Absolute Power over the Female
I'm so burned I don't even want to work on all of my shit right now.
What's the major issue with the whole Weiner situation? He showed his cock to some women online, how does that get in the way of his obligations of the Congress? Since I won't play entirely dumb here and go ahead and say it probably has to do with something of our idea of what a congressman is supposed to be like: sexless, conservative hair cut, smile, lacks any history of drugs or sex mistakes or of parties at Princeton, perfectly cut lawn, and picket fence, and among other things on our list of ideals to a representative of both our Congress and Senate. Of course this stems from expectations of times long passed when the worst events in history came from the "Day of Infamy".
Someone recently asked me about it and explained what took place (since I only knew of some headlines that popped up on my phone) and my response was simply, "So...? He took pictures of his dick and sent it to some girls. Is that unproffesional or immature of an act to begin with?". Let's consider this for a second- if we take the sexual drive out of the man, what moves him then? What kind of passion will push him to a direction that will ultimately benefit groups of people (one would hope at least)?
Our response to such a question is then that our drive is upon purpose; for example, an individual wanted to learn how to drive a ship because his interest demands it; his desires are not stemming from the primitive but from the idealistic. Let me first put myself in those shoes of the man wanting to master the ship- the removal of sex drive completely at the start of my life will never introduce me to other drives that will stimulate future desires- yes, yes, John Stuart Mill speaks of higher pleasures but his context is dramatically different since I'm taking a sexless human at birth and watching the development- with that aside, I believe that our complex drives(passions) are built upon the primitive ones of sensory data or stimuli.
Huge strides have been made by man/woman through primitive drives, and I'm not saying the building of huge companies are based on the desire of sex by any means, but I am saying that it's derived from egocentric tendencies and absolute power. Sex equates to absolute power- that statement alone would probably be offensive to women in general but it is absolute power for both parties- but that's because both parties are disillusioned. The man is simplistic in his illiusion of power in sex: it's the same of every age and the conquering of nations. Even if there is a profound equality in the relationship there is a form of safety net that is cast, a net that is cast upon the orca or dolphin. The entanglement is disconnection of the two gender's ideals of the acts of said relationship. The man doesn't always venture to consciously believe he is conquering the woman in the flesh, but the net we speak of is what society calls "security". The security is vested in the man instinctively knowing that the ownership is present, even if the owner and the owned are the same (e.g. the man owns the woman and the woman owns the man).
For the woman, it is much more complex in their interpretation of absolute power. Yes, we all believe that relationships are equal- we all recite this to the grave- relationships are like democracy- recite recite recite- freedoms and equalities. With that aside, their disillusionment is in the belief of absolute power of connection. There seems to be a cult-like tendency at least in this age that when such acts take place there is a hidden seed (pun not intended actually) placed within the man which compels him to keep eyes and ears and all senses upon the woman who just received him- it actually the product of natural selection, of evolution that this came about. Since women are a limited resource in any given society (be it humans or other mammals) there comes to be a sort of pairing based on the woman selecting. The selection is ultimately where there absolute power comes from - keep in mind that mammals such as birds do this pairing as well. Richard Dawkins asked the question, why? Why does this pairing occur (obviously he merely asked the question so that he may continue with his proper analysis). The pairing occurs because if we see animals that do no pair as so and the female is left to cultivate the genetics in their offspring, the product is usually one that will fail through natural selection. For example, the female, being left to take care of the offspring and herself must leave them for a certain time to get food, during that time they are defenseless and will either be eaten or injured from themselves; slowly, over time, genetics of the remainder will be of nothing hugely successful, and of course change comes about. The female eventually forces the male to be rooted upon herself in some fashion, with events that we see such as competition or waiting or food.
For humans, it might of played out quite similarly.
