November 11, 2017

"You should act in a way that if everybody acted that way, things would work out."



Louis C.K., talking about selfishness.

"Most people kind of don't care. Most people are very selfish. Most people don't give a shit what happens as long as they get to do their favorite thing. People don't even want to back off from their favorite thing. They won't even do their second favorite thing."

That's from at least 4 years ago.

I'm thinking his favorite thing is masturbating while a woman watches, and his second favorite thing is masturbating alone. He couldn't just back off and do his second favorite thing.

251 comments:

1 – 200 of 251   Newer›   Newest»
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

What part of him asking "hey are you into this/is this ok?" and women failing to decline to be part of it is hard to understand?!

Ann Althouse said...

The back-off jack off.

robother said...

Maybe "woke" is just a invasive strategy, like the proteins around a virus, to signal "I'm one of you, no need to deploy immunity defenses."

buwaya said...

The rule of the Iron whim.

tcrosse said...

It's a restatement of Kant's Categorical Imperative.

EDH said...

Althouse said...
If you have to throw in money to equalize the exchange, you shouldn't be doing sex. Go out and get a hamburger instead. Have a conversation. Maybe some day someone will actually want to have sex with you.

Louis C.K. said....
"And if you're feeling bad for them you can go find one and fuck one tomorrow... With all that kindness in your heart."

[Bumped]

Michael K said...

I still don't know who this guy is. I asked my wife and she doesn't know either. I guess we haven't missed much.

Laslo Spatula said...

The Stand-Up Comedian in Tacoma...

"Okay people, here's the thing: in Life, I am going to do some things that may make you unhappy. And the reason I'll be doing these things? BECAUSE I LIKE DOING THEM...

Yeah, it's that easy. Like, if I were fucking Jennifer Aniston -- it can happen -- and she's unhappy because I keep trying to get her to do anal: I'm not doing this to make you unhappy, Jennifer, I'm doing it so I can be happy, you understand...?

I try not to hurt other people, but it happens: we all hurt each other once in a while. We know that, right? So can't we just accept that sometimes we'll be a little bit unhappy so that someone else can be happy? I think this would make it a lot easier on all of us...

Like, Jennifer: it's not as if I want to have anal sex with you ALL THE TIME. I'm just thinking, like on my birthday. And Christmas. Maybe a few other days during the year, we can work it out, right...?

Like I said, I try not to hurt other people. But I've got a cock: my cock makes me happy. And sometimes my cock's happiness might upset you a little. But does it really make your life that much better to know that my cock is unhappy? Are you THAT petty...?

It's not like I don't have self-control. Like, my cock REALLY likes some sixteen-year-old girls, okay? But I'm not going to go there. Even though it would make my cock HAPPY. But if I'm going to pass on the sixteen-year-old girls then some of you twenty-year-olds need to pick up a bit of the slack. We just need to work together, that's all. People: we can MAKE THIS HAPPEN...

I am Laslo.

Gahrie said...

What part of him asking "hey are you into this/is this ok?" and women failing to decline to be part of it is hard to understand?!

Women must never be held responsible, or be made to feel bad, about their choices.

buwaya said...

Money (or other valuable considerations) is essential in civilized mating, or even uncivilized mating. The boy has to show the girl that it will work out OK if she has his baby.

Thats burned-in, instinct.

rcocean said...

Why would your favorite thing be "masturbation"?

Ever wonder why so much of pop culture is a freak show or a toxic waste dump? Well, look at the people who make it.

whitney said...

How awful it would be to have so much of what you have said to be recorded. How many things that I have changed my mind on over the past decades is astounding. I'm embarrassed of what I have believed in the past and wonder what I will believe in the future

Zach said...

Points for getting people to laugh at the Categorical Imperative, I guess.

What the whole thing underlines is that "consent" is a surprisingly flexible concept masquerading as a bright line standard. People can consent to something they don't like, that's sprung on them as a surprise. They can go through all the steps of consenting to one thing -- late night drinks at a bar, followed by going to the guy's hotel room -- only to have the deal changed at the last second.

You can get all the consent in the world and still be a pig.

And conversely, maybe the whole wide world doesn't need to concern itself with whether one comedian with a slightly piggish persona is actually a bit of a pig in real life, too.

Jim S. said...

That's Kant. He tried to establish ethics without having to appeal to religion, and suggested that if you universalized your action and it led to society collapsing, it was a sort of ethical contradiction and so you shouldn't do it. So, for example, if everyone lied all the time, then discourse would become impossible since no one would ever believe anyone else. That kind of thing.

rhhardin said...

Women insist on contradictory things. Live with it, guys.

Michael K said...

" if everyone lied all the time, then discourse would become impossible since no one would ever believe anyone else. That kind of thing."

"All Cretans lie, said the Cretan."

mockturtle said...

Maybe it's because I have zero interest in popular culture these days but I had never heard of this guy until I read about him here. Althouse has opened my eyes to a fascinating new world of sleaze and corruption. Thanks. :-\

Zach said...

The saddest thing about the whole episode:

Seinfeld already did it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpwJE5DEk7U

tcrosse said...

In Catch 22 Yossarian is reproved for his attitude:
"What if everybody felt that way?"
"Then I'd be a damn fool for feeling any other way."

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

lol

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I'm thinking his favorite thing is masturbating while a woman watches..

Your logic is off. That could instead just be his favorite (or one favorite) thing that isn't easily attainable.

You selfishly took the female perspective of assuming that no one should want to participate in some sex act that some guy, somewhere might like.

Zach said...

I mean, that's got to be a special level of weirdness for a comedian.

"Not only am I acting like a jerk, and potentially messing up my life. I'm also ripping off a bit that fifteen million people saw on network television -- 20 years ago! I might as well be making Ovaltine jokes."

donald said...

What’s the deal with rich sonuvabitches making more money than God and ample Exposure to any number of willing party’s wanna jack Off all the time? That’s fucked up man.

antiphone said...

You do realize he's doing this as a bit, don't you? fake!

donald said...

Kant and obsessive masturbation.

Can’t beat that, no pun intended.

MadisonMan said...

Appropos of nothing -- but I wonder if I made a post 6 years ago exactly, at 11:11 on 11/11/11.

That would beat everything.

Bob Boyd said...

The ejaculations of the clown.

William said...

Yesterday's harvest of celebrities included Richard Dreyfus and George Takei. Richard has some currency what with his son's story, but, as Hollywood scandals go, it's small potatoes. Takei is eighty years old. It's kind of sad to see him go out on such a sour note. Not much schadenfreude in these scandals. What I'm really looking forward to is some scandal from the set of The Handmaid's Tale. That would be the g-spot of schadenfreude.

antiphone said...

I still don't know who this guy is. I asked my wife and she doesn't know either. I guess we haven't missed much.

You probably don't even know where Johnny Gibson's is.

Bob Boyd said...

Alex Trebeck: Brian?


Contestant Brian: I'll take 'Celebrity Names' for a thousand Alex.

DING!

Alex Trebeck: And the question is, What's worse than a poodle humping your leg?

Fernindianaide said...

"Most people don't give a shit what happens as long as they get to do their favorite thing."

It's not funny because it's not true! So to speak.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...
What part of him asking "hey are you into this/is this ok?" and women failing to decline to be part of it is hard to understand?!


The part that treats women as adults: the non-feminist part.

Robert Cook said...

"That's Kant. He tried to establish ethics without having to appeal to religion, and suggested that if you universalized your action and it led to society collapsing, it was a sort of ethical contradiction and so you shouldn't do it. So, for example, if everyone lied all the time, then discourse would become impossible since no one would ever believe anyone else. That kind of thing."

