Hypocrisy against women

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Walker »

Anyway, enough of you toxic jokers.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Dontaskme »

Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:17 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:32 pm
Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:17 amone-sided crap?
There is no such thing as a one-sided side. Therefore, every side is one-sided.
What does this have to do with the point that was being made about being limited by looking at only one side of something rather than seeing multiple sides at once?
Well you asked for it Lacewing :wink: ..you've bitten down on the bait again...here we go, I'm going to give my playful response to you! :) :wink:

It has everything to do with the point. I was simply stating that ''all sides'' are really 'one-sided' views, namely, 'your side', 'my side' 'their side' or 'whatever side' is seen according to the perspective of the subject positing a particular 'side'. :D

It's all the same 'one-sided' namely, 'my sided' (claimed view) coming from the perspective of the sider, (aka the subject).... it's just a different facet of the same ONE sided side...siding against itself. 8) Or put another way, all objective veiws are all the same one subjective sider objectifying itself as the many sides of itself. :D

A diamond is still a diamond despite it's many facets. If one facet is crap, then the whole diamond is stained. Moral of the story: ? we stain, mark what is absolutely pristine with our world view...we leave an (impression) :D

Objection?




.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Logik »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:38 am It has everything to do with the point. I was simply stating that ''all sides'' are really 'one-sided' views, namely, 'your side', 'my side' 'their side' or 'whatever side' is seen according to the perspective of the subject positing a particular 'side'. :D
Nonsense.

If you have considered multiple views and stuck with one - you have made a choice.

If all you have ever considered is your view - you haven't.

Kinda like the old atheist chirp at theists goes: How do you know your religion is the "right" one if you haven't tried all the others?
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. -- Isaac Asimov
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Dontaskme »

Logik wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:43 am
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:38 am It has everything to do with the point. I was simply stating that ''all sides'' are really 'one-sided' views, namely, 'your side', 'my side' 'their side' or 'whatever side' is seen according to the perspective of the subject positing a particular 'side'. :D
Nonsense.

If you have considered multiple views and stuck with one - you have made a choice.

If all you have ever considered is your view - you haven't.

Kinda like the old atheist chirp at theists goes: How do you know your religion is the "right" one if you haven't tried all the others?
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. -- Isaac Asimov
In the dream of separation, the believed story of I ..your side is authentic enough.


In reality...No person 'one' ever made a choice or had a veiw (owned or claimed that choice or view)

All choices and view points are nothing but the sound of silence sounding..or the eyes without a face looking at itself in the mirror...inseparable from it's eyes...seer and seen in the same intantaneous moment....appearing as duality.... Illusions believed to be real.

Objection?

Image
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Dachshund »

Now that Walker and Lacewing have finished having their lengthy bun-fight, I wonder if I might refocus discussion on the OP ?

In the West, the term "whore" is a term of abuse applied to women. A "whore", in the vernacular, is typically taken to mean a female prostitute. To call a woman "a whore" is to express an intense contempt for her; it is a particularly rancorous and bitter insult.

Prostitution has been going on a long time, which is why it is sometimes referred to as "the world's oldest profession."

So, is prostitution immoral? It is wrong for a woman to sell their body for sex with random members of the public? To begin with, I'd like to make it clear how I define a "prostitute."

In the modern world many women are forced against their will to work as prostitutes by criminals, in other cases women are driven to sell themselves for sex on account of having acquired an addiction to heroin or methedrine or some other species of hard drug in order to pay for regular supplies of substance to feed their addiction.If you see a street prostitute working in any town or city of the UK, I would say that it is almost certain she has an active drug addiction. There may also be cases where a woman lives in such extreme poverty that prostitution is the only recourse she has to put food on the table for herself and any dependants she may have. In cases like these, where women are LITERALLY FORCED into working in the sex industry through fear of a serious threat to their lives at the hands of violent criminals, on account of having acquired a chronic addiction to potent psychoactive drugs, or just to obtain basic necessities like food, because there is no voluntary choice or free intention made to work as a prostitute they have done nothing immoral. Rather they the tragic victims of fate: of naivety, the predations of wicked men or brute misfortune. These women are excluded from what follows. AS far as I am concerned a bone fide prostitute is a woman who has complete and legitimate freedom of choice in the matter of whether or not she decides to sell herself for money; in deciding to work as a prostitute, she is not compelled against her own will in any way whatsoever. If a woman who is working as a prostitute could just as easily earn a living by working at some legal job, but is too lazy to do so, or too consumed by greed for the large amounts of money that prostitutes can earn, has some treatable, hyper-sexual paraphilia (e.g. nymphomania, BTW if you think "nymphomania" is something young males dreamed up for a laugh, it is not. It is a valid paraphilia according to the American Psychiatric Association) then I DO apportion blame. What such a woman is doing is immoral (i.e; morally bad), and it is WRONG (i.e. she OUGHT not be doing it)

