|
|
Re: THE MOST STUPID WOMEN,i.e.WHITE WOMEN,.............
Paul J. Zanca (pz@imb.imb.uh.edu)
Thu, 17 Aug 1995 20:40:44 -600
In article <40sut6$h9g@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Alissande <alissande@aol.com> wrote:
> From: pz@imb.imb.uh.edu (Paul J. Zanca)
> >So let's just pretend that they don't swing, shall we? Let's just
> >outgrow that infantile concept, that vileness that is human sexuality.
>
> Human sexuality is not vile. Not being able to appreciate women except on
> a sexual level is.
>
I didn't notice your qualifier the first time around. I believe that that's
because it wasn't there.
You were throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of _course_ human
sexuality is not wrong! So is not being able to appreciate a woman except
on a sexual level. And so is not being able to appreciate a woman on a sexual
level at all.
> >The day I see a great female body, or even a pretty good female body, and
> >don't think at least on some level, "Yum, I'd like to..." will be the day
> >I have given in to the stifling, suffocating prudes like you that are
> >trying to tell me that sex is bad, sex is WRONG, sex is ugly and smelly and
> >messy.
>
>
> You obviously don't know me, because I do not think that sex is bad,
> wrong, ugly, smelly, or messy.
At least, not in a _bad_ way... :)
> However, I do feel that sexuality can be
> misused, and especially when women are targeted only as objects of sexual
> desire.
Thank you for clarifying your original statement. I apologize if I
overreacted, but you used some fairly strong words (e.g., "brutish" and
"puerile") that I felt deserved a blunt response.
I question your ability to define a "misuse" of sexuality. If you maintain
that my looking at a naked female and subsequently feeling frisky is a misuse,
then what is a proper use?
> If you get your rocks off reading National Geographic, I would
> say that you have lost the entire point of reading a magazine dedicated to
> preserving historical and anthropological facts. I don't think that male
> titillation was quite what the founders had in mind.
>
That's not quite what you said the first time, but I accept your modification
as long as you accept my apology. I agree with the above assessment.
> >What, I ask you, is at all unnatural about considering a woman a thing to
> >be desired? I hate to tell you, but if it weren't for that good old
> >raunchy human libido, none of us would be here. A sterile interpretation
> >of the human body as an abstract thing, with no sexual allure, is not a
> >survival trait. Those with attitudes like yours will soon be bred out,
> >unless some "brutish male" comes along and wakes up your gonads.
>
> Nothing is unnatural about considering women desirable. Nothing is
> unnatural about considering women sex objects. However, when one is
> unable to look at a picture of a woman and see a picture of a woman, as
> opposed to a red-hot mama with her breasts hanging out, I think we have
> problems.
I agree, with the contingency that I at least be allowed to _think_ it on some
level. Do I have your permission, please?
> My libido is raging enough, and I think I know a little bit
> about the facts of life, seeing as how I have two children, but I don't
> refer to every man that passes by as a chunk of meat,
And nor do I refer to every woman that passes by as a "red-hot mama with her
breasts hanging out," even though, if I consider her attractive, I am likely
to think, "Rowwrrr." If this is a failing, and I don't think it is, then the
ideal human being would be a sexless neuter, passing through the blizzard of
hormones and pheromones that is all around us unperturbed. When a member of a
dimorphous (two-sexed) species loses its urge to procreate, it forfeits its
rights to contribute to the gene pool. Since I _like_ contributing to the
gene pool, I'll cling to my "brutish" libido as long as I possibly can.
> nor do I actively
> admire the way his pants bulge out in the front, nor do I stand on the
> street corner offering my body to every tight piece of ass that comes
> along.
Well, though specifics of course vary, the majority men may be fundamentally
different in this. ;)
Really, now _you_ are overreacting. Yes, when I see an attractive female, I
get aroused, at least on some level. However, I, and the overwhelming
majority of males, conform to the accepted traditions and rules of society.
Do you maintain that men everywhere proposition every woman they see for sex?
That's silly.
And would it be wrong if a woman _did_ actively admire the way a man's pants
draped, or if she stood on a street corner and offered her body to every piece
of tight ass that came along? Why or why not?
> The point is, sexuality can be a wonderful thing, and it is our
> duty to make sure that it stays that way, and also that it does not
> interfere with the right of women to walk down the street and not be seen
> or treated as an ass and tits attached to useless portions of the body.
That's rather an un-democratic attitude, don't you think? Who in the hell are
you to tell me what I may think, or see, or feel?
>
> >Maybe there's some hope for you, after all. While the above is very
> >romantic, it's still about sex. As is practically everything, everywhere.
>
> Duh. What's your point? That because I think that SOME men should be
> able to see beyond their (or other's) genitalia I am sexless?
Obviously not, since you have two children. Good for you!
My point was that I do not like to be told what to believe, or what to think.
If I choose to percieve a woman as attractive, and if I choose to entertain
the thought of sex with her, am I some kind of criminal? Are you one of those
people that believes that if I look at you and think about having sex with
you, then I've in some way committed "rape"?
> You are just recycling the same chauvinistic propaganda that men have
> shoveling for years.
Really? Perhaps the fact that they are still around, and haven't been bred
out yet, implies that they may be on to something. Radical Feminism is a
relatively new thing, miss, while basic lust and males' perception of females
as things to be desired has been around since the dawn of creation.
Of course, if men get bred out, then so do women. Q.E.D.
The answer: We're all different. We all think differently, we're all built
differently, and we all seem to have varying levels of sexual drive. Mine
happens to be rather high, so perhaps my perception of things is skewed. I
have, however, known a few females whose sexual drives were higher than mine,
Do they have problems as well?
The "failing" of having a strong sex drive is not one unique to the male sex.
You are wrong to attribute it solely to us.
>
> A.R.
>
> --<-{@
> "... his hand hovered over the petals of her body like a bee drawn to a
> flower, waiting to enter them and taste the nectar ..."
> --- A
> Touch of Love
>
By the way, I like the quote. Where's it from?
--
PZ
"Nope. We're not even at this point."
"The statement disproves itself, dumbass." - Ian Thomas
|