Ethics exist without religion, and Kant is correct: if we all behaved without concern for the consequences to others (or ourselves) of our actions, society would be impossible, and so would human survival. It has nothing to do with God's commandments or whether or not our souls will exist in heaven or hell after our deaths, all of which is imaginary.

Jupiter said...

"I'm thinking his favorite thing is masturbating while a woman watches, and his second favorite thing is masturbating alone. "

Isn't that a rather uncharitable thought? Maybe his favorite thing is hacking women to pieces with a chainsaw, but he went a long, long way down the list, way, way down to item 78,323; asking women if he could jerk off in front of them.

Unknown said...

As long as he didn’t use his power as a celebrity or public person of some sort to coerce these women into watching him masturbate, he did nothing wrong. But that isn’t what happened, he said so himself in his mea culpa statement of yesterday.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

As long as he didn’t use his power as a celebrity or public person of some sort to coerce these women into watching him masturbate -

As much as I find it philosophically admirable that you would take this purist position, hundreds of citations given against homeless hobos who have no other place to masturbate but in public attest to society's disagreement with it.

buwaya said...

"Ethics exist without religion"

How?
There are no ethics worthy of the name without a religion of some sort, to indoctrinate altruism.

Its interesting how cultural conditioning of customary standards, which are rooted in religion, are so easily percieved as being independent of religion. Some familiarity with foreign cultures cures that. For that matter some familiarity with the pagan classics cures that as well.

Anything else mistaken for ethics is simply prudence, to be dropped instantly if conditions permit.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Althouse said...
If you have to throw in money to equalize the exchange, you shouldn't be doing sex. Go out and get a hamburger instead. Have a conversation. Maybe some day someone will actually want to have sex with you."

Well, but the World's Oldest Profession is the World's Oldest Profession for a reason - because guys will do sex and they will not always be able to find someone who is willing to do sex with them without being paid, or is willing to do or allow the particular sex act that the men want to do if money isn't involved. The advantage of hiring a hooker, from the guy's POV, is that you don't have to have a conversation, you pony up the money, do whatever sex thing you want to do and then you leave or she leaves and that's the end of it.

You and I might not like it, but that's the way of the world. That will not change.


buwaya said...

Plenty of cultures exist and have existed with vastly different ideas about ethics than ours.

There is no common ethical standard in the modern world either.

Laslo Spatula said...

Has anyone given consideration that he was showing them himself at his most vulnerable?

I am naked, and the only pleasure I can find in this lonely world is from myself?

He is practically begging for understanding, compassion, empathy.

The least these ladies could've done was to hand him a Kleenex.

I am Laslo.

Howard said...

Blogger rhhardin said... Women insist on contradictory things. Live with it, guys.

Just the opposite. In general, Women insist on going by the book, making detailed plans, staying on track, etc.

Men are all contradiction. Take yourself as an example... you think that "guys" would benefit from your take on women.

antiphone said...

Maybe his favorite thing is making women write about him wanking.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

If you have to throw in money to equalize the exchange, you shouldn't be doing sex. Go out and get a hamburger instead.

What are you, a Marxist-Socialist-Obamaite commie? You did realize that food isn't free in America.

The idea that most women have sex and bear children with men for whom they desire nothing economic out of the exchange is the height of mendacity. Especially in the land of the nothing's for free and the endless commodity.

Bill said...

On a flight from Boston to L.A. last week, I heard a woman behind me mention to her seat mate that the Wahlburgers restaurant at Logan International was owned by Mark Wahlberg and his two brothers. When the seatmate replied, "I don't know who that is - I don't watch TV", it sort of made my morning.

Kevin said...

His second favorite thing was moralizing to the country.

Unfortunately, his first favorite thing undermined his second.

Snark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rabel said...

"As much as I find it philosophically admirable that you would take this purist position, hundreds of citations given against homeless hobos who have no other place to masturbate but in public attest to society's disagreement with it."

If you'll start a gofundme page I'll be happy to chip in and help you with the fines.

Snark said...

This is from 2011 at the Beacon Theatre. He does this bit later on beating his daughter at Monopoly and about a grown up hatred he has for a six year old in his daughter’s class that crack me up every time. He also does a bit near the end on being tortured by constant perverted thoughts and being disgusted by the fact that he can’t talk to woman without being overrun by that.

Unknown said...

“His second favorite thing was moralizing to the country.

Unfortunately, his first favorite thing undermined his second.”

Just like Judge Roy Moore, uncanny!

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
“His second favorite thing was moralizing to the country.

Unfortunately, his first favorite thing undermined his second.”

Just like Judge Roy Moore, uncanny!

Looks that way, doesn't it? I'm glad you accept that preachy, sanctimonious liberal busybodies are no different or better than Roy Moore.

Anonymous said...

You shouldn't play circle jerk with this guy with money on the table.

Etienne said...

In 1967 the sexual revolution unleashed men and women to follow their hormones.

50 years later, the post-sexual revolution unleashed Sheriff's, Prosecutors, and for-profit Prison systems, on men and women were told to snitch on each other.

It's a way to transfer wealth, and is the new economy.

Unknown said...

“Looks that way, doesn't it?”

Yes indeed, we are in agreement. I’m so glad you also think Judge Roy Moore in one of the most godawful hypocrites in the US.

Unknown said...

At least LCK admitted to what he did. I doubt we’ll get the same sort of admission from the good Judge.

SDaly said...

By the end of the year, Americans are going to want to burn everything put out by Hollywood since 1975.

Ann Althouse said...

“Well, but the World's Oldest Profession is the World's Oldest Profession for a reason - because guys will do sex and they will not always be able to find someone who is willing to do sex with them without being paid, or is willing to do or allow the particular sex act that the men want to do if money isn't involved. The advantage of hiring a hooker, from the guy's POV, is that you don't have to have a conversation, you pony up the money, do whatever sex thing you want to do and then you leave or she leaves and that's the end of it. You and I might not like it, but that's the way of the world. That will not change.”

I am only trying to state an ethical rule. The question is whether my rule is correct not whether everyone will follow it.

The tendency of people not to do what I am saying is a good reason to put it in rule form. It is helpful even when all you get is a realization that you’re doing something wrong.

mockturtle said...

It's rather amusing that men like these choose to air their shortcomings in public.

Ann Althouse said...

I’ve never known any man personally who has admitted to using a prostitute.

I’ve never known any woman personally who has admitted to becoming sexually involved with a man because of his money.

I’ve heard about such things and have a low opinion of it, but I have never personally encountered it.

rcocean said...

"Ethics exist without religion"

Not really. Its just bullshit. Its just individual people coming up with their own personal standards - which vary according to their circumstances and prejudices.

Its completely meaningless.

Ann Althouse said...

Being with a man because of his money is something I have never even considered doing.

I would also be repelled by a man who revealed that he took up his line of work in order to make money to gain access to desirable women.

Ann Althouse said...

I’m also repelled by men who like to assert that women seek partners who offer them wealth rather than love and sexual satisfaction.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I am only trying to state an ethical rule. The question is whether my rule is correct not whether everyone will follow it.

What rule are you stating? AN agreement with his "don't do your favorite thing" implication?

As I said, who knows if those acts were his "favorite" thing. They were a favored thing in the context of a sexual socialization market stacked against it. Participating in them might not have been his marks' favorite things - but then the argument backfires on them, not him.

This is all commentary. The problems just boil down to pathologizing men as sexual beings and reducing every problem to one of economics. The supply for all of society's potential sexual demands is made unnecessarily low by social design.

Unknown said...

“Ethics exist without religion"

“Not really. Its just bullshit. Its just individual people coming up with their own personal standards - which vary according to their circumstances and prejudices.”

Roy Moore’s religious beliefs certainly didn’t stoop him from acting unethically and criminally.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Being with a man because of his money is something I have never even considered doing.

If you don't want him for status or your perception of how his character/personality relates to his status, then you are an outlier.

