[quote]dianab wrote:
I don’t get it. Are you guys saying that women who hold out on the sex are exerting power over a man? Isn’t that just an excuse for being a frigid cow? And what guy worth banging is going to hold out for some bitch who doesn’t even want to have sex with him? I mean, that would be one unsatisfactory relationship for all involved.
[/quote]
Yes, maybe, an idiot if he fails or a genius if he succeeds.
Healthy relationships? Huh?
[quote]Edgy wrote:
You totally left out Vikings.
They’re both badass White Knights, AND Superheros.
Combo~[/quote]
Vikings as white knights? Hahaha IDK about that. Especially those who aligned with Odin… pretty fucking bloodthirsty, so the stories go.
Brutal, murderous, selfish, raping bastards. Oh, to be born around 900 and run with the worst.
Interesting topic, OP.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
well, how do you explain the increase in popularity of women like Lara Croft, or Xena or Electra or the new superhero movie coming out based on Wonder Woman?[/quote]
Boobs.[/quote]
I’ve never understood the female superhero thing. Those types of characters don’t even make it wiggle.
[/quote]
Sure you’re not gay?
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
well, how do you explain the increase in popularity of women like Lara Croft, or Xena or Electra or the new superhero movie coming out based on Wonder Woman?[/quote]
Boobs.[/quote]
I’ve never understood the female superhero thing. Those types of characters don’t even make it wiggle.
[/quote]
Sure you’re not gay?
[/quote]
Good ole Callisto
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
Helen of Troy? Anne Boleyn?
[/quote]
Mata Hari
The power women have over men has brought down not only men, but empires, careers, and countries.[/quote]
Yoko Ono?
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If you looked at sex as a way to subjugate men, then sex would be a man’s weakness right? But what’s so powerful, in a positive way, about exploiting the weakness of someone? In other words, is the ability of a woman to use sex to exert control over men a virtue? I think not, because it necessarily implies that the greatest strength of a woman lies in her ability to manipulate. It also implies that the woman’s greatest strength lies in her ability to exploit.
What I’m getting at is that it sells women short to think that their strengths arise from something that is less than virtuous. I don’t consider manipulation and exploitation a virtue. The female human being is the most complex, mysterious animal on the planet, in my opinion, and to say that her powers are intrinsically tied to the weaknesses of men does them a disservice. It essentially still leaves women in a position of subordination to men. If sex is the great power that many women treat it as, then where does that power go in the absence of men? It’s gone.
The image of the Princess does no more to advance any positive powers of women than the overtly sexual nature of women who use sex as a tool or as a power. Essentially, the use of sex as a power is only re-affirming what many men ignorantly think of women; that they are dependent upon men, because their “sexual power” is still entirely dependent upon men and our weaknesses. I think women have the same “powers”, for lack of a better term, as men.[/quote]
Can you say the same thing about the White Knight, that he is reliant on a helpless princess in order to have power? It would not be surprised since each rely on the other for meaning. If so then the archetype of male dominant- female submissive is in full play here, modeling gender role behavior for kids and adults alike.
That leaves me wondering what do superheroes teach/model?[/quote]
That may be your distinction between superhero and white knight. While Prince Charmings are often seeking their Snow Whites, Cinderellas, and Sleeping Beauties the Supermans are saving towns and planets without the promise of sex. Superman/Clark Kent has been married for some 20 years now yet still maintains the position of most recognizable superhero in the world.
i don’t know about all this… just another case of people perceiving things differently i think.
i’ve always described myself as equal parts princess & gym rat.
that won’t show up at work … could you … describe it to me…
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
i’ve always described myself as equal parts princess & gym rat. [/quote]
Could you describe the terms then? I there have been a few different definitions of princess put out there, how do you see it? I am interested in your definition of gym rat as well since that has a male connotation to it.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
DB - So if women using their sexuality (i.e. body) as power is wrong, is guys using greater strength (i.e. body) as power equally wrong?
Although the goal is equality there has historically been a power difference in western culture. And while some institutions have gone to great effort to maintain it that does not explain how it originated. All power is relational. Which gender has more power over the other in whatever situation is culturally defined and negotiated. So to ask my question from above in a different way, why have guys gotten and maintained the dominant role? Perhaps too big of a question, but I would think it has to do with force.[/quote]
If men use their power to elevate themselves above women, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong to use any power for ill will. The problem I have with women using their sexuality for gains is that isn’t necessarily wrong (it can be, but not all the time), but that it sells women short. Women don’t have to resort to manipulation to succeed in life. Virtues like honesty and intellect can work just as well in certain situations.
