In National Review, VDH asks the above question. Without reading his answer, I can offer one of my own.
Newt's dalliances show that female sexuality is far more provoked by power and money than by looks.
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I urge you to look at a pic of Newt in the late 60s early 70s -- sure, he's rocking the Mod Hair Ken side burns, but he wasn't that bad 40 years and two hundred lbs ago. But mostly, I do agree with you.
You know, I was thinking how strange it is that improvementing Eros was first grown in Greece in paiderastic relationships, and in generative or sexual love Eros first acted to hinder improvement, and was transfer'd to generative love only later [sc by Japhethic penis envy?] (Nietzsche, letter to Erwin Rhode 23 May 1876).
Because women's sexuality is so much more readily used for inducing improvement than is male sexuality. The homosexual "heavenly" or "ouranian" Aphrodite was possible only by suppression or repression of "vulgar Aphrodite" (Xenophon, Symposium. But also Socrates, Plato, Aristotle forbid sex between males. Aristophanes in the Couds does too -- if one wishes to restore the heroic age of the fighters at Maranthon; but not if one wishes to do laisser-faire for pleasure).
?Callias in Xenophon's Symposium sees in "vulgar Aphrodite" both what we call "heterosexual" and "homosexual" versions. And considering male lust for women, we may agree that laisser-faire of male desire for women is "vulgar." Most patriarchal cultures take male lust in its vulgar version as the entirety of male lust, and propose that laws protecting property rights and patriarchal lineage are sufficient. Why "idealise" a bunch of urges and desires that, when freed from restraints of convention, apparently amount only to the lifestyle choices of Mick Jagger or Henry VIII?
But the slight sexual desires of women, and even more the things that they have always been assumed to wish for vis-a-vis men -- namely to marry well, and a man who is admirable and admired in the culture -- seem easily arranged (once culture set about to do this) to require some sort of improvement in men. ... Women's paucity of sex drive and their libido for children is so convenient we must marvel that using women to improve men is so resisted -- including even by Traditionalists today! ... Darwin places sex selection by the female in place of metaphysics, doesn't he? Women's selection of "good" men or "Christian" men drove Christian civilization. And this is easy for women! (As I've mention'd before, chastity in a man is remarkable, but hardly in a woman. Chastity in women isn't self-overcoming etc, but merely a concern for patriarchalist's property and lineage rights. ... The standard Catholic reverence for nuns ought to have been revered for their overcoming their wish for children and a house of their own -- not all women wish for these things, admittedly, but almost no women have a sex drive like almost all guys do.)
Admittedly, one may quibble with the results or 'evolution,' as Nietzsche does (holding that the moralization of men has been their domestication, taming, ruining etc; and women have prefer'd to be comrade personnel in human resources for capitalism or socialism or both). But this is the fault of the cultural criteria (capitalism, socialism, Christianity, etc), not with women, nor really with men. For instance, women's alleged infinite "materialism" -- so that they do nothing but withhold sex from their man unless he goes out there earning more and more money so that she can buy more and more stuff -- expresses "threaten'dness" and a wish to tear women down, debunk them etc, rather than really to understand them, which even a cynic such as Freud doesn't assert is easy. At most one can say that the "low" preferences in women congrue uneasily with the "high" preferences -- which is true for men too.
And true for "homosexual" men (whether gay or androphile or whatnot). A merely "low" (vulgar Aphrodite) interpretation of gay male sexuality is inadequate, but achieving "desublimation" of Ouranian Love has been extremely simple. Sure, there's a call for "marriage equality" but surely gay males carry their erotic ashes to such pair bonding in so many cases that the ancient Greek tradition would declare is the inevitable result of abandoning "repression" or whatever one wishes to call it. The desublimation of "heterosexuality" has been more difficult because women are involved. The successes that have been achieved in this endeavour have occur'd by shaming coeds into asserting that women aren't contemptible asexual idealists, but are just as eager for exciting sexual adventures and so forth as men are. "Girls daydream of marrying well and raising a family only when socially constructed by 1950s capitalism to do so!" (True, natural persons who protest against their social construction by capitalism. ... I wonder if Muslims agree that a person is truly who he or she is qua rejecting social construction by Sharia etc.)
Low-class women and girls were immune to such claptrap but they had no cultural power to maintain the institution of marriage once educated-class women and girls began giving it away (the "trickle-down" effect from high class to low class works in sex mores also!), and when the churches started using Jesus' kerygma to attack what is now condemn'd as "slut shaming" (Jesus associated with prostitutes, therefore no harm can come from destroying the rule and idealism against pre-marital sex).
