence of game is a victory for evil. They will not yeild.
2) Lots of men are lazy as all hell and game compells men to change. Many just can't be stuffed. I know a buch of "nice guys' who have been "friend zoned" and pointed them to the manosphere. I even bought a copy of Neil Strauss's book for one guy. It's been two years and the book has not been read. No shit.
It will go mainstream, but after all else has failed.
I agree. A lot of husbands are lazy and tend to abdicate their authority, especially when women get into bossy mummy mode, and the bloke is tired or stressed from work.
Also, Game requires enduring courage, and a lot of men are not prepared for how hard it is to maintain "hand" in a marriage.
Even if a wife has cultural or religious reasons for submission, she will still try her luck and attempt to control her husband.
"The social trads and the feminists both had the affect of chopping off men's balls. Honestly, I just surprised at just how many men are "psychologically girly" these days."
Yes and just as off putting are these stupid (insert expletive) selfish women who cut off their husbands balls and then decide that they are not happy and cannot respect him and then divorce him.
Did you read this excerpt in The Weekend Australian SP?
I cringed as I read her drivel. Her lack of introspection. The "I just gotta be me" attitude and to hell with the rest of the family..just left me gobsmacked.
I think that the Christian Trads are not the problem. They tend, at least in the Catholic Church, to be pretty good. The Latin Mass priests (FSSP, in communion with Rome) tend to be good on traditional marriage and they preach the headship of the husband. It is the kind of neo-conservative who followed John Paul II in his every maundering mood and fit of feminism who tends to be the pedestaliser of women and weak on marriage roles.
"Many social conservatives have been shocked in the discovery that women are enthusiastic sexual beings."
No,not really, it's just more affirmation for me that Augustine was right. However, enthusiastic sexuality is one thing, disordered insane sluttiness is quite another. The latter is ugly, disturbing, and none too attractive. Bram Stoker's image of a wanton female vampire comes to mind here. Sluttiness is not feminine but an aggressive perversion. To hell with it. As for women enjoying sex, I'm all for it, but their needs to be boundaries.
As far as girly girls go, I love the classic feminity of women from the 40s and 50s etc. Its like a cold drink of fresh water in the middle of a putrid swamp.
It appears to affirm that the endpoint of female careerism is a total upending of natural sexual identities in favor of feminized pansy men and mannish bitches.
If American women do start seriously outearning men, it will not lead to a feminist utopia in which women are the breadwinners and men the househusbands. That is simply nonsense.
It may lead to more lonely, unmarried women; more gigolos; more pump and dump; more soft harems; and more men turning to video games and porn.
Not fair, indeed!
ReplyDeleteRemember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return.
ReplyDeleteOh well, thems the breaks. ;)
Hi Jack.. Thanks for the anniversary well wishes ..
ReplyDeleteJust saw your comment a few days ago.
Cheers buddy. :D
It's very fair. She had her share of fun.
ReplyDeleteIronically, I've found that men my age, being raised on modern porn, probably have 5x more appreciation for the femininity that is shown in the top pic and some of Audrey Hepburn's iconic images than the men that were the contemporaries of these women.
ReplyDelete@Mike
ReplyDeleteI agree.
Girls were a lot more girly then.
You know, several women have tried to recreate the chair shot since then and none capture the eroticism of the original. If you Google "Christine Keeler Tribute" you will see what I mean.
I think a big part of the eroticism of the photo stems from the viewer's knowledge of her illicit involvement with a member of the British cabinet two or so years earlier, leading of course to the Profumo scandal of the early 1960s and the end of the Conservative MacMillon government (contemperanous with JFK's administration, interestingly enough).
ReplyDeleteJust as an aside, you might enjoy this article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/NC13Dh01.html). I really like David Goldman (aka Spengler),but I'm not sure if he is right or wrong (or partially wrong) about why middle-aged women like this new S and M fantasy book Fifty Shades of Grey so much.
Hello Kathy, You are welcome. Do you, or have you had dreams of flying. I had them all the time when I was wee.
ReplyDeleteHey, Jack. Yes indeed I too had lots of dreams about flying when I was young.. Such an exhilarating feeling. Then I would wake up and be so disappointed.. It seemed so real.
ReplyDeleteNot too many dreams now of flying.
Mind's too cluttered with other stuff.
Ah, the innocence and wonderment of childhood.
