Poll: Would anyone here object to or be offended by skimpy outfits on male volleyball team members?

[caseymoz]

17. Jefferson by way of Nietzsche . . .

. . . is a difficult route, and that's how I'd describe what you've written in the first part. Jefferson, definitely one of the originators of the concept of individual rights, said they were inalienable and endowed by the Creator. In contrast, you said, "Rights are never given they are only taken." This is a different philosophical tune entirely. Jefferson said all men (read people) had them, they couldn't be taken away, but could either be recognized or denied, respected or violated.

Jefferson's main concern writing the Declaration was to present a counter-argument to the Divine Right of Kings. He was trying to argue how a rebellion against a king who held his position by the will of God wasn't a rebellion against God, or for the more secular people, against good. He said the King had become a tyrant because George III refused to respect individual rights endowed by the Creator.

Unfortunately, without a Creator in the equation, none of it makes any sense.

You've subscribed to a more secular, materialist notion of rights. So, you've kept the concept and you've supported it instead with Nietzsche's Will to Power. There are a few problems with doing this. Nietzsche rejected rights as a legal construct. He thought the only rights anybody should have were the ones that could be immediately enforced. Another problem is he never saw the struggle ending in the equilibrium you describe, where somebody has won their rights and they're satisfied to have overthrown their overlords. No, the oppressed shouldn't be satisfied until they've destroyed the oppressors or have become them. And you imply this when you say empowerment must exist in the acquisition of rights. After a point, it's not rights you'd acquiring if that's how you seek empowerment.

Now, I doubt you were thinking of Nietzsche as your source, you probably absorbed this approach to rights from a different channel. However, Nietzsche still thought it through, and that's what he came up with. It might seem that you're channeling Paine and Jefferson when you speak of rights, but actually, it's Nietzsche with a Jefferson mask. I suggest thinking this over again, because you're not talking about any concept that can be described as "rights," at least in the American-French version.

Therefore, I don't agree with you. If rights are taken from oppressors, there's no reason to stop the struggle there. Indeed, oppressors are likely to engender a lot of resentment with the oppressed. Plus, what are rights after they've been won, then and there's no more empowerment to be had? And it's not true, in reality. I was born with certain rights I didn't struggle for. Free speech for one, and worship (not one I take advantage of) for the other. Truth is, I might have to defend them.

It is the ultimate arrogance, the idea that the will to see oneself as valuable and purposeful and potent is your responsibility and yours alone. Once realized, the choice is yours what you do with it. Choice is the entire point.

And with the lauding of arrogance as a virtue reminds me of Rand. Is that where you're taking this? I rebut that making the choice means nothing if you then don't succeed at making the goal. Empowerment doesn't come with the choice.

It can't be taken away from you by someone else's actions unless you think it can. No woman was ever disempowered because another woman likes to wear bikinis to the beach. No woman was ever disempowered because another woman dressed in a way to garner male attention. No woman was ever disempowered because another woman desired male attention.

What? No. Another party can damage your rights whether you believe it or not. This happens all the time. We're in different universes if you think empowerment can be isolated from a group. In nature, the alpha dog is only alpha compared to the rest of the pack. Take him from the pack, and he's a dog. In human affairs, the only type of power that involves no relation to another person is fantasy power. Even in fantasy, your mind simulates other persons or beings. I think that could instinctively be in preparation for performing in a group, a form of learning in lieu of when you can socialize it.

For examples that are pertinent to this subject: I know, at least, in Hollywood, some actresses can't advance their careers because they won't do nude scenes or sex scenes. On the IMDB, I see guys on discussion boards who expect actresses to go nude in a movie if those women want to go anywhere. These aren't porn stars, these are actors who consider their profession to be quite apart from porn. This is better now than it was in the 70s, where almost every actress had to expose her breasts in films.

Is Hollywood too far from the real world for you? I know of some women who advanced their careers by blowing the boss. If it happens so often it becomes the expected norm, and you could bet it hurts the reproductive rights of women who want nothing to do with that game. Because other women have provided sexual satisfaction, other then can't get jobs or promotions from male bosses without doing it. So, I beg to differ with you here. Expectations are created that are imposed on women who want to keep their right to say no on a job that has nothing to do with sex without being penalized. Women, not just feminists, are extremely aware of this, and don't want it to happen. It's one reason why women who sleep around are resented by relatively monogamous women. The latter sees sex as becoming an expectation in any dealing with men. And it has happened before, such as in the 1950s-60s, and it's the norm in some other parts of the world.

Only type of empowerment can be isolated from others is the dominance of one part of an individual's mind over another part. This is internecine and has no effect outside the person's mind.

"I don't know what to say to the rest other than it sounds like an intrusion of the 'ubiquitous male gaze' looking to 'disrupt the flow of consciousness' and a deep dismissal of the idea that some women like male attention."

((Emphasis Mine))

No. It wasn't a dismissal of that, much less a deep dismissal.

To explain a the term nausea: I'm going by what an ex-girlfriend told me, and other women I've talked to have concurred. She had had more than fifty sex partners in thirteen years, and she was used to the "ubiquitous male gaze." Also couldn't turn the sex appeal off (and if ever saw her, you'd know why). She lost her virginity to four guys over one weekend. I'm emphasizing: she was not a porn-averse prude.

She told me when a male's attention wasn't wanted, what she felt was not arousal, it was more "like a nausea."

Why did it work like that? She didn't know. It just did. I've never forgotten that. Other women have agreed with that when I've discussed it, I've observed others behaving in a way consistent with that. It has explained a lot of female behavior to me. In fact, it has explained a lot of male sexual behavior as well.

If you don't believe me, ask some of those female friends how they feel when the attention or advances aren't welcome. Ask them about things that could raise the creep factor with the persona non grata.

Maybe you'd understand why I would call unwelcome sexual attention disturbing to females. When they compare it to nausea, it plainly is. I'm talking about things various women have told me they found disturbing. I'm not easily rattled about sex.

"And the porn? They are given pay to go nude or to have sex on camera because they choose to have sex on camera for money. They are in a position to leverage their "assets" for a financial payout. Disturbing?... or just good negotiating skills?"

That's not disturbing to me, so you're misunderstanding and mis-applying the term. I was talking specifically about "disturbing" to some women. Maybe they get over it with experience, and maybe many didn't feel it.

Good negotiating skills? lol. That's a stretch. I think it usually goes like this: "If you show up tomorrow for this shoot, we'll pay you a thousand dollars."

And she says "Fuck, yes!"

For example, Christy Canyon was working in a clothing shop for minimum wage and Mike South's first offer for a single day shoot was an amount greater than what she would make in a month. Guess what? She took it in a millisecond. Yeah, great negotiating skills there. Perhaps she developed them later.

But the point is, posing nude didn't offend Christy, didn't give her that "like a nausea" feeling. Most women who read the ad probably felt it, and hence never showed up. Many were probably working for minimum wage or worse.

You ever wonder why anti-trafficking people didn't just set up an organization that looked through Craigslist ads, found the ones that seemed to advertise underage girls, and then turn them into the law enforcement and Craigslist, instead of say, closing down all adult ads on the site? I'll tell you why. They couldn't stand it. The anti-sex crusaders can't get through one of those ads without gagging. Too much "like a nausea." That's only one of the crazy effects porn has on them. I swear, hallucinations are another.

So, why do I either have to agree with "great negotiating skills" or "disturbing"? What a false dilemma. Having a guy hand a woman a buttload of money photogenic tits doesn't take skills. Just like posing nude isn't empowering, either.