Men occupy the proverbial higher position because we have used our powers to keep women down, which is wrong. It promotes a culture of inequality. Women aren’t inferior to men as a whole. But if women use their “powers” to get even or whatever through manipulative means, that just sinks them down to the level of the men who would use their own powers for less-than good means.
Think about it: if women use sex as a tool to get even, they use it against the weaknesses of men. But men and women are created equally in general, so to use sex as a tool against men only prolongs a fight against two equally-matched foes. Is that what women want? Is that what they use their sexuality for? To use it against someone instead for themselves? If there is to be a winner and a loser in this proverbial battle of the sexes, then that must assume then that one side is not equal to the other.[/quote]
I apologize if this seems a bit random, but I am curious. Do you see the mind as greater than the body? And, what role does the body have in the development and display of the self?
[quote]Bujo wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If you looked at sex as a way to subjugate men, then sex would be a man’s weakness right? But what’s so powerful, in a positive way, about exploiting the weakness of someone? In other words, is the ability of a woman to use sex to exert control over men a virtue? I think not, because it necessarily implies that the greatest strength of a woman lies in her ability to manipulate. It also implies that the woman’s greatest strength lies in her ability to exploit.
What I’m getting at is that it sells women short to think that their strengths arise from something that is less than virtuous. I don’t consider manipulation and exploitation a virtue. The female human being is the most complex, mysterious animal on the planet, in my opinion, and to say that her powers are intrinsically tied to the weaknesses of men does them a disservice. It essentially still leaves women in a position of subordination to men. If sex is the great power that many women treat it as, then where does that power go in the absence of men? It’s gone.
The image of the Princess does no more to advance any positive powers of women than the overtly sexual nature of women who use sex as a tool or as a power. Essentially, the use of sex as a power is only re-affirming what many men ignorantly think of women; that they are dependent upon men, because their “sexual power” is still entirely dependent upon men and our weaknesses. I think women have the same “powers”, for lack of a better term, as men.[/quote]
Can you say the same thing about the White Knight, that he is reliant on a helpless princess in order to have power? It would not be surprised since each rely on the other for meaning. If so then the archetype of male dominant- female submissive is in full play here, modeling gender role behavior for kids and adults alike.
That leaves me wondering what do superheroes teach/model?[/quote]
That may be your distinction between superhero and white knight. While Prince Charmings are often seeking their Snow Whites, Cinderellas, and Sleeping Beauties the Supermans are saving towns and planets without the promise of sex. Superman/Clark Kent has been married for some 20 years now yet still maintains the position of most recognizable superhero in the world. [/quote]
Would you say that white knights and princesses promote a particular gender relationship while the superhero is, while not genderless, less about male-female relationships and more about …well, what?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder what “a woman using her sexuality over men” consists of.
For instance, I was offered a job at a mortgage firm once based soley on my “assets” (the manager’s words) and decided to accept it (he literally walked out of his office as I was walking by dressed in a business suit in a way to my job at a department store and asked if I wanted a job). In that field, it’s all about looks and charisma, even though the job description is exclusively number crunching and networking. Is that using my sexual assets over men? [/quote]
Unfortunately, no one will ever escape the base instincts.
Women are the female. They are valued for their ability to produce healthy children that carry and express favorable genes.
Which automatically means women at the core are valued most highly by all for their youth and beauty.
Men are the male. And are therefore valued almost exclusively for their ability to produce genetically superior offspring (genes) and to provide, protect, and care for the female during her vulnerable pregnancy, and then for the children themselves.
Men are valued for their power and not much else.
Physical power, financial resources, influence, etc.
Its all just forms of power.
Women will never be valued at basic instinct level in society for their power, or intelligence to the same degree that a male is as it is his genetic purpose.
Nor will they ever break away from the youth/beauty stigma, as it is their genetic purpose.
Weak males with no power, financial, influence, etc are valueless to females, they dont even glance at them.
Just as ugly or older females are worthless to males.
Cuts both ways, just in different forms, women complain about it more in my opinion, but few people consider how shattering it is to “weak” males that cant do much about their situation.
Women blame men for discrimination but we dont always realize we are doing it, nor would it even make sense for us to treat people of less worth as equals to others; just to be “politically correct”.
Women do the same exact thing to countless men. But you never see women acknowledge that.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
i’ve always described myself as equal parts princess & gym rat. [/quote]
Could you describe the terms then? I there have been a few different definitions of princess put out there, how do you see it? I am interested in your definition of gym rat as well since that has a male connotation to it.[/quote]
the princess part of me likes to paint my nails, shop, curl my hair… etc
the gym rat part of me wears a mens beater to the gym and lifts heavy
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
DB - So if women using their sexuality (i.e. body) as power is wrong, is guys using greater strength (i.e. body) as power equally wrong?