But if I can speak from my own sense of stuff, it isn't really that a guy assumes that the love and sexuality of a girl who has had sex with "too many guys" is worthless, but that the girl feels that her love and sexuality is worthless in this way -- she can no longer project a persona of feminine mystique or whatever this should be call'd. "Sex" is at best a recreational pastime, a technique for mutually inducing jouissance (as Foucault might term it).
The guys of the desublimation aiôn do not gain the charisma of civilizational achievement, and girls don't bestow their love and favours on a civilizationally successful guy whom they wish to marry. ... Indeed, desublimational Christianity implies and even declares that this new arrangement is right and good, for Western Christian and post-Christian civilization is worthless, all wrong, totally oppressive and so forth -- only protest and resistance movements within the West are any good, especially when led by women and subaltern persons of colour and homosexuals. Jesus might agree that Christian civilization has been worthless, but He would include also its "resist evil!" movements. "Resisting evil nonviolently" is only one more phariseeism -- albeit a phariseeism that insists upon removing all legitimacy and especially all Bible-related names and signage from "violence" including law and the state.
So now the early heterosexual penis envy for male paiderastia's improvement ethos has been reversed. Consider'd purely in terms of sexuality and eros**, guys are into porno and as much sex as they can get. Women are maybe into some sex too with whomever when their slight urges drive them to it -- and this will be with 'alpha' males such as Newt Gingrich, or a more alpha male than he if ever the chance comes along.
No doubt the journalists and shrinks and clergy of the desublimation aiôn don't argue that porno and sex quantity+quality is all there is to us. For instance, right now leftwing idealists are insisting that the "conservative" prime minister of Canada spend less money on the military and prisons and more money on "health care." But this fine idealism isn't connected with love and eros. There's no plan to encourage girls to give their sexual favours only to guys who support social spending. Such a proposal sounds absurd. But no doubt "conservatives" who wish'd the relations between the sexes remain only ruled by laws property and lineage said the troubadours were absurd with their songs of love and idealism for women. Such conservatives don't like to preach on 1Cor 7:33f, even though St Paul gives pride of place to the unmarry'd who think to please the Lord.
**Desublimation is an eros or morality, not only a laisser-faire strictly consider'd. One is obligated to devote a lot of time and energy to desublimational activities. Desublimation would not really gorw as a culture if one simply stop'd bothering with idealism, and took a cost-benefit analysis to activities that can result in jouissance. That's why Marcuse de Sade refer'd to desublimation for us as "repressive desublimation." ... Neither Dmitry Karamazov's "Sodom" nor his "Madonna" would be done as mere techniques for this or that pleasure or release.
4 comments:
I urge you to look at a pic of Newt in the late 60s early 70s -- sure, he's rocking the Mod Hair Ken side burns, but he wasn't that bad 40 years and two hundred lbs ago. But mostly, I do agree with you.
You know, I was thinking how strange it is that improvementing Eros was first grown in Greece in paiderastic relationships, and in generative or sexual love Eros first acted to hinder improvement, and was transfer'd to generative love only later [sc by Japhethic penis envy?] (Nietzsche, letter to Erwin Rhode 23 May 1876).
Because women's sexuality is so much more readily used for inducing improvement than is male sexuality. The homosexual "heavenly" or "ouranian" Aphrodite was possible only by suppression or repression of "vulgar Aphrodite" (Xenophon, Symposium. But also Socrates, Plato, Aristotle forbid sex between males. Aristophanes in the Couds does too -- if one wishes to restore the heroic age of the fighters at Maranthon; but not if one wishes to do laisser-faire for pleasure).
?Callias in Xenophon's Symposium sees in "vulgar Aphrodite" both what we call "heterosexual" and "homosexual" versions. And considering male lust for women, we may agree that laisser-faire of male desire for women is "vulgar." Most patriarchal cultures take male lust in its vulgar version as the entirety of male lust, and propose that laws protecting property rights and patriarchal lineage are sufficient. Why "idealise" a bunch of urges and desires that, when freed from restraints of convention, apparently amount only to the lifestyle choices of Mick Jagger or Henry VIII?
But the slight sexual desires of women, and even more the things that they have always been assumed to wish for vis-a-vis men -- namely to marry well, and a man who is admirable and admired in the culture -- seem easily arranged (once culture set about to do this) to require some sort of improvement in men. ... Women's paucity of sex drive and their libido for children is so convenient we must marvel that using women to improve men is so resisted -- including even by Traditionalists today! ... Darwin places sex selection by the female in place of metaphysics, doesn't he? Women's selection of "good" men or "Christian" men drove Christian civilization. And this is easy for women! (As I've mention'd before, chastity in a man is remarkable, but hardly in a woman. Chastity in women isn't self-overcoming etc, but merely a concern for patriarchalist's property and lineage rights. ... The standard Catholic reverence for nuns ought to have been revered for their overcoming their wish for children and a house of their own -- not all women wish for these things, admittedly, but almost no women have a sex drive like almost all guys do.)