Unknown said...

“Stop”, but stoop might work too.

exiledonmainstreet said...


Roy Moore’s religious beliefs certainly didn’t stoop him from acting unethically and criminally.

11/11/17, 12:43 PM

Christians sometimes don't live up to their own standards.

This is big news to Inga.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

I don't remember being asked if I want to be subjected to Laslo's long, foul, obscene comedy sketches. But, see, I'm here at Althouse's by choice, and if I don't want to read those comments I can and do skip over them. See how easy that was ladies?

bagoh20 said...

"If you have to throw in money to equalize the exchange, you shouldn't be doing sex. "

Wealthy, famous, or otherwise desirable men don't pay for the sex. They can get that all week long. They pay for the transaction to be simple, and focused, and not include a lifetime subscription to watch the same movie over and over.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I’m also repelled by men who like to assert that women seek partners who offer them wealth rather than love and sexual satisfaction.

This statement would seem to have low evidentiary support. Women will be with a man simply for sexual satisfaction - but not proudly or publicly.

More men would offer more women love than any woman would accept. So again yours is an empirically false statement. A substantial minority of women will accept a man simply because he loves her. Most will not.

bagoh20 said...

Paying for sex is the the only way to do it at a reasonable cost. It's way overpriced in the traditional market.

Unknown said...

“Christians sometimes don't live up to their own standards”, not news to me at all. I’ve seen it happen time after time. Christians are no more ethical than an other religion or no religion at all. People choose to act decently, or not, with or without religion.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

People who like reading about his characters and their sexual thoughts can do so, and those who are not into it such as myself can, by skipping them and reading other things, say, 'no thanks; not into that.' Easy.

bagoh20 said...

"A substantial minority of women will accept a man simply because he loves her."

This is so obvious it's embarrassing it has to pointed out, but remember any truth about women must be presented in a light that makes them look good. Otherwise they may express displeasure and refuse to have sex with you. Also known as dodging a bullet.

Unknown said...

“ I don't remember being asked if I want to be subjected to Laslo's long, foul, obscene comedy sketches. But, see, I'm here at Althouse's by choice, and if I don't want to read those comments I can and do skip over them. See how easy that was ladies?”

Yes that’s an easy decision, but it’s not comparable to a young woman who may be trying to further her career from easily saying no. LCK knew that he was powerful and he could intimidate them into to saying yes, or not simply fleeing, or reporting him. LCK has said himself that is what he engaged in. He used his power to coerce. That’s what was so wrong about it.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Ann Althouse said...
I’ve never known any man personally who has admitted to using a prostitute.

I’ve never known any woman personally who has admitted to becoming sexually involved with a man because of his money."


Because neither thing is something to be proud of. Who is going to admit to being a gold digger? That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Men might not admit to using prostitutes, but they exist also, so clearly someone is hiring them. I used to see scantily street walkers standing around on Logan Circle early in the morning in Washington DC when I was doing my morning jog, stepping over syringes and used condoms (this was in the '80s) and I'd see cars slow down and pick them up. No, I don't think those men announced to anybody that they had gotten an early morning BJ from a hooker to jump start their day when they showed up at work later on.

bagoh20 said...

Having standards is selfish. What if I don't value what you selfishly choose to value? Asking me what I want from you and then doing it unconditionally is true selfless behavior. True love is reciprocal slavery without conditions.

William said...

Harvey and Louis had lots of enablers. Moore has lots of disablers. I think Moore should step aside, but one notes that he's been investigated for years and this revelation comes out at just the exact moment it would do the most harm to him and the Republican Party......I'd like to see Huma sue Hillary for sexual harassment. If the suit involves Weiner, it would be very bliss. The news would be so big, it would make page three of The NY Times.

bagoh20 said...

I get the distinct impression that women's and men's choices are not equal. One is sacred and the other ranges from stupid to criminal, unless of course a woman agrees with it.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I’ve seen it happen time after time. Christians are no more ethical than an other religion or no religion at all. People choose to act decently, or not, with or without religion."

Christians have high standards they may or may not live up. When Christians don't live up to them that doesn't mean the standards themselves are wrong.

Your standards consist of "Anything Trump or Republicans do is wrong, and anything Democrat politicians do is right or excusable, because that's my team and my team is right."


I can't take the ethics of anybody who excused Bill Clinton's or Ted Kennedy's behavior seriously.

And I doubt you know enough about other religions to pronounce them all equal. You have shown you have no interest in the less pleasant passages of the Koran, for instance. (And don't predictably go back 500 years to talk about what Christians did then and compare that with what Muslims do now.)

Your other bedrock belief is that Western Civilization, Christianity, and white heterosexual men are bad and need to be replaced with some sort of diverse socialist Utopia that exists only between your ears.

Michael K said...

". People choose to act decently, or not, with or without religion."

I am agnostic but I don't agree with your premise.

You might read this.

Of course you won't but here is a clip.

what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

And that is religion. Not global warming or any of the other left fakes.


exiledonmainstreet said...

"I think Moore should step aside, but one notes that he's been investigated for years and this revelation comes out at just the exact moment it would do the most harm to him and the Republican Party..."

Of course. And, in the meantime, the Menendez corruption trial is being largely ignored by the media. As is every scandal Dem politicans are involved in.

That's why it's laughable to see Inga try to get all moralistic on us.

Aussie Pundit said...

I don't understand what Louis CK did wrong.
He believed he and the women were having a consensual sexual experience.
Sure, he's a bit weird and kinky, but that's not news.
The widespread reaction is, "Ugh! Gross! As if any woman would consent to THAT experience!"
But CK believed they would and did.

Aussie Pundit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya said...

Western Christian ethics aren't the only ethics.
You have grown up almost breathing this system, or swimming in it, without knowing how different it can be, and is.
It takes some doing to truly break out of Christendom these days - and Jews have been steeped in it too, they are "Christian" by immersion if not belief.

n.n said...

Religion (i.e. moral philosophy and principles including individual dignity and intrinsic value), faith (i.e. logical space), and traditions are separable articles. Everyone has a religious/moral philosophy, there are thresholds and behavioral guidelines. Everyone has a faith. There are few people who constrain themselves to a frame of reference in the scientific logical domain, which is highly constrained in both time and space. Everyone has their traditions, their culture, and accouterments that reflect their religion and faith.

n.n said...

and Jews have been steeped in it too, they are "Christian" by immersion if not belief

Derivative religious philosophy. Highly correlated faith. Separate but compatible traditions.

buwaya said...

As for women, the material girls, yes indeed the vast majority are looking for something material. Even if it is simply out of instinct.

Signals of power I guess you could say. Charm and confidence and dominance all are personality traits that signal fitness. Good looks and a strong physique work also. And so do signs of wealth and social status.

There aren't going to be a lot of women chasing men deficient in all the above, or disastrously deficient in more than one. There is no such thing as unconditional love, just because.

n.n said...

what Louis CK did wrong

He engaged in trans-social or progressive behavior for its time. There is also a presumption of superior exploitation, where the women present are considered a captive audience. It may also be the female chauvinist legacy of denying women agency a la Pro-Choice which places conception before Choice.

That said, yesterday's liberal (e.g. classical liberal), is today's conservative, with a period of several generations. It's probably an inevitable outcome of each generation rebelling against the preceding generation. Still, I wonder if public masturbation and other sexual expression will ever be considered socially acceptable in public or shared spaces.

mockturtle said...

There is no such thing as unconditional love, just because.

As you didn't qualify that assertion I'll have to disagree with it. Most mothers love their children unconditionally. God loves his children unconditionally, although, just like other good parents, He allows us to reap the harvest of our own misdeeds, else how do we learn?