Stevie, this entire thing was ultimately for you and I'm going to tell you to read this in my presence so that you can be offended and I can watch your face be entirely frustrated at my artificial sexism and use of Richard Dawkin's book to form an argument as such. :)
It's because I love you... just know that.... remember that ;)
What's the major issue with the whole Weiner situation? He showed his cock to some women online, how does that get in the way of his obligations of the Congress? Since I won't play entirely dumb here and go ahead and say it probably has to do with something of our idea of what a congressman is supposed to be like: sexless, conservative hair cut, smile, lacks any history of drugs or sex mistakes or of parties at Princeton, perfectly cut lawn, and picket fence, and among other things on our list of ideals to a representative of both our Congress and Senate. Of course this stems from expectations of times long passed when the worst events in history came from the "Day of Infamy".
Someone recently asked me about it and explained what took place (since I only knew of some headlines that popped up on my phone) and my response was simply, "So...? He took pictures of his dick and sent it to some girls. Is that unproffesional or immature of an act to begin with?". Let's consider this for a second- if we take the sexual drive out of the man, what moves him then? What kind of passion will push him to a direction that will ultimately benefit groups of people (one would hope at least)?
Our response to such a question is then that our drive is upon purpose; for example, an individual wanted to learn how to drive a ship because his interest demands it; his desires are not stemming from the primitive but from the idealistic. Let me first put myself in those shoes of the man wanting to master the ship- the removal of sex drive completely at the start of my life will never introduce me to other drives that will stimulate future desires- yes, yes, John Stuart Mill speaks of higher pleasures but his context is dramatically different since I'm taking a sexless human at birth and watching the development- with that aside, I believe that our complex drives(passions) are built upon the primitive ones of sensory data or stimuli.
Huge strides have been made by man/woman through primitive drives, and I'm not saying the building of huge companies are based on the desire of sex by any means, but I am saying that it's derived from egocentric tendencies and absolute power. Sex equates to absolute power- that statement alone would probably be offensive to women in general but it is absolute power for both parties- but that's because both parties are disillusioned. The man is simplistic in his illiusion of power in sex: it's the same of every age and the conquering of nations. Even if there is a profound equality in the relationship there is a form of safety net that is cast, a net that is cast upon the orca or dolphin. The entanglement is disconnection of the two gender's ideals of the acts of said relationship. The man doesn't always venture to consciously believe he is conquering the woman in the flesh, but the net we speak of is what society calls "security". The security is vested in the man instinctively knowing that the ownership is present, even if the owner and the owned are the same (e.g. the man owns the woman and the woman owns the man).
For the woman, it is much more complex in their interpretation of absolute power. Yes, we all believe that relationships are equal- we all recite this to the grave- relationships are like democracy- recite recite recite- freedoms and equalities. With that aside, their disillusionment is in the belief of absolute power of connection. There seems to be a cult-like tendency at least in this age that when such acts take place there is a hidden seed (pun not intended actually) placed within the man which compels him to keep eyes and ears and all senses upon the woman who just received him- it actually the product of natural selection, of evolution that this came about. Since women are a limited resource in any given society (be it humans or other mammals) there comes to be a sort of pairing based on the woman selecting. The selection is ultimately where there absolute power comes from - keep in mind that mammals such as birds do this pairing as well. Richard Dawkins asked the question, why? Why does this pairing occur (obviously he merely asked the question so that he may continue with his proper analysis). The pairing occurs because if we see animals that do no pair as so and the female is left to cultivate the genetics in their offspring, the product is usually one that will fail through natural selection. For example, the female, being left to take care of the offspring and herself must leave them for a certain time to get food, during that time they are defenseless and will either be eaten or injured from themselves; slowly, over time, genetics of the remainder will be of nothing hugely successful, and of course change comes about. The female eventually forces the male to be rooted upon herself in some fashion, with events that we see such as competition or waiting or food.
For humans, it might of played out quite similarly.
Stevie, this entire thing was ultimately for you and I'm going to tell you to read this in my presence so that you can be offended and I can watch your face be entirely frustrated at my artificial sexism and use of Richard Dawkin's book to form an argument as such. :)
It's because I love you... just know that.... remember that ;)
Comments
Post a Comment