Pretty informative, makes so much sense, never too late to be enlightened...
@cameronowens8831
3 жыл бұрын
Grandpa when did you learn how to comment
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
It's interesting to hear him speak of S&M from a 50s psychological perspective...as various neurotic traps that are not consciously played out... as opposed to the way it's often explored sexually as a state of 'play', esp in the BDSM community, where neurotic tendencies are explored as willful indulgences and overt and honest expressions of identity. In other words, today S&M is much less likely to exhibit the evasive or self-denying or general lack of awareness he describes in his examples, so it takes the teeth out of the idea that these are less than ideal, or short of his objectivist standards. It begs a rethinking about the nature of sex, and puts these so-called kinks more on the level of the dominant/submissive heterosexual sex he praises. In other words, if these practices are sub-par because they involve denial of one self, and by today's standards they are in fact an embrace of oneself, are they by his standards more acceptable?
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
Playing at rape and torture is indefensible. Consent is only a legal loophole for perpetrators, else participation in itself would be considered adequate without some kind of verbal consent. Regardless of whether one gives you permission to torture her or not, torturing is wrong. Doing it consciously does not make it any less wrong, in fact it makes it more wrong.
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 you can assert anything, but I’m not really hearing an argument for why it’s more wrong, other than a definitional error. A rapist may be more physically gentle, mentally manipulative, or even employ drugs, and do far more damage simply because the violation is one of will, liberty, privacy and consent. A person who is willingly flogged is not giving up liberty, despite your superficial association of the act of striking a persons ass to undesired violence. You’ll have to do better than that, lest race drivers be fined for speeding, and magicians for being con artists. Situational ethics, including will and consent, make every difference. My original comment is merely pointing out his 1950s perception of bdsm, where consent is not recognized, or not to the extent it is today. It must change our perception of the physical act, as the consciousness behind it is different. Analysis of that consciousness is, after all, the basis of objectivism. I’m willing to concede that a person playing at power dynamics to the extent of fantasy rape involves identity questions relevant to objectivism, but it’s a different question of self-perception than the one he presents. Even then, it’s not on par with a person in an abusive relationship who desires to be dominated, but fails to understand the difference between that desire and abuse.
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
@@iridescentsquids you can assert anything, but it doesn't make you right! Someone can consent to be murdered. Doesn't make it right or legal to murder them. Regardless of whether one gives you permission to torture her or not, torturing is wrong.
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Asserting any particular behavior is wrong, similarly, doesn't magically make it so. That consenting behavior can be immoral in many instances is certainly not an argument that consenting behavior is immoral in all instances. I'm sure you would agree. It's no more sound to argue that because behavior that deliberately causes pain is in many instances immoral, all instances in which pain is deliberately caused is immoral. Not to mention that you're skirting around all the situational ethics as relates to liberty and associated dignity, which is distinct from physical violence, etc. And which is all very relevant. As relates to objectivism, liberty, will, and self awareness, as I said earlier, make all the difference.
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
@@iridescentsquids exactly, mr i think i'm a dom. lmao. Asserting any particular behavior is wrong, similarly, doesn't magically make it so. torture is wrong to do regardless of the victim's consent. as i just stated. lol. reality is what it is regardless of whether you admit it or not. the tree makes a sound. it's usually male individuals screaming and crying that there's no such thing as right and wrong! subjective! HuMaN nAtUrE when really what they are referencing is male nature. they date rape and watch barely legal cp and then get mad when anyone insinuates that may not be acceptable. and by the way? there's a good reason male "doms" are so dweeby and no one will pay them for their work they way they will dommes.... and that's because any woman can just walk outside and be abused by a man for free. lmfao
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
"She was a s*** s*** s***!!!" Yeesh. LOL, great lecture series, but sex is not a need. Many people live lives entirely without sex that are quite happy about it. Some people simply do not have the urge. Some people would rather Channel their energies another Direction. Also, this segment just reinforced my opinion that men should not be talking about women's sexuality like they know it better than we do. Men and women do not at all do the same thing for the same reason. Our biological imperatives are different and it permeates all of our actions regarding sexuality. He is right, however, to say that woman is the prize and man is the pursuer. No man who wants to be pursued ever got a moment from me. :)
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
Was he not, largely, attempting to summarize the beliefs of a woman? Not that he necessarily got it right, but these ideas he explains here are derived from Rand.