Howard said...

mock: I would share your belief, but as I thought about it, blood and birth are the conditions required for that sort of deep and powerful love.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"''Ethics exist without religion'

"How?

"There are no ethics worthy of the name without a religion of some sort, to indoctrinate altruism."


Altruism isn't indoctrinated; to a degree, it is innate, given that we are herd animals. Everything emanates from the survival instinct.

"Ethics" is simply the herd instinct articulated. Herd animals do not live in solitude but in groups, to better ensure group survival. Behavior that furthers groups cohesion furthers group survival; behavior that impairs group cohesion impairs group survival. Group cohesion requires cooperation among the group members, and greater or lesser degrees of mutual sacrifice: sharing of food, mutual defense of the group against predators, mutual protection of the young and of one another. Individual group members who display deceptive or aggressive behavior toward others within the group, who do not share in the mutual obligations necessary to advance group survival destroy the cohesion among members by creating distrust. Such group members must be sanctioned for the good of all.

This is true in the "lower" animals and is true among humans. We have the capacity to articulate what is instinctive among the "lower" animals, and we also can think abstractly and imaginatively. Thus, we ascribe our own herd instincts to some "higher" or external force rather than recognizing all that exists in human society comes from within us. We are hierarchical, as herd animals tend to be, and we invent hierarchical supernatural beings as an externalization of our own innate drives.

n.n said...

While trans-social explains people's revulsion, it describes an effect and not a cause. The social standard is motivated by the "eyes up here" religious/moral standard, where society strives to reconcile our base nature (e.g. sex), while recognizing it complements (e.g. procreation, physical intimacy) our higher function.

Gahrie said...

given that we are herd animals

Humans aren't herd animals...they're pack animals. We're predators, not prey.

Gahrie said...

God loves his children unconditionally,

Not true. God demands that we believe in him and worship him or he sends us to eternal torment. That's not very loving.

mockturtle said...

Garhrie asserts: Not true. God demands that we believe in him and worship him or he sends us to eternal torment. That's not very loving.

I said HIS children, which does not include everyone. Sorry.

mockturtle said...

Gahrie says: Humans aren't herd animals...they're pack animals. We're predators, not prey.

Some are predators, some are prey. Haven't you noticed?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

"I’ve seen it happen time after time. Christians are no more ethical than an other religion or no religion at all. People choose to act decently, or not, with or without religion."

Christians have high standards they may or may not live up.


Because they love the self-flagellation of seeing themselves as inevitably failing. The higher the unattainable standard, the better - to them, at least.

Robert Cook said...

"What are you, a Marxist-Socialist-Obamaite commie?"

One term among your four-word epithet above does not go with the other three.

mockturtle said...

Howard comments: mock: I would share your belief, but as I thought about it, blood and birth are the conditions required for that sort of deep and powerful love.

Blood and birth apply to our relationship to God as well as to our mothers, do they not? We are born again in Christ through the sacrifice of His blood.

Robert Cook said...

"Humans aren't herd animals...they're pack animals."

Same thing.

antiphone said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Robert Cook said...

"We're predators, not prey."

Virtually all predators are prey to something else.

CStanley said...

Not true. God demands that we believe in him and worship him or he sends us to eternal torment. That's not very loving.

I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you before, but this is a misunderstanding of Christianity. God doesn't send us anywhere, He allows us to choose. If we choose to separate ourselves from Him, then the fact of that separation after our death is what causes torment. It also tends to cause a lot of misery in this world, but we don't feel the full extent of it until we die.

Howard said...

Interesting Mock. Then again, G_d's love for man is quite specifically conditional, especially dependent of which of the thousands of G_d myths you happen to believe in. The fear-based love demanded by G_d is a form of psychic rape, like fearing for your career so you watch Harvey Weinstein polish wood.

Robert Cook said...

"...this is a misunderstanding of Christianity. God doesn't send us anywhere, He allows us to choose."

This, in a nutshell, is the basis for Anthony Burgess' A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Though his protagonist, Alex, is made into a law-abiding citizen through coercive conditioning, he is not--to Burgess, a Catholic--truly a "moral" being. One can be moral only by one's free choice. Alex was made into a "clockwork orange," an automaton with the exterior appearance of someone acting by choice.

In the final chapter of the original English edition of the book, Alex is a few years older, in his 20s and married. (The events that make up the earlier part of the book--Alex's memoir of his younger days, as it were--occurred while he was 16 or so.) Alex has forsaken his anti-social ways and is a responsible citizen, but he feels affection and nostalgia for his younger self. By showing Alex as having grown into a moral person by choice, Burgess illustrates his theme.

mockturtle said...

You are, of course, Howard, free to believe what you wish.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Because they love the self-flagellation of seeing themselves as inevitably failing. The higher the unattainable standard, the better - to them, at least."

Christianity is a perfectionist religion,that is true. But that is countered by a loving and forgiving God.

There is no self-flagellation. There is the consciousness of failing, of asking for forgiveness (and of knowing God will grant it) and of trying to do better.

That seems a huge improvement over never examining ones own failings, or excusing them because hey, I have all the correct political opinions, so I can treat others like shit. That seems to be the M.O. of Hollywood liberals - they abuse women, treat underlings like crap, are greedy and spoiled and ruthless but hey, they gave to Planned Parenthood and Hillary's campaign and blabber on about global warming so they care, really they do. Weinstein thought that attacking the NRA would instantly absolve him of all sins.

Unknown said...

“Weinstein thought that attacking the NRA would instantly absolve him of all sins.”

Judge Roy Moore thinks that because he’s a self professed born again Evangelical right winger he will be absolved of his sexually assaulting 14 year old girls.

Unknown said...

And it looks like he may be right at least in Alabama, that God fearing state.

antiphone said...

That seems a huge improvement over never examining ones own failings, or excusing them because hey, I have all the correct political opinions...

Strawman blah blah blah

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

There is the consciousness of failing, of asking for forgiveness (and of knowing God will grant it) and of trying to do better.

That seems a huge improvement over never examining ones own failings.


No it's not. One can examine one's own failings without seeing oneself as mired in sin.

CStanley said...

Whenever I see a reference to "God myths" I think of Tolkien's wonderful poem, Mythopoiea.

exiledonmainstreet said...


Robert Cook wrote:
"This, in a nutshell, is the basis for Anthony Burgess' A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Though his protagonist, Alex, is made into a law-abiding citizen through coercive conditioning, he is not--to Burgess, a Catholic--truly a "moral" being. One can be moral only by one's free choice. Alex was made into a "clockwork orange," an automaton with the exterior appearance of someone acting by choice."

This is correct. Burgess' novel was much more morally complex than the movie, which I thought glamorized Alex too much. Burgess hated the movie.

You probably know this, but Burgress' pregnant wife was beaten to death and raped by American GI's during WWII. (We sent some shits over there as well as good men.) It must have been a painful exercise for him to imaginatively enter into the minds of thugs like the ones who murdered his wife, and it puts that scene where Alex and the droogs invade the writer's home and rape and kill the wife in a different light.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I think it's easier to examine one's own failings without seeing oneself as mired in sin, actually. You can separate out the burden of self-examination from the burden of self-denigration. Or the need to swear faithful personal allegiance to a divine demigod of a magician (no disrespect, perhaps he worked "miracles" perhaps he did not) as the only one who can help you.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"No it's not. One can examine one's own failings without seeing oneself as mired in sin."

I've never thought of it as being "mired in sin." "Mired" implies you can never be better, you'll always be dragged back into the mud. "You can never be perfect" is different than "you can never be better."

antiphone said...

we don't feel the full extent of it until we die.

Life is a line of credit, keep up with your payments.

mockturtle said...

From exiled: There is no self-flagellation. There is the consciousness of failing, of asking for forgiveness (and of knowing God will grant it) and of trying to do better.