Admittedly, one may quibble with the results or 'evolution,' as Nietzsche does (holding that the moralization of men has been their domestication, taming, ruining etc; and women have prefer'd to be comrade personnel in human resources for capitalism or socialism or both). But this is the fault of the cultural criteria (capitalism, socialism, Christianity, etc), not with women, nor really with men. For instance, women's alleged infinite "materialism" -- so that they do nothing but withhold sex from their man unless he goes out there earning more and more money so that she can buy more and more stuff -- expresses "threaten'dness" and a wish to tear women down, debunk them etc, rather than really to understand them, which even a cynic such as Freud doesn't assert is easy. At most one can say that the "low" preferences in women congrue uneasily with the "high" preferences -- which is true for men too.
And true for "homosexual" men (whether gay or androphile or whatnot). A merely "low" (vulgar Aphrodite) interpretation of gay male sexuality is inadequate, but achieving "desublimation" of Ouranian Love has been extremely simple. Sure, there's a call for "marriage equality" but surely gay males carry their erotic ashes to such pair bonding in so many cases that the ancient Greek tradition would declare is the inevitable result of abandoning "repression" or whatever one wishes to call it.
The desublimation of "heterosexuality" has been more difficult because women are involved. The successes that have been achieved in this endeavour have occur'd by shaming coeds into asserting that women aren't contemptible asexual idealists, but are just as eager for exciting sexual adventures and so forth as men are. "Girls daydream of marrying well and raising a family only when socially constructed by 1950s capitalism to do so!" (True, natural persons who protest against their social construction by capitalism. ... I wonder if Muslims agree that a person is truly who he or she is qua rejecting social construction by Sharia etc.)
Low-class women and girls were immune to such claptrap but they had no cultural power to maintain the institution of marriage once educated-class women and girls began giving it away (the "trickle-down" effect from high class to low class works in sex mores also!), and when the churches started using Jesus' kerygma to attack what is now condemn'd as "slut shaming" (Jesus associated with prostitutes, therefore no harm can come from destroying the rule and idealism against pre-marital sex).
But if I can speak from my own sense of stuff, it isn't really that a guy assumes that the love and sexuality of a girl who has had sex with "too many guys" is worthless, but that the girl feels that her love and sexuality is worthless in this way -- she can no longer project a persona of feminine mystique or whatever this should be call'd. "Sex" is at best a recreational pastime, a technique for mutually inducing jouissance (as Foucault might term it).
The guys of the desublimation aiôn do not gain the charisma of civilizational achievement, and girls don't bestow their love and favours on a civilizationally successful guy whom they wish to marry. ... Indeed, desublimational Christianity implies and even declares that this new arrangement is right and good, for Western Christian and post-Christian civilization is worthless, all wrong, totally oppressive and so forth -- only protest and resistance movements within the West are any good, especially when led by women and subaltern persons of colour and homosexuals. Jesus might agree that Christian civilization has been worthless, but He would include also its "resist evil!" movements. "Resisting evil nonviolently" is only one more phariseeism -- albeit a phariseeism that insists upon removing all legitimacy and especially all Bible-related names and signage from "violence" including law and the state.
So now the early heterosexual penis envy for male paiderastia's improvement ethos has been reversed. Consider'd purely in terms of sexuality and eros**, guys are into porno and as much sex as they can get. Women are maybe into some sex too with whomever when their slight urges drive them to it -- and this will be with 'alpha' males such as Newt Gingrich, or a more alpha male than he if ever the chance comes along.
No doubt the journalists and shrinks and clergy of the desublimation aiôn don't argue that porno and sex quantity+quality is all there is to us. For instance, right now leftwing idealists are insisting that the "conservative" prime minister of Canada spend less money on the military and prisons and more money on "health care." But this fine idealism isn't connected with love and eros. There's no plan to encourage girls to give their sexual favours only to guys who support social spending. Such a proposal sounds absurd. But no doubt "conservatives" who wish'd the relations between the sexes remain only ruled by laws property and lineage said the troubadours were absurd with their songs of love and idealism for women. Such conservatives don't like to preach on 1Cor 7:33f, even though St Paul gives pride of place to the unmarry'd who think to please the Lord.
**Desublimation is an eros or morality, not only a laisser-faire strictly consider'd. One is obligated to devote a lot of time and energy to desublimational activities. Desublimation would not really gorw as a culture if one simply stop'd bothering with idealism, and took a cost-benefit analysis to activities that can result in jouissance. That's why Marcuse de Sade refer'd to desublimation for us as "repressive desublimation." ... Neither Dmitry Karamazov's "Sodom" nor his "Madonna" would be done as mere techniques for this or that pleasure or release.
Post a Comment