So, how do I defend my position. How can I demonstrate that prostitution as I have defined it is IMMORAL? I'm going to use the ethical theory of a famous 18th century philosopher who thought that all women were morally deficient because they lacked the kind of sharp and acute rational capacities that men have. A man who though that women were like children insofar as they were so stupid that they needed to always have a man nearby to guide them around just to keep them from getting themselves into trouble. A man, who when asked about the prospects for women being scholars said; "Ha1 They might just as well grow beards !" Yes, I am referring to none other than the incomparable star of the Enlightenment Immanuel Kant.

I thought I mention Kant's belief in the "moral deficiency" of woman precisely because I want to emphasise that the ethical theory of his that I will be drawing on to make the case against prostitution bears no relation whatsoever to any of his controversial passages of "misogyny" nor the philosophical contexts in which they were written.

Let's start with the question: "Under what conditions is it moral for us to use our sexual faculties? Kant's answer would be that it is when we do not treat either ourselves or others as mere objects.

He would remind us that we are not at our own disposal. Now this is in stark contrast to modern libertarian notions of self-possession that individuals like Lacewing take as legitimate and justified without question. That is, I'm a free, autonomous, Lacewing, I can do basically whatever I like ! If I want to sell my ass on the street, I'll damn well do it, and I don't give a fuck if you find it offensive! If I decide I want to fuck every good-looking male in the City of London, then I'll do it !

If Lacewing said this to Kant, he would say something like: "Listen to me, you don't own yourself. There is a moral requirement that we treat persons as "ends" rather than as mere means and this requirement limits the way we may treat our bodies and ourselves. It clips your wings somewhat I'm afraid, Lacewing."

To quote Kant...

"Man cannot dispose over himself because he is not a thing; he is not his own property."

Lacewing's position on sexual morality is grounded on autonomy rights - i.e; individuals should be free to choose for themselves what use to make of their own bodies. But Kant means something completely different by the term autonomy. Paradoxically, Kant's notion of autonomy imposes certain limits on the way we treat ourselves. For Kant, to be autonomous is to be governed by a law that I give myself - The Categorical Imperative -. And The Categorical Imperative requires that I treat all persons (including myself) with respect - as an "end" -, not merely as a "means." So for Kant, to act autonomously, requires that we treat ourselves with respect, and not objectify ourselves we cannot use our bodies any way we please.

For example, to sell one's body for sex is to treat oneself as an object (a thing), a mere means, an instrument of profit, Kant would condemn the act. In fact, here is what Kant has to say about prostitution...

"To allow one person for profit to be used by another for the satisfaction of sexual desire, to make oneself an object of demand, is to...make of oneself a thing on which another satisfies his appetite, just as he satisfies his hunger upon a steak."

So, Kant's point is that human beings are not entitled to offer themselves (their person), for profit, as things (OBJECTS) for the use of others in the satisfaction of their sexual propensities. To do this is to treat one's person as a mere thing, an object of use. The underlying moral principle is that man is not his own property and cannot do with his body what he will.

Kant's objection to prostitution (and casual sex) emphasises the contrast between autonomy as he conceives it - the free will of a rational being - and individual acts of consent. The moral law we arrive at through the exercise of our will requires that we treat humanity - in our own person and in others - never only as a means, but as an end in itself. Although this moral requirement is based on autonomy, it rules out certain acts among consenting adults, namely, those that are at odds with dignity and self - respect.