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” I John 1:9.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I've never thought of it as being "mired in sin." "Mired" implies you can never be better, you'll always be dragged back into the mud. "You can never be perfect" is different than "you can never be better."

The radio televangelists have told me differently but I suppose I could accept your expertise. Anyway, your definition is less disagreeable but still worth quibbling over. Why can't someone see the goal of perfectly sinless behavior as attainable? How does removing that goal from consideration improve a human's chances for achieving it? Or maybe achieving it runs counter to another goal...

Night Owl said...

rhhardin:
"Women insist on contradictory things. Live with it, guys."

Howard replies:
"Men are all contradiction. Take yourself as an example..."

I agree with both. People are bundles of contradictions held together by hypocrisy.

Gahrie said...

Same thing.

Not at all.

But you Lefties want us to act like sheep or cattle instead of wolves.

Night Owl said...

bagoh20 says:
"[Wealthy, famous, or otherwise desirable men]... pay for the transaction to be simple, and focused, and not include a lifetime subscription to watch the same movie over and over."

TTR says:
"A substantial minority of women will accept a man simply because he loves her. Most will not."


Why should any woman accept a man SIMPLY because he says he "loves" her, when so many men freely admit that sex with the same woman gets boring? A man's "love" sometimes lasts only until a woman's ass starts to sag.

Neither gender-- I'm keeping it binary for the sake of simplicity -- has the moral high ground. There are varying degrees of decent and rotten in everyone. Things can work out for the decent people who seek out and find each other. And people with shitty attitudes shouldn't be surprised when all they end up interacting with are other shitty people. Water seeks its own level.

mockturtle said...

TR asks: Why can't someone see the goal of perfectly sinless behavior as attainable?

John Wesley saw just that. I believe he was wrong on that point but then I am a Calvinist.

Gahrie said...

I'm pretty sure I've had this discussion with you before, but this is a misunderstanding of Christianity. God doesn't send us anywhere, He allows us to choose. If we choose to separate ourselves from Him, then the fact of that separation after our death is what causes torment. It also tends to cause a lot of misery in this world, but we don't feel the full extent of it until we die.

I wasn't discussing free will, I was discussing unconditional. If God's love was unconditional, everyone would go to Heaven.

Laslo Spatula said...

I understand why Misplaced Pants skips my comments, and I appreciate that she does so -- life's too short to spend time on something you know you don't care for.

I will say though, that there often are things being said beneath the stories.

In 'The Edgy Comic with Behavior Issues' I trace a character who finds the niche that gets him known, and ends up being swallowed by it: his choices cut him off from what he originally set out for, and -- in the end -- chooses to continue his course of action because it is what he believes people want from him, rather than change and be truer to himself.

It plays on the idea of Identity of the performer in context with their audience. And -- of course -- this is not just performers. We can fool ourselves into being what we think people want, and then wonder why we're not happy being liked by these people.

He has contorted his life in service to his desires, but can't seem to figure out that those desires are what is making him unhappy. Yes, you could read this as an analogy to drugs: for many people, the need for being liked IS a drug.

In 'The Stand-Up Comedian in Tacoma' we se a stand-up comic doing the cliche of stand-up comics: self-flagellation and self-loathing. Many people love the comics who do that -- it has been a staple for decades.

Over decades, though, it has become more coarse. And, in the case of Louis CK, we see the dichotomy of people laughing at those jokes but hating the idea of him acting that way in life, even though his routine is understood to reflect his life.

The idea of The Stand-Up Comedian in Tacoma is: can you preemptively tell these things to get the audience to accept you? Or, by telling these things, is the audience just accepting them as more funny stories that they will then hate when read in the New York Times?

How much manipulation can occur between the performer and the audience? The audience manipulates the performer to go farther, be edgier, be more funny, and in return the performer manipulates the audience to believe that doing so makes him more Real. There is an unspoken deal, but the deal is only a deal until it isn't: people can turn on you on a dime, and some people get off on seeing how far they can dance to that line.

There was also a lot of dirty words and imagery in these pieces, too. Because otherwise some of those comments would be as boring and dry as this one.

I am Laslo.

antiphone said...

Or maybe achieving it runs counter to another goal...

Religion is the biggest form of bad government imaginable, it's a protection racket with no service.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Strawman blah blah blah

11/11/17, 2:49 PM

Hardly a strawman. Isn't that precisely what Weinstein thought?

The idea that leftists love humanity in general and despise their neighbors in particular did not originate with me. Rousseau professed a great love of people and sold himself as a ultra-sensitive soul - the first emo. He also made his common law wife dump their kids in foundling homes, which at the time was basically a death sentence, because he couldn't be bothered. So he was also an early champion of abortion rights, although in the case of his offspring, the abortions came after the children were born.

In other words, Rousseau was a shit.

CStanley said...

I wasn't discussing free will, I was discussing unconditional. If God's love was unconditional, everyone would go to Heaven.

Nope. Unconditional love includes free will, and unfortunately freedom leads some people to choose not to go to heaven (though they are often deceived into not believing that this is what they are doing.) God's love is unconditional, which is why He doesn't force Himself on us.

antiphone said...

But you Lefties want us to act like sheep or cattle instead of wolves.

You don't really know much about animals do you.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

John Wesley saw just that.

I'm sure he wasn't the only one. But was he the only outlier within Christendom?

antiphone said...

Hardly a strawman. Isn't that precisely what Weinstein thought?

So take it up with him and Rousseau. Make a list.

Angel-Dyne said...

AA: Being with a man because of his money is something I have never even considered doing.

I would also be repelled by a man who revealed that he took up his line of work in order to make money to gain access to desirable women.


Jesus, where to start. "Utter lack of understanding of human nature"? "Obliviousness to life outside of an upper-middle class existence, where falling into real material insecurity, real want, aren't just vague improbabilities"?

You're talking about these things as if they are entirely conscious and cynical. Having resources and status makes men more attractive to women, for what should be obvious reasons that don't boil down to "women are just greedy gold-diggers".

And it's bizarre that you would be "repelled" by a man who chose work remunerative enough to attract desirable women. What, pray tell, is wrong with a man wanting a desirable woman? And getting a desirable woman requires making oneself a desirable man, which means...

This entirely natural impulse operates at every level of society, not just among the super-rich, super-driven guys who want a steady supply of super-models. Plenty of men give up doing X, and go into Y, because they can't make enough money doing Y to attract the kind of woman they want, or to take care of the family they want to have with her. That makes billions of dutiful fathers across the globe "repellent" by your standards, in addition to billions of normal guys who'd just like to attract pretty girls.

Unknown said...

Representative Tim Murphy

Representative Des Jarlais

Both moral upstanding right wingers who wanted their lovers to get abortions. Yet she brings up Rousseau, lol.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Judge Roy Moore thinks that because he’s a self professed born again Evangelical right winger he will be absolved of his sexually assaulting 14 year old girls."

I am not a fan of Moore's and I think he should step down.

But there are differences between his case and Weinsteins. Weinstein appears to have engaged in his predatory behavior for decades. Many people knew about it. Many people said nothing. Many people covered for him.

So far, nobody besides those 4 women have come forth to accuse Moore. What he is accused of is reprehensible and I didn't find his denial (I listened to his interview with Hannity this morning) convincing. However, it doesn't seem to be part of a pattern of behavior. It was never raised by anybody during the past 40 years, nor was it whispered about in Alabama. Men who like little girls don't engage such behavior once or twice and then stop. Like Roman Polanski, they keep on doing it. So I find the timing of the accusations very suspicious. If more women come forth, it'll be another story. Right now it does look like a political hit job. That doesn't mean he's innocent.