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
@@iridescentsquids @Iridescentsquids yes, exactly. he attempted and failed. the fact that he got it wrong is precisely what i brought up. you will not be able to brush that aside, sorry. it's kinda the main point. if you don't get that s*** is a slur and is used to oppress women, you've got no chance at seeing your surroundings in a logical manner. this dude had the basic idea right, but his hatred for women showed through as he expounded. men always act like women's bad relationships with men are women's fault and "why do women CHOOSE to do that?" ... when you might as well ask a plantation slave why he picks cotton if he's so anti-slavery? lol. patriarchy takes AWAY all decent choices for women. oh and blames women for pregnancy termination when all men have to do is STOP EJACULATING INTO VAGINAS of women who don't want a baby.. and that alone would stop termination. typical patriarchal stuff, really. nothing new. to fix this, men should treat and talk about women in the same way they'd want their daughters to be treated. i would say "they way they want to be treated", but men see us as aliens for which no empathy can be felt, so i had to invoke "male property", ie, the daughter. and men think that their daughters should be EXCEPTIONS to the way their fathers have treated girls and women their entire lives. but it doesn't work that way. daughters will be treated *exactly* the way their fathers have treated female persons all along. it's toooooo late. and if men get to tell their daughters how evil and disgusting boys are before every date, then men don't get to be mad at women for saying the exact same things on our own. :)
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Well sure it's a slur, but Rand herself uses the word as part of her valuation logic. She directly linked valuation of oneself to that of sexual partners. A man who chooses a woman he sees as a slut is reflecting his own sense of self, etc. His "naked ego" barred, etc, whether its his intention or not. Rand herself compares a "slut" to other women who are more worthy of a man who knows his own value, suggesting that a "slut" equally does not know her own value, and might validate as oppose to reject that underlying meaning of the slur. The man, at least, is assuming she does not know her own value when he sees a woman this way. That's what gives the word it's meaning in that context. If anything, it seems to me, the idea he describes, just as much as Rand, is that the term is but a masking of the failures of the man who might use it. It's meaningful but, much like sex itself, not in the intended or consciously derogatory way. Rather, it holds a certain logic reflective of an inner dynamic that indicates an individual has fallen short of higher potential, which can be true of either gender. In this case they are both speaking of men's desires and pursuits. It's not at all inconsistent to point out the hypocritical nature (in fact, it's the nature of the dynamic that it is hypocritical) of both pursuing a so-called "slut" and shedding personal responsibility in the very use of the term. The inner dynamic that gives a slur meaning is one in which a man is failing himself. The moment he ceases to fail himself the word only holds meaning by the inner logic of others, reflective of their own failures. This, interestingly, is also consist with efforts to reclaim such derogatory terms, as has happened with "slut", converting it into a term of pride. Although such a conversation of terminology is not at all what Rand was getting at. She may have seen such efforts largely ancillary or irrelevant to simply being true to oneself. But in that being true to oneself involves recapturing shared concepts it's kindof consistent with what she says. In my opinion, her idea of careful selection of sexual partners is at odds with efforts to reclaim the term as we see it today, which is much more tolerant of the idea of "sex for the sake of sex". Its that the personality and character of sexual partners is expressly NOT, as Rand seems to believe, a reflection of oneself; that it is, rather, more important to be ethical and honest than it is to be picky about the character of one's partners per se. The idea is that for some people being picky about character is paramount, whereas for others they can be entirely true to themselves and not be negatively affected by the limitations of their sexual partners. I would bet that Rand wouldn’t go for that.
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
@@iridescentsquids wow, not going to read all that blather. would you use the n word like you use the s word here? go ahead and try and see how that goes. i don't gaf who uses the word, honey. it's a slur. again, anyone who goes with everything she ever said is not objectivist, but RANDIAN. ayn herself WOULD NOT approve. like i said, rand was right in her philosophies, but failed to carry them out to their ends when it came to on-the-ground scenarios.
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 take it up with Rand, whose opinions about what is and is not objectivist holds a bit more weight than some rando nutter. She used it as I described, which you previously said he got wrong, oddly. Other women use the term differently today, like Dossie Easton and Janet Hardy. Not surprised you don’t know that, hun. Worlds a dif place since you last cracked a book. Something is causing some serious knowledge gaps with you, anyways.
@ClarissaSigrid-u9f
7 күн бұрын
Jones Ronald Allen Carol Thomas Ronald
@corporatecoach
4 жыл бұрын
This is an interesting lecture How much is science and how much is opinion ?
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
Philosophy, which overlaps opinion as much as science.
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
Chris farmer, it's your job to figure that out. At any rate, opinions can be judged as correct or incorrect.
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Asking questions can prompt responses that may have value. There are differences between science and philosophy that it might be useful to point out.
@legalfictionnaturalfact3969
3 жыл бұрын
@@iridescentsquids opinions can be judged as correct or incorrect. some men hold the opinion that raping children is good for the children. and there is a reason that physics used to be called natural philosophy. the nature of the discipline hasn't changed; the powers that be would rather obscure the fact that science begets and informs philosophy.
@iridescentsquids
3 жыл бұрын
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Not sure what your point is. Sure, opinions can be judged. Anything can be. Asking the difference between science and opinion is fruitful territory, in my opinion. Even if just to point out where the lines get blurred. If your point is that science and philosophy are closely related....yeah... sure. They aren't one and the same but they certainly inform one another. Science is to a degree informed by philosophy as well, in as much as it's process is metaphysical.
@albionicamerican8806
2 жыл бұрын
What Rand shows about sex in _Atlas Shrugged_ conflicts with what her heroic characters say about it. After all, several of the villains - Jim Taggart, Clifton Locey, Kip Chalmers, the ambassador from Chile and even Wesley Mouch - are able to attract women for sexual relationships, while most of the heroes are apparently incels. Seriously, did Midas Mulligan, Hugh Akston, Ells Wyatt, Quentin Daniels, Richard Halley, etc., ever even kiss a girl? Did the lesser hero Eddie Willers ever have a girlfriend? As for John Galt, he only has one given sexual encounter in the novel, when he was well into his 30's, with Dagny in the Taggart Terminal's store room. Yet that is supposed to make him the novel's philosophical authority about how sex works. This contrived situation might impress an unworldly teenage boy who doesn't know any better, but an adult man with common life experience would laugh at it. In other words, what Rand is really showing is that the tribal, collectivist men are more successful with women because they are better integrated into their society than the allegedly "superior" men Rand wants the reader to identify with. It's the alienated guys who don't fit in who have to live without female companionship. Or in still other words, the sexual economy in _Atlas Shrugged_ resembles what often happens in the real world: The "bad boys" get the girls, while the responsible, productive nerds are just not able to attract women. They might become more successful financially by filling their lonely hours with extra work, but they are still coming home to empty beds.
Пікірлер: 23