Although the goal is equality there has historically been a power difference in western culture. And while some institutions have gone to great effort to maintain it that does not explain how it originated. All power is relational. Which gender has more power over the other in whatever situation is culturally defined and negotiated. So to ask my question from above in a different way, why have guys gotten and maintained the dominant role? Perhaps too big of a question, but I would think it has to do with force.[/quote]
If men use their power to elevate themselves above women, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong to use any power for ill will. The problem I have with women using their sexuality for gains is that isn’t necessarily wrong (it can be, but not all the time), but that it sells women short. Women don’t have to resort to manipulation to succeed in life. Virtues like honesty and intellect can work just as well in certain situations.
Men occupy the proverbial higher position because we have used our powers to keep women down, which is wrong. It promotes a culture of inequality. Women aren’t inferior to men as a whole. But if women use their “powers” to get even or whatever through manipulative means, that just sinks them down to the level of the men who would use their own powers for less-than good means.
Think about it: if women use sex as a tool to get even, they use it against the weaknesses of men. But men and women are created equally in general, so to use sex as a tool against men only prolongs a fight against two equally-matched foes. Is that what women want? Is that what they use their sexuality for? To use it against someone instead for themselves? If there is to be a winner and a loser in this proverbial battle of the sexes, then that must assume then that one side is not equal to the other.[/quote]
I apologize if this seems a bit random, but I am curious. Do you see the mind as greater than the body? And, what role does the body have in the development and display of the self?[/quote]
I’ve never really thought of one being greater than the other. I do firmly believe that a sound body leads to a sound mind, in a general sense. If I had to rank the two, I would say that the mind is greater simply because it is a) what controls the body and b) the mind is so much more mysterious and has so much more “depth” to it than the body does. But I don’t necessarily think that one has to be greater than the other. They are inextricably linked to one other.
In regards to the development of self and the body’s role, well…that’s a pretty loaded question. In today’s society (although this holds true in virtually any society) we tend to put stock in our outward appearance, our physical self, to the point that we tend to think of how we look as being who we are. It’s almost that way to an extreme now, which is why we have such a rampant culture of consumerism. We are constantly bombarded by the media with the message that we can change who we are by changing what we wear, what we drive, what we listen to, what we look like, etc etc. By looking better, younger, fitter, we can feel better, younger, fitter. But we don’t hear that message the other way around. Why? Because there isn’t much money to be made in “selling” spirituality. Companies don’t make money by telling us that if we strive to feel better about ourselves inside, that we’ll look better on the outside.
And I’ve talked about spiritual bankruptcy on here in the past, and I think this is a perfect example. Many people seek to find solace and comfort in material things, as if material possessions/wealth can bring us happiness. But they don’t always accomplish this. What you own and how much money you have doesn’t really help improve your relationship with the people around you, unless they ultimately place more value in what you have rather than who you are as a person.
It’s like this: if I desire material possessions and that is what I use to evaluate my success as a human being, then I’ll forever be unhappy. There will always be a better car, or nicer clothes, or a bigger house and so on. But if I accept that improving myself from within and seeking some level of spirituality (not religion, although this can encompass spirituality) then I find that these possessions are immaterial to me as a person. It’s the same with the body. If I place more importance on my physical development than my spiritual/mental development, when is it enough? There’s always going to be someone bigger, stronger, faster, sexier, etc etc. But when it comes to the mind, true spirituality can eliminate the need to be smarter, wittier, etc. There’s no need to compete then.
I don’t know, it’s hard for me to explain. I think that there is a way to develop both the mind and the body together for spiritual purposes. “The Tao of Jeet Kune Do” by Bruce Lee is a good starting point for this. I think the bottom line is that if we place a higher importance on the development of the body than the mind, we run into trouble. But if we develop one to improve the other and vice versa, this is a good way to achieving some sort of spiritual balance between the two. I guess that’s what the yin and the yang is all about.
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
i’ve always described myself as equal parts princess & gym rat. [/quote]
Could you describe the terms then? I there have been a few different definitions of princess put out there, how do you see it? I am interested in your definition of gym rat as well since that has a male connotation to it.[/quote]
the princess part of me likes to paint my nails, shop, curl my hair… etc
the gym rat part of me wears a mens beater to the gym and lifts heavy [/quote]
so are you equating feminine with princess?
DB- I agree with everything you wrote, which is why I haven’t responded. Nice work 
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it’s fair to be hard on princesses …
[/quote]
Ba HA!! [/quote]
lol. That was BAD. =D
[quote]Oleena wrote:
DB- I agree with everything you wrote, which is why I haven’t responded. Nice work :)[/quote]
Thank you! You know, I meant to add something in there somewhere. I don’t know how much this applies to the other men on here, but for me, physical attraction is a must in order for me to be in any sort of relationship with a woman. That being said, it is literally ALWAYS some intellectual turn-off that sours me on a particular woman. I would be willing to bet that this holds true for most men.