Didn't have to worry about paying the bills either. ;)
I think a big part of the eroticism of the photo stems from the viewer's knowledge of her illicit involvement with a member of the British cabinet two or so years earlier,
ReplyDeleteI can remember seeing this photo as a young adolescent and being aroused by it.
I think its powerfully erotic not because of her past but more because of her and its composition.
She looks at you as if you are being judged by herself to be worthy. You know she's naked but the chair covers her in such a way that it enhances her sensuality. Covered in a way that lets the mind fill in the blanks, and part of the thrill is wondering if the reality matches the imagination. All she has to do is stand up, but only if she deems that you have the goods.
A lot's being said in that photo.
Girls were more girly then. And I think they looked happier. Even the women in cheesecake shots then just seemed softer and more contented.
ReplyDeleteI remember this fairly well, being 56.
Hi Kathy. I replied to Hollenhund's reply to you on my blog.
@Anon 10:15
ReplyDeleteYeah, I had a look at the Spengler article and think he is wrong.
The whole appeal of "Shades of Grey" is that it sexually excites women. Porn production is ultimately a business which survives on a profit. Therefore porn that is popular tells us something about then nature of female sexual desire.
The fact that women want a strong man is nothing new in the manosphere. The fact that women are quite capable of impressive sexual depravity, in the presence of such a man, is also not new. Spengler's operating from within a traditional paradigm.
If women cannot control men by bearing their children, what other means to they have to control them?
Spengler her is operating in Hegelian mode.
I don't stick with my wife because she controls me through my kids, it's because I love her, even if she were barren I would love her. No control there. His approach is totally un-Christian.
We find the answer in the sudden popularity of dominant-submissive fantasies.
The "sudden popularity" of female S+M has nothing to do with the sexual crisis, rather as sexual morality and modesty have totally dissolved, the restraints which have kept women from expressing their desires have disappeared. The "Story of O", published in 1954, well before the sexual revolution, deals with the same themes. It's primitive human nature reasserting itself in the absence of cultural restraint.
Many social conservatives have been shocked in the discovery that women are enthusiastic sexual beings.
Spengler her is operating in Hegelian mode.
ReplyDeleteshould be
Spengler here is operating in Hegelian mode.
Many social conservatives must have married the wrong woman.
ReplyDelete@David
ReplyDeleteDisagree. I think that many may have married the right woman, it's just that they don't know how to turn her on.
I like reading sociology. I fear I shall be waiting a long time before the truth about what really turns women on reaches the sociology textbooks.
ReplyDeleteSome good sociology is written, but the field seems to attract more than its share of dimbulbs. And it is increasingly dominated by feminists and other blank slaters.
So, it is good to see the Manosphere leading the way in applied sociology.
On the sexual depravity of women, I have never been a Don Juan, but years ago I had a couple of highly revelatory experiences with young women, including the one to whom I am still married these many years.
It genuinely puzzles me that most social conservatives, of whom I am one, have been so slow to learn the truth about women. Pedestalising, I suppose.
I think it was Warren Farrell who pointed out that the best way to understand what motivates men and women is to look at what they actually spend money on. What magazines they buy. Or, in the case of this new pop s&m book, what books they read en masse.
You know SP, I do believe that you are a romantic.
ReplyDeleteYour eloquent writing and depth of feeling is palpable..
Men ARE the romantics not women. Men write the poetry that is sensual, deep and full of longing.
No woman can match that depth of feeling.
"Remind me not, remind me not,
Of those beloved, those vanish'd hours,
When all my soul was given to thee;
Hours that may never be forgot,
Till Time unnerves our vital powers,
And thou and I shall cease to be.
Can I forget---canst thou forget,
When playing with thy golden hair,
How quick thy fluttering heart did move?
Oh! by my soul, I see thee yet,
With eyes so languid, breast so fair,
And lips, though silent, breathing love.
When thus reclining on my breast,
Those eyes threw back a glance so sweet,
As half reproach'd yet rais'd desire,
And still we near and nearer prest,
And still our glowing lips would meet,
As if in kisses to expire.
And then those pensive eyes would close,
And bid their lids each other seek,
Veiling the azure orbs below;
While their long lashes' darken'd gloss
Seem'd stealing o'er thy brilliant cheek,
Like raven's plumage smooth'd on snow.
I dreamt last night our love return'd,
And, sooth to say, that very dream
Was sweeter in its phantasy,
Than if for other hearts I burn'd,
For eyes that ne'er like thine could beam
In Rapture's wild reality.