Unlike you I don't pretend to know the truth about Moore. You decided he was guilty the second this story came out because Republican. Like I said, the opinion of any woman who ignored what Kennedy and Clinton did doesn't amount to a bucket of spit. You are not ethical and have absolutely no high ground to stand on.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Representative Tim Murphy

Representative Des Jarlai

I repeat:

Like I said, the opinion of any woman who ignored what Kennedy and Clinton did doesn't amount to a bucket of spit. You are not ethical and have absolutely no high ground to stand on.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Sorry to link to this article once again, but I'm trying to help out antiphone.

Here you go, antiphone. Read this article and you can make your list. And a very long list it is:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-liberal-left-heroes-who-treat-women-like-garbage

Unknown said...

“Like I said, the opinion of any woman who ignored what Kennedy and Clinton did doesn't amount to a bucket of spit. You are not ethical and have absolutely no high ground to stand on.”

Really? I’m far more ethical than you anyday. I had a child out of wedlock, just like you did and I stepped up and took care of that child, did you? Don’t you dare try to impugn my ethics you hypocrite.

Robert Cook said...

"You probably know this, but Burgress' pregnant wife was beaten to death and raped by American GI's during WWII."

Yes, I was aware of that.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Like I said, the opinion of any woman who ignored what Kennedy and Clinton did doesn't amount to a bucket of spit.

I believe the expression is, "a bucket of warm spit."

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-liberal-left-heroes-who-treat-women-like-garbage

This is how we can beat the right! Mire them on the battlefield of identity politics! Which side is better for women/blacks etc. Hollywood vs. Fox. Hollywood at least inspires dreams. Fox - conspiracy theories and nightmares.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Why can't someone see the goal of perfectly sinless behavior as attainable? "

Well, because when they inevitably fail to live up to it, they fall into the self-flagellation you decried in an earlier comment?

Unknown said...

Exiled, why don’t you shut your yap, you have no leg to stand on when it comes to morals.

exiledonmainstreet said...

That article was published in the Daily Beast, not on the Fox website, so I don't see why you're nattering on about Fox. Is that just an automatic reflex with leftists whenever they hear of something that does not reflect well on the Left?

The author is not conservative. It's a very rare example of leftist soul searching and honesty, which is why none of the leftists here will read it.

Robert Cook said...

"I believe the expression is, 'a bucket of warm spit.'"

I believe the expression was a euphemism for "a bucket of warm shit."

buwaya said...

Small correction, Anthony Burgess's wife was raped while she was pregnant, and lost the baby. She lived.

She had no other children, perhaps after being rendered infertile? Burgess ultimately had a son by his Italian mistress.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Well, because when they inevitably fail to live up to it, they fall into the self-flagellation you decried in an earlier comment?

People only "inevitably" fail live up to anything if you beset them with arcane rules of dubious moral relevance that only exist for the purpose of making every minute, unimportant detail of one's life a matter of morality.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Unknown said...
Exiled, why don’t you shut your yap, you have no leg to stand on when it comes to morals."

Great rejoinder there. Typical of Inga though. "I can't come up with a better argument so just shut up."

antiphone said...

Read this article and you can make your list. And a very long list it is:

Concern blah blah blah... I've got my own list maybe you're capable of making your own. Then argue to win. Unless you really enjoy being used.

Unknown said...

“Great rejoinder there. Typical of Inga though. "I can't come up with a better argument so just shut up."”

How dense can you be? I was doing to you what you had just done to me, calling into question my ethics, based on what? Tell me.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

That article was published in the Daily Beast, not on the Fox website, so I don't see why you're nattering on about Fox. Is that just an automatic reflex with leftists whenever they hear of something that does not reflect well on the Left?

The author is not conservative. It's a very rare example of leftist soul searching and honesty, which is why none of the leftists here will read it.


I don't have to search any soul. If you violate, you're a criminal. If you fornicate - distractingly, then you're a workplace nuisance. No need to pretend there's anything political about any of these matters of individual behavior.

FOX made a conscious decision to sexualize their female newscasters. It was in the mix - based on how they visually presented on the boob tube tee vee. Deliberate thing, that. Hollywood also sexes things up. Sex sells. If there's a problem with that it's basically an economic thing. The off-screen behavior of each was mostly an extension of that issue. Worth researching/understanding, but totally not worth politicizing. Or did you folks abandon your pretension to caring more about "personal responsibility?"

You know, the word "personal" is in there for a reason. Stop being a collectivist.

antiphone said...

James Kirchick big time media pimp sells porn for a living. FAKE!

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

James Kirchick big time media pimp sells porn for a living. FAKE!

From the article: “I mean, not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,” Galloway assured, speaking on behalf of no woman, ever.

So a gay man upholds the ludicrous campus/PC standard of credulously believing that sex acts are VERBALLY DESCRIBED AND AGREED TO before each one naturally and consentingly takes place. Right. What a crock.

Go be a PC conservative, then. I'm sure the rest of his "article" is also a crock.

~90% of communication is non-verbal and you cons want to break bread with the PC assholes who somehow are so stupid and sexually inexperienced to believe that in the one realm of interaction that's MOST organic and natural, the advanced, evolutionarily recent innovation of spoken human communication reigns supreme in establishing the act of consenting to it. Now I know how full of bullshit you all really are.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"People only "inevitably" fail live up to anything if you beset them with arcane rules of dubious moral relevance that only exist for the purpose of making every minute, unimportant detail of one's life a matter of morality."

Good Lord, do you really think religious people go around worrying about morality every second of the day. "What shall I have for dinner? Is it more moral to eat salmon with asparagus or spaghetti and meatballs?" Who gives a shit? Eat what you want!

Actually, its the left that has been infusing morality into every minute, unimportant detail of ones life.

"Oh, no, this coffee isn't fair trade! I can't buy it! Are these eggs from cage-free hens? Are these veggies locally grown? Ah, here's a 'Diversity' T shirt made of 100% organic cotton by gay Guatemalan orphans and the proceeds go to preserve the rainforest, so I am a good person for buying it, even though it costs $75. No plastic bags for me, I have my cloth tote bag from PBS! Now I'll ride my bike to work, because I care about my carbon footprint."

Whole Foods is Ground Zero for infusing mortality into the most mundane and unimportant matters.

You're a guy from the side of the political spectrum that brought us "The Personal is Political."

Jim at said...

I still don't know who this guy is. I asked my wife and she doesn't know either. I guess we haven't missed much.

Yep. Never heard of him.
Not even once.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I'm not making any excuses for Moore, or ignoring the charges. I'm questioning the timing.

You excused Kennedy, who did much worse than what Moore is accused of. You ignored Clinton's accusers when Carville and Hillary slimed them. But you immediately believed Moore's accusers and judged him guilty.

You have no ethics and no integrity. Your Higher Power is the Democratic Party.

Unknown said...

“Good Lord, do you really think religious people go around worrying about morality every second of the day. "What shall I have for dinner? Is it more moral to eat salmon with asparagus or spaghetti and meatballs?" Who gives a shit? Eat what you want!”

They don’t worry about morals because they believe they can act in the most hateful vile immoral ways and if they just ask for God to forgive them, they’ll be just fine. I think Exiled is one of the utmost worst examples of this sort of Christian.

Unknown said...

“You excused Kennedy, who did much worse than what Moore is accused of. You ignored Clinton's accusers when Carville and Hillary slimed them. But you immediately believed Moore's accusers and judged him guilty.

You have no ethics and no integrity. Your Higher Power is the Democratic Party.”

Are you a fucking mind reader as well as a hypocrite? Your higher power is Trump.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Good Lord, do you really think religious people go around worrying about morality every second of the day. "What shall I have for dinner? Is it more moral to eat salmon with asparagus or spaghetti and meatballs?" Who gives a shit? Eat what you want!

Ok, so apparently someone felt that ripping up the pages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was the best way to deepen her Christianity.