So, what's Kant's final word on the issue? Well, he comes to the conclusion only that only sex within marriage can avoid "degrading humanity." Only when two persons give each other the whole of themselves, and not merely the use of their sexual capacities, can sex be other than objectifying. Only when both partners share with each other their person, body and soul, for good and ill and in EVERY respect can their sexuality lead to a union of human beings.

I think that's pretty much correct. I mean, I KNOW that some marriages are disasters, and I think it's possible for a couple to commit to a monogamous (heterosexual) life-time relationship wherein their sexuality is not immoral, but generally speaking sex between a man and a woman should only happen within the Christian institution of marriage.


Regards

Dachshund
Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Walker »

Lacewing wrote: ...
You are quoted, here.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=26447&start=45#p404775
Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Walker »

Greta wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:10 pm It's a strange and sad thing to see intelligent individuals destroy their minds based on stupid fuckin' news that barely touches their lives in reality.
Since this does not directly affect anyone’s life personally in reality, why would anyone waste their time thinking about this?

Black hole picture captured for first time in space ‘breakthrough’
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... eakthrough
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6220
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Lacewing wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 6:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:37 pm No, all the major religions observe this facet of sexuality as various grades of adultery.
You're talking about a false conclusion in your mind, and using some kind of religious fervor to rationalize it.

Pointless to discuss.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am
Lacewing wrote: I'm saying that people can have all kinds of reasons and intentions for what they do in any capacity.
"All kinds of reasons and intentions" is a surface perspective...elaborate.
You might have a hard time understanding this because you seem to easily jump to conclusions and harsh realities. My love for people -- whether as a committed partner, or as a friend, or even for strangers -- comes from an authentic heartfelt intention that wishes the best for them, without any type of gain for me. When I've broken up with a partner, my love didn't stop... and I was focused on fairness and generosity for them. When I've chosen to put distance between me and friends, I've never wanted ill to fall on them. I also feel glad about the beauty and joy of people I don't know. My reasons and intentions are nothing like you seem to attribute to me, just as your conclusion about my behavior is made up in your own head. I have never cheated on a partner. I have a strong sense of honor. I do not need religion to tell me what is right -- I have a direct line to that information. And the path of my life continually affirms this.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am Lust also masters a person.
Well I've not been talking about lust... so, again, this is what's in your head.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amThe hippy movement failed because it degenerated the human condition to stricty material pleasure (material pleasure is not evil, until it is idolized).
Your rigid, all-consuming definitions are very restricting and blinding. When I say "find a sweet, hippy woman to show you", I'm talking about releasing your bound-up ideas that keep you unhappy. It has nothing to do with sex. It's simply a more relaxed way of accepting and embracing the beauty and joy of life.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 am The girl I was "with"...using "with" looslely...is walking down a dark path.
So, that has nothing to do with being a "hippy". That was simply her own trip. I didn't suggest that you choose someone walking down a dark path, did I? That's the last thing you need. However, considering how religious you appear to be, you may be seeing EVERYTHING as a dark path.

I think religion is messing you up. Why don't you focus on the love goals of it, rather than the dark evil paths?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amBut if the only thing I can do is pray that the Creator will save us both...someway or somehow I do not know...then that is what I will do.
Why don't you consider that she's a divine "child of god" (or whatever), and she's having her own magnificent life experience, and "god" has it under control. She is loved and protected on the soul-level (or whatever), and there's no need to mourn her life or path. Let her be. Trust that she's a divine being. Ultimately, she does not need to be saved. What you have the most control over is focusing on your own path and awareness. Notice how much stuff you continually create and twist to fit your own ideas and needs. Notice how much bigger universal potential is than your small, contrived view. What kind of broader and more joyful reality might you be able to experience if you expand beyond your patterns and brain-washing, and use your creativity and intelligence for a greater experience and interaction?