Then tell me not, remind me not,
Of hours which, though for ever gone,
Can still a pleasing dream restore,
Till Thou and I shall be forgot,
And senseless, as the mouldering stone
Which tells that we shall be no more."
George Byron
@David
ReplyDeleteSome good sociology is written, but the field seems to attract more than its share of dimbulbs. And it is increasingly dominated by feminists and other blank slaters.
Not just it, but psychiatry as well. The amount of totally clueless people in that field is remarkable.
So, it is good to see the Manosphere leading the way in applied sociology.
David, I'm being quite measured when I say this, but I feel that the manosphere is probably the greatest rejuvinating force of Conservatism at the moment. No shit.
Unlike theoretical conservatism, which is too lofty for the average mortal, game, and it's theory, comes "front loaded" with traditional conservative ideas and it delivers practical and very pleasant results. It will take time, but it will sweep all aside.
The manosphere is probably the most exciting intellectual place to be at the moment. The fact that it is beginning to garner hate from the usual shrills is giving it the added kudos of being an underground movement as well.
@Kathy and David
Men ARE the romantics not women
and;
It genuinely puzzles me that most social conservatives, of whom I am one, have been so slow to learn the truth about women. Pedestalising, I suppose.
I don't think men and women love the same way. A man can be so awestruck by a woman that he can literally deify her, i.e Dante.
Pedestalisation comes naturally to a man in love. Hence both the beautiful poetry and manifest stupidity.
"Pedestalization comes naturally to a man in love. Hence both the beautiful poetry and manifest stupidity."
ReplyDeleteI sort of find it kinda sad. This negative focus on pedestalizing a woman. There ought to be a balance. A man in love is capable of so many wonderful things. He creates beautiful music, poetry and art.. Sigh..
I want to be the only woman that my husband desires.. And, I am. And that's a powerful aphrodisiac (for me)And he knows that for me he is the only man that I ever want or desire.
Nothing wrong with pedestalization as long as it is reciprocated. I don't see it as weakness or stupidity.
I love the poetry. I love the romanticism..I love the heady rush..The bonding, mind blowing sex.. :)
Ah, where did it all go so wrong SP.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP_-0TP-k2Y
I defy anyone to call Bogie a pedestalizer(in today's sense of the word it equals weak and acquiescing)... He was a man in love..He was both strong and
sensitive. He had the right balance.And, his woman loved him with a passion in return..
I would go to the ends of the earth for my man.. As corny as that may sound it's the truth.
Perhaps that's what is missing from
the equation, today.
Women need to pedestalize their men.
Because, if they did, they would in return receive undying devotion and love.
What do you think SP?
Kathy
ReplyDeleteI was never really the pedestalising type when it came to women. Sometimes I got a crush on a girl, but I had sisters to give me a taste of reality, and while I like and get on with women I meet, I have never had the high opinion of women so many men seem to.
My wife did look up to me, and I think she still does a fair bit. Game has helped in this regard. But I don't think I have ever looked up to her in any way. I can imagine being very impressed with a certain kind of woman, but not many women fit into that category for me, and I have never seen my wife that way. I have always disliked the mother-son dynamic that many marriages fall into, and scrupulously avoided that.
I do have hopes that Game as applied sociology will eventually go mainstream, but there does seem to be a strong resistance among a lot of men to having their illusions shattered.
Nothing wrong with pedestalization as long as it is reciprocated.
ReplyDeleteThe problem kathy, is that as soon as a man begins to pedestalise a woman it is she who sabotages the relationship. Her own biology repels any potential supplicant. This is why the beta lover is such a tragedy, he worships her, but the more he worships the more she become repelled; his own love the poison of the relationship.
That's not to say that you can't appreciate a woman for her qualities, or that you have to treat her as an inferior, rather, a man has to love a woman a certain way. The thing about Rick is that he loves Ilsa but not as a supplicant.
The thing about loving a woman, is that a man has to be able to see the whole world in her and yet have the ability to renounce it on principle. It's all about "he who loses his life will save it."
You can't will pedastalisation, it is a consequence of the appreciation of the beauty in another. The thing is that alpha behaviour in a man causes a woman to submit naturally, if a man lacks it then she cannot submit, it's in her nature.
Ah, where did it all go so wrong SP.
There were two big poisons to man-woman love.
1) Feminism, which castrated the men and defeminised the women.