So I think that, while women certainly can point to their sexuality as a virtue or a positive part of their character, ultimately it is what is inside that keeps men twisted around their fingers. Physical attractiveness is definitely a selling point for women, but the ultimate aphrodisiac is intellect. I think it’s a shame that there are many women out there who lose sight of this.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
DB - So if women using their sexuality (i.e. body) as power is wrong, is guys using greater strength (i.e. body) as power equally wrong?
Although the goal is equality there has historically been a power difference in western culture. And while some institutions have gone to great effort to maintain it that does not explain how it originated. All power is relational. Which gender has more power over the other in whatever situation is culturally defined and negotiated. So to ask my question from above in a different way, why have guys gotten and maintained the dominant role? Perhaps too big of a question, but I would think it has to do with force.[/quote]
If men use their power to elevate themselves above women, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong to use any power for ill will. The problem I have with women using their sexuality for gains is that isn’t necessarily wrong (it can be, but not all the time), but that it sells women short. Women don’t have to resort to manipulation to succeed in life. Virtues like honesty and intellect can work just as well in certain situations.
Men occupy the proverbial higher position because we have used our powers to keep women down, which is wrong. It promotes a culture of inequality. Women aren’t inferior to men as a whole. But if women use their “powers” to get even or whatever through manipulative means, that just sinks them down to the level of the men who would use their own powers for less-than good means.
Think about it: if women use sex as a tool to get even, they use it against the weaknesses of men. But men and women are created equally in general, so to use sex as a tool against men only prolongs a fight against two equally-matched foes. Is that what women want? Is that what they use their sexuality for? To use it against someone instead for themselves? If there is to be a winner and a loser in this proverbial battle of the sexes, then that must assume then that one side is not equal to the other.[/quote]
I apologize if this seems a bit random, but I am curious. Do you see the mind as greater than the body? And, what role does the body have in the development and display of the self?[/quote]
I’ve never really thought of one being greater than the other. I do firmly believe that a sound body leads to a sound mind, in a general sense. If I had to rank the two, I would say that the mind is greater simply because it is a) what controls the body and b) the mind is so much more mysterious and has so much more “depth” to it than the body does. But I don’t necessarily think that one has to be greater than the other. They are inextricably linked to one other.
In regards to the development of self and the body’s role, well…that’s a pretty loaded question. In today’s society (although this holds true in virtually any society) we tend to put stock in our outward appearance, our physical self, to the point that we tend to think of how we look as being who we are. It’s almost that way to an extreme now, which is why we have such a rampant culture of consumerism. We are constantly bombarded by the media with the message that we can change who we are by changing what we wear, what we drive, what we listen to, what we look like, etc etc. By looking better, younger, fitter, we can feel better, younger, fitter. But we don’t hear that message the other way around. Why? Because there isn’t much money to be made in “selling” spirituality. Companies don’t make money by telling us that if we strive to feel better about ourselves inside, that we’ll look better on the outside.
And I’ve talked about spiritual bankruptcy on here in the past, and I think this is a perfect example. Many people seek to find solace and comfort in material things, as if material possessions/wealth can bring us happiness. But they don’t always accomplish this. What you own and how much money you have doesn’t really help improve your relationship with the people around you, unless they ultimately place more value in what you have rather than who you are as a person.
It’s like this: if I desire material possessions and that is what I use to evaluate my success as a human being, then I’ll forever be unhappy. There will always be a better car, or nicer clothes, or a bigger house and so on. But if I accept that improving myself from within and seeking some level of spirituality (not religion, although this can encompass spirituality) then I find that these possessions are immaterial to me as a person. It’s the same with the body. If I place more importance on my physical development than my spiritual/mental development, when is it enough? There’s always going to be someone bigger, stronger, faster, sexier, etc etc. But when it comes to the mind, true spirituality can eliminate the need to be smarter, wittier, etc. There’s no need to compete then.
I don’t know, it’s hard for me to explain. I think that there is a way to develop both the mind and the body together for spiritual purposes. “The Tao of Jeet Kune Do” by Bruce Lee is a good starting point for this. I think the bottom line is that if we place a higher importance on the development of the body than the mind, we run into trouble. But if we develop one to improve the other and vice versa, this is a good way to achieving some sort of spiritual balance between the two. I guess that’s what the yin and the yang is all about.[/quote]
Your post reminded me of a friend who just returned from Haiti. He said suicide is non-existent there, which I thought was interesting in terms of wealth, material goods and happiness. And health especially.