If all you see is DARK STUFF... then that's YOUR stuff. I'm telling you, there is MUCH more than that... and if you don't believe me, ask yourself "Why WOULDN'T THERE BE?" Why would your puny view be an honest representation of the extent of what's possible? That makes NO SENSE!!! So why wouldn't you want to see MORE? What is the investment that keeps you bound up?
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amWe are bound to our own crosses...
Yes, you are. Now realize that you are also "Jesus" in some aspect, and unbind it! Walk away and be free of it. If you find it reappearing... shove it off. Choose/create joy over drudgery... unless you really don't want to... then by all means drag that cross around all you want to. Based on the claims you've made, I'm trying to show that there ARE countless other realities than the one you are describing. I try to remind myself of this when I forget! Our little realities/dramas are so convincing! I'm trying to throw you a rope in case you actually want it. :) You will probably think it's a snake.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:13 amthe mercy of God.
How about your own mercy for yourself. Is there really anyone else involved or in charge?
False, you wanted to become one with the universe...this is what the universe presents. Accept it or not, it is your choice.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Dontaskme »

Walker wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:59 pm
Greta wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:10 pm It's a strange and sad thing to see intelligent individuals destroy their minds based on stupid fuckin' news that barely touches their lives in reality.
Since this does not directly affect anyone’s life personally in reality, why would anyone waste their time thinking about this?

Black hole picture captured for first time in space ‘breakthrough’
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... eakthrough
Nice image, it looks like a dougnut, a totally accurate depiction of the human condition.

:mrgreen:
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Lacewing »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:38 am
Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:17 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 12:32 pm
There is no such thing as a one-sided side. Therefore, every side is one-sided.
What does this have to do with the point that was being made about being limited by looking at only one side of something rather than seeing multiple sides at once?
Well you asked for it Lacewing :wink: ..you've bitten down on the bait again...here we go,
There is no bait...only your lack of brightness. You're telling me the obvious...and missing the actual point...which is that you are once again randomly squashing intent in a discussion with your nonduality card, as I've previously pointed out that you do...yet you claim it has nothing to do with satisfying your ego. Got it! :wink:
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Lacewing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:06 pm False, you wanted to become one with the universe...this is what the universe presents. Accept it or not, it is your choice.
What is false?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4128
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Lacewing »

Dachshund wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:12 pm Now that Walker and Lacewing have finished having their lengthy bun-fight, I wonder if I might refocus discussion on the OP ?
Great idea! Just now I've got to run out the door, but I look forward to seeing what you've written and then responding when I can.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Dontaskme »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:52 pm
Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:38 am
Lacewing wrote: Tue Apr 09, 2019 3:17 pm
What does this have to do with the point that was being made about being limited by looking at only one side of something rather than seeing multiple sides at once?
Well you asked for it Lacewing :wink: ..you've bitten down on the bait again...here we go,
There is no bait...only your lack of brightness. You're telling me the obvious...and missing the actual point...which is that you are once again randomly squashing intent in a discussion with your nonduality card, as I've previously pointed out that you do...yet you claim it has nothing to do with satisfying your ego. Got it! :wink:
Remember, I said I was being playful, and now you come out with that I'm using my nonduality card again..so what? I've already told you umpteen times I only speak in nondual context. And here you are again biting away at my context.
So Nope, not missing any point, I Am is the pointer of all that is being pointed to...so from this one here, pointer, I'm just pointing out my point of the story, that you reject..so be it. It's no skin off my nose. I follow my own nose, that way I get to know the smell of my own BS :wink:

.

.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8628
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Dontaskme »

Getting back on topic...there is no such thing as a woman ...or a wo/man.

No one has ever seen a wo/man.

It's a conceptual fictional known character by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. That's who you are.

.
Walker
Posts: 7265
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Hypocrisy against women

Post by Walker »

Dontaskme wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:35 pm
Walker wrote: Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:59 pm
Greta wrote: Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:10 pm It's a strange and sad thing to see intelligent individuals destroy their minds based on stupid fuckin' news that barely touches their lives in reality.
Since this does not directly affect anyone’s life personally in reality, why would anyone waste their time thinking about this?

Black hole picture captured for first time in space ‘breakthrough’
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... eakthrough
Nice image, it looks like a dougnut, a totally accurate depiction of the human condition.

:mrgreen:
Looks blurry to me.

They should have used a Hasselblad. (just kidding)

Mmmm, Donuts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-4P1WPE-Qg

The only reason to check this link is for a chuckle.

*

It also looks like the opening to the womb of the universe.
(The black hole link, not the donut link)
Post Reply