You know, ever since the Protestant Reformation you're actually allowed to read these books! Imagine that! Even you, as a Catholic, now have that right.

While not endorsing the anal-retentive extent of Israelite dietary restrictions, I somehow think that that not cooking a calf in its mother's milk or seeking to avoid prolonging the act of slaughtering might be ideas worth considering. Same with whether you prefer to buy disgusting factory farmed products or not.

If you want to put something in a shit-covered cage it can't turn itself in and/or slather it with antibiotics then I'm sure you could do so - were it not for animal cruelty laws or the FDA and state medical licensing laws. But of course you think that enough money should allow corporations to bribe the government and get away with all sorts of things that we ordinary mortal humans cannot and in good conscience would not ever really do.

Ann Althouse said...

"What rule are you stating? AN agreement with his "don't do your favorite thing" implication?"

No. The rule is stated in the earlier post today: "To share your sexuality with another person, you have to mean them well. You can't be taking advantage of them, even when they like you so much they say yes to what you're offering them.... Don't offer bad sex, even to those who will consent to it. Don't take whatever you can get. You should know when you're extracting perverse pleasure from humiliating or hurting someone else."

Jim at said...

Takei is eighty years old. It's kind of sad to see him go out on such a sour note. Not much schadenfreude in these scandals.

Not so fast. Takei has been an insufferable prick on Twitter for the last several years ... including High! Sanctimony! with regards to Donald Trump's comments.

He deserves every bit of the cascade of shit coming his way, and I will enjoy it to no end.

antiphone said...

the one realm of interaction that's MOST organic and natural, the advanced, evolutionarily recent innovation of spoken human communication reigns supreme in establishing the act of consenting to it.

Ideally, sex partnership should be verboten without a legally binding contract.

Ann Althouse said...

"'I’m also repelled by men who like to assert that women seek partners who offer them wealth rather than love and sexual satisfaction.' This statement would seem to have low evidentiary support."

Only if you're terrible at reading!

Night Owl said...

@ Angel-dyne 3:25 pm

'Jesus, where to start. "Utter lack of understanding of human nature"? '

Indeed, men have an instinct to want young women and women have an instict to want successful men, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone. But there can be factors beyond just money and looks that determine why people are attracted to each other and stay together. Women--even poor ones-- who truly love their husbands don't ditch them if they get laid off. Men who truly love their wives don't trade them in for a newer model when they hit 40.

Althouse is repelled by the attitude of women who admit that they consciously and cynically seek men simply for money and give no thought to affection or compatibility or anything else, and the attitude of men who consciously and cynically choose careers in order to attract beautiful women who are attracted to money. Those attitudes repel me as well, because I know I wouldn't be happy in such a relationship. Maybe she is repelled for the same reason.

antiphone said...

Yep. Never heard of him.
Not even once.


What?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

No. The rule is stated in the earlier post today:

Thanks.

I responded to that one in that thread.

It's a nice ideal, but unreasonably unworkable. Mating acts are essentially mutual bargaining processes in which each partner asks if the other is the best one they can get in that moment or foreseeably in the future. Love is nice but really just a drug that tells you that your decision was economically favorable. You fall in love with the person who seems like the best one you, as an economic actor in the marketplace of mating, can get.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Is this also wrong:

"Gerry Healy was a Stalinist who led Britain’s Workers Revolutionary Party, an “anti-imperialist” groupuscule partly funded by Muammar Qadafi and Saddam Hussein, whose more presentable patrons included Vanessa and Corin Redgrave. According to his former secretary, this man of the people used apartments owned by the party in a “completely opportunist way for sexual liaisons” to “degrade women and girl comrades and destroy their self-respect.” Ultimately, some 26 women accused Healy of “gross sexual abuse.” According to Vanessa Redgrave, however, “these allegations are all lies and the women who are supposed to have made them are all liars. I don't care whether it's 26, 36 or 236. They are all liars.” Believe All Women, in other words, except those who accuse our Dear Leader."

It's good of Ritmo to find something he disagrees with, so he can dismiss the entire article. And antiphone doesn't need to read anything past the byline. Lies, Lies, it's all lies, I tell ya!

Yep, you guys are sure giving me a good example of how self-critical and reflective the Left is.

Ann Althouse said...

"You're talking about these things as if they are entirely conscious and cynical. Having resources and status makes men more attractive to women, for what should be obvious reasons that don't boil down to "women are just greedy gold-diggers"."

I didn't hurl that insult. You did.

I just said I'd never give myself to a relationship like that. I've never had any desire to do it and thinking about it in the abstract, I regard it as a boring and low way to spend one's precious life.

I know many women do other things and men go to a lot of trouble to get the women who are responsive to that. I haven't studied those women, but I'm not interested in them either. From a distance, they seem very boring to me.

Jim at said...

Yep. Never heard of him.
Not even once.

What?



This Louis CK guy. I've never heard of him before this last week.
Is that a problem?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
antiphone said...

antiphone doesn't need to read anything past the byline. Lies, Lies, it's all lies, I tell ya!

I'm pretty sure I already read it once. Does it become more convincing the third or fourth time?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

"'I’m also repelled by men who like to assert that women seek partners who offer them wealth rather than love and sexual satisfaction.' This statement would seem to have low evidentiary support."

Only if you're terrible at reading!


I think I read it well and responded with examples. Here they are:

In life, my observation is that being offered love is a horrible predictor of whether that man will be sought as a partner by the woman to whom he offers that love. Does anyone here disagree with that?

Also, I stated that seeking out a partner solely for the purpose of sexual satisfaction is something that women will from time to time do, but not proudly or openly. Again, we have a whole commentariat of observers. Do any of them disagree?

Finally, not all women will be crass enough to feel or state that they prefer "wealth" in a partner. But all mating acts boil down to the perception of what resources your partner offers. A handyman offers a woman resources in a form that is more quaint and prone to cutesy, hands-on attachments than wealth, but are still a form of resource. And so on.

Unknown said...

“Yep, you guys are sure giving me a good example of how self-critical and reflective the Left is.”

Your own holier than thou attitude and your accusations regarding others’ morality and ethics makes you the least self critical and reflective one on this thread. Hold up that mirror lady.

Ann Althouse said...

"And it's bizarre that you would be "repelled" by a man who chose work remunerative enough to attract desirable women. What, pray tell, is wrong with a man wanting a desirable woman? And getting a desirable woman requires making oneself a desirable man, which means..."

I would be interested in a man who took up work that interested him and that he is good at. I am into doing what is intrinsically valuable and not what is a means to an end. I'm not talking about the many people who need to work to get enough money to live well enough, but men with options in life, who are making a choice. I would not want to be with a man who didn't care about his work except as a means to the end of getting money, especially if the reason for wanting the money was that he thought getting money was the way to get a woman. I'm just saying the woman at the end of that means-to-an-end process would never be me. Presumably, he gets a woman who is using him as a means to an end, being nice to him to get the cash flow. What the hell does she want to buy? I can't imagine what could possibly be worth it.

Ann Althouse said...

"This entirely natural impulse operates at every level of society, not just among the super-rich, super-driven guys who want a steady supply of super-models. Plenty of men give up doing X, and go into Y, because they can't make enough money doing Y to attract the kind of woman they want, or to take care of the family they want to have with her. That makes billions of dutiful fathers across the globe "repellent" by your standards, in addition to billions of normal guys who'd just like to attract pretty girls."

I only need one.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Ok, so apparently someone felt that ripping up the pages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was the best way to deepen her Christianity."

Uh, Ritmo, it's not based on my feelz. St. Paul ripped up the pages of Leviticus. There was a split in the early church, detailed in the Acts of Apostles regarding whether followers of Christ were obligated to follow the Jewish dietary laws or not. The question was settled before 100 AD. Apparently you haven't realized that Christians have been eating pork and shellfish for 2000 years. The Catholics used to prohibit meat on Fridays, but now that's limited to Lent. It's not a very tough rule to follow.