2) Acarnality in religion, which in turn affected culture. Notice, the criticisms of the pious.
The social trads and the feminists both had the affect of chopping off men's balls. Honestly, I just surprised at just how many men are "psychologically girly" these days.
Lot's of the manosphere criticises the women for being picky, they have a point to a degree, but they ignore that fact that many men have zero masculinity, they are the equivalent of the female fat slag. Women are naturally repulsed by the "wussiness" and lack of masculinity in most men. No muscle, no charisma, no style but an overwhelming sense of entitlement. I don't find it attractive in a woman and sure as hell don't find it attractive in a man.
@Dave
but there does seem to be a strong resistance among a lot of men to having their illusions shattered.
I think there are several reasons for this.
1) Amongst the traditionally religious, game forces them to confront the "carnality" issue, they are so habituated in thinking the flesh evil that any countence of game is a victory for evil. They will not yeild.
2) Lots of men are lazy as all hell and game compells men to change. Many just can't be stuffed. I know a buch of "nice guys' who have been "friend zoned" and pointed them to the manosphere. I even bought a copy of Neil Strauss's book for one guy. It's been two years and the book has not been read. No shit.
It will go mainstream, but after all else has failed.
I agree. A lot of husbands are lazy and tend to abdicate their authority, especially when women get into bossy mummy mode, and the bloke is tired or stressed from work.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Game requires enduring courage, and a lot of men are not prepared for how hard it is to maintain "hand" in a marriage.
Even if a wife has cultural or religious reasons for submission, she will still try her luck and attempt to control her husband.
"The social trads and the feminists both had the affect of chopping off men's balls. Honestly, I just surprised at just how many men are "psychologically girly" these days."
ReplyDeleteYes and just as off putting are these stupid (insert expletive) selfish women who cut off their husbands balls and then decide that they are not happy and cannot respect him and then divorce him.
Did you read this excerpt in The Weekend Australian SP?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/confessions-of-a-divorcee/story-e6frg8h6-1226297948638
I cringed as I read her drivel. Her lack of introspection. The "I just gotta be me" attitude and to hell with the rest of the family..just left me gobsmacked.
Cry me a river, bitch!
I think that the Christian Trads are not the problem. They tend, at least in the Catholic Church, to be pretty good. The Latin Mass priests (FSSP, in communion with Rome) tend to be good on traditional marriage and they preach the headship of the husband. It is the kind of neo-conservative who followed John Paul II in his every maundering mood and fit of feminism who tends to be the pedestaliser of women and weak on marriage roles.
ReplyDeleteKathy
ReplyDeleteMy autistic 11 year old did something mildly annoying yesterday, and my wife threw a huge, ongoing tantrum. I handled this calmly and firmly.
Now she has decided she might like a good spanking etc. tonight.
A firm, cool response to her emotionalism turns a woman on.
Lol. Good one David. ;)
ReplyDelete"Many social conservatives have been shocked in the discovery that women are enthusiastic sexual beings."
ReplyDeleteNo,not really, it's just more affirmation for me that Augustine was right. However, enthusiastic sexuality is one thing, disordered insane sluttiness is quite another. The latter is ugly, disturbing, and none too attractive. Bram Stoker's image of a wanton female vampire comes to mind here. Sluttiness is not feminine but an aggressive perversion. To hell with it. As for women enjoying sex, I'm all for it, but their needs to be boundaries.
As far as girly girls go, I love the classic feminity of women from the 40s and 50s etc. Its like a cold drink of fresh water in the middle of a putrid swamp.
Also, to SP:
ReplyDeleteI'd like your take on this book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Richer-Sex-Breadwinners-Transforming/dp/1439197717/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1332342861&sr=1-1
It is talked about in short here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/liza-mundys-the-richer-sex_n_1363902.html
and here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/sex-richer-liza-mundy-gender-gap_n_1363917.html
It appears to affirm that the endpoint of female careerism is a total upending of natural sexual identities in favor of feminized pansy men and mannish bitches.
@Brandon
ReplyDeleteI'll have a look and let you know.
If American women do start seriously outearning men, it will not lead to a feminist utopia in which women are the breadwinners and men the househusbands. That is simply nonsense.
ReplyDeleteIt may lead to more lonely, unmarried women; more gigolos; more pump and dump; more soft harems; and more men turning to video games and porn.
Remember man that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return. Oh well, thems the breaks. ;)
ReplyDelete