It would be helpful if the critics of Christians actually, you know, knew something about Christianity. You'd sound smarter that way.

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse is repelled by the attitude of women who admit that they consciously and cynically seek men simply for money and give no thought to affection or compatibility or anything else, and the attitude of men who consciously and cynically choose careers in order to attract beautiful women who are attracted to money. Those attitudes repel me as well, because I know I wouldn't be happy in such a relationship. Maybe she is repelled for the same reason."

That says it very well.

antiphone said...

Is that a problem?

Not for me, he's never been my cup of tea but when people host SNL I figure I've at least got to check it out. Otherwise we run the risk of being hopelessly out of touch with the zeitgeist of the homeland. Then, "you know who" will have won.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Hold up that mirror lady."

Oh, this is rich.

Did you believe Juanita Broaddrick?

Of course not. She was attacking a Democrat.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I would not want to be with a man who didn't care about his work except as a means to the end of getting money, especially if the reason for wanting the money was that he thought getting money was the way to get a woman.

So you want to be with a man who puts a lot of caring into the quality of his money-making process?

You seem to realize that the best handcrafts or customer service operations or whatever are never offered free, but are still somehow most interested in what can decreasingly be considered non-financial about their value.

Unknown said...

“It would be helpful if the critics of Christians actually, you know, knew something about Christianity. You'd sound smarter that way.”

It would be nice if certain holier than thou Christians practiced what they preached. She’d sound more sincere that way.

Unknown said...

“Did you believe Juanita Broaddrick?

Of course not. She was attacking a Democrat.”

Exiled, maybe if you stopped fighting old wars you’d be more at peace.

antiphone said...

men who consciously and cynically choose careers in order to attract beautiful women who are attracted to money.

"Everybody loves a sad song that they don't have to sing" X

mockturtle said...

Ann, like you I don't know any women who have chased after rich men. I'm sure they exist but they are by far the minority. Women marry for love and tend to love for a variety of reasons but money doesn't enter into it. Not to say any woman should marry a man who has no means of support but that's not the first consideration.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Sorry if pointing out your endless hypocrisy and complete lack of morals and integrity hurts your feelz, Inga. I'm gonna keep on doing it.

Go to your safe space and color if you don't like it.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Uh, Ritmo, it's not based on my feelz. St. Paul ripped up the pages of Leviticus. There was a split in the early church, detailed in the Acts of Apostles regarding whether followers of Christ were obligated to follow the Jewish dietary laws or not. The question was settled before 100 AD. Apparently you haven't realized that Christians have been eating pork and shellfish for 2000 years. The Catholics used to prohibit meat on Fridays, but now that's limited to Lent. It's not a very tough rule to follow.

Hey! You're the one who brought up dietary issues. So does the sanctified Mr. Paul/Saul - that guy desperately seeking followers so bad that he didn't care about their former principles or cultural attitudes - does he feel that animal cruelty laws are bad also? And that despoiling the land in which they're able to graze... also a non-moral issue to him, your go-to guide on all morality?

Let me know the answer to that, lest I appear an even bigger ignoramus on the end-all be-all moral blueprint for everything in life that you know of as "Christianity." Sorry to live in the modern world. One which humans didn't originally create but still seem to have to rely on for sustenance and health nonetheless.

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse is repelled by the attitude of women who admit that they consciously and cynically seek men simply for money and give no thought to affection or compatibility or anything else"

1. I didn't say I was repelled by these women, just "I’ve never known any woman personally who has admitted to becoming sexually involved with a man because of his money." I've never encountered them, and since I don't want a female sexual partner, I'm probably not interested enough to feel repelled.

2. But then again I wasn't referring to women who "consciously and cynically seek men SIMPLY for money and give NOT THOUGHT to affection or compatibility or anything else." I meant to refer to a larger group than that. I think those who make money a big factor also think about compatibility.

It is a huge mistake to marry someone who bores you or who isn't sexually attractive to you. I don't see why a man would even want a woman who wasn't sexually attracted to him (unless the 2 of them were asexual).

mockturtle said...

Not to say any woman should marry a man who has no means of support but that's not the first consideration.

To qualify my own statement: Especially if they intend to raise a family.

Unknown said...

“Sorry if pointing out your endless hypocrisy and complete lack of morals and integrity hurts your feelz, Inga. I'm gonna keep on doing it.

Go to your safe space and color if you don't like it.”

LOL! You seem to think you have some influence over my feelings. Go right ahead and show your “stuff”, but hint hint, it’s ugly and doesn’t make you look better.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Exiled, maybe if you stopped fighting old wars you’d be more at peace."

Broaddick was raped around the same time Moore may or may not have sexually assaulted those girls. So if what happened to Broaddick is ancient history and we shouldn't bother with it, the same is true of Moore.

Oh, no, but it's not, the hypocrite says! Moore's a Republican!

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

St. Paul ripped up the pages of Leviticus.

Then who was the one who kept in the holy canon?

Just because the early church leaders eventually decided to keep you from reading it doesn't mean that you shouldn't. They kept it in the canon and if you think the divinity proclaiming them was wrong, you should say way. As a matter of consistency.

Or go back to having other, modern church leaders read your bible and answer for you. Have they done so?

antiphone said...

BAD BOYS

Night Owl said...

"I didn't say I was repelled by these women, just "I’ve never known any woman personally who has admitted to becoming sexually involved with a man because of his money." I've never encountered them, and since I don't want a female sexual partner, I'm probably not interested enough to feel repelled. "

I was also specifically talking about the attitude, not so much the women themselves. I, too, have never met a woman who got involved with a man strictly for money, so I don't know how I'd feel toward them personally.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Hey! You're the one who brought up dietary issues. "

I brought them up because you said religious people make "every minute, unimportant detail of one's life a matter of morality."

The left is far more guilty of this than Christians are, with food being the most obvious example.

Actually, I think I am getting under Inga's skin, because when your own reply to someone is "shut your yap" well, there you have it. Temper, temper.

Now, I'm tired of this stupid back and forth with a fool. I'd like to get back to talking with the adults and this topic interests me.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I brought them up because you said religious people make "every minute, unimportant detail of one's life a matter of morality."

Ok, fine. Then I'll amend that to saying that "religious people want to make as many unimportant, minute details of their life matters of morality as they can."

The left is far more guilty of this than Christians are, with food being the most obvious example.

The left cares about sustenance and the systems for maintaining it, which food provides. There is nothing wrong with either sustainability or caring about it. I find it fascinating how the right came to think that a "live for today" mentality was the best way to maintain civilization. But then, perhaps I overstate the right's interest in civilization altogether.

Unknown said...

“Now, I'm tired of this stupid back and forth with a fool. I'd like to get back to talking with the adults and this topic interests me.”

Then don’t impugne others’ ethics and moralty. Do you think those you attack will always ignore you? You are the fool who throws bombs, expect the blowback. Why anyone would want to discuss anything with someone like you is beyond me.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"I would be interested in a man who took up work that interested him and that he is good at. I am into doing what is intrinsically valuable and not what is a means to an end. "

Sure, but men can have more than one reason for pursuing a particular profession, some pure, some not so pure. A kid can decide that he wants to become a pro baseball player because he has great athletic gifts and loves the game, but he can also be motivated by the huge salaries of mlb players and the prospect of nailing a lot of chicks.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

So does anyone know of a woman who without her own means, but attractive enough to have other options, still married a man who had no potential to support her financial needs? Let's even throw in sexy too. Anyone? I know many men who married women under those conditions, maybe even most men, even without the sexy.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 251   Newer› Newest»