Lover/whore?
William Woody
this out to the group for reaction.
A long time ago I came across the masculine architypes of the "King",
"Warrior", "Magician", and "Lover", first outlined to me in Moore &
Gillette's book by the same name. My understanding is that a comprable
quatrane of feminine architypes also exist; the "Queen", "Amazon",
"Witch/Magician", and "Whore".
Now there is an obvious parallel between "King" and "Queen", "Warrior"
and "Amazon", "Magician" and "Witch" in these architypal descriptions.
And from a descriptive point of view these things at first glance seem
to make sense, as well as the descriptions of the failures of disbalance
in any one particular direction.
But "Lover" verses "Whore"?
The Moore/Gillette description of the idealized male lover is the
caring, considerate, polite yet understanding, knowledgable, and (most
importantly) _monogamous_ male lover. Yet the feminine "equivalent" is
the "whore", the "sacred prostitute", the "unbound lover" who is
described using every image in the book which denies monogamy. She is
powerful, sexy--and unbound, free, "liberated."
Why such a significant difference?
Is it a reaction to the dominate societal stereotype of the man who
fears commitment and the woman who fears her own body? Is it an
imposition on one gender of the other gender's idealized image, an
idealized image fueled by the dominate societal stereotypes? Or is it
deeper than that, a reaction to the hypothesis advanced first in the
60's that societal's ills were all caused by male sexuality run amok,
and a desire to rebalance things by promoting women as "free sexual
whores", while bringing male sexual energies under the banner of "caring
monogamy?"
It most certainly cannot be because monogamous males and female whores
are "hardwired" into our brains as genetic archetypes, especially given
the recent evidence that male mating strategies favor males as overt
whores while female mating strategies favor females as more subversive
in their cheating.
Anyways, I'd love to get people's reactions of the stereotypes/
architypes that are being advocated in the name of masculine and
feminine development, especially to the sharp differences between the
idealized male lover as a monogamous husband/father, while the idealized
female lover is a whore/"sacred" prostitute, rather than a monogamous
wife/mother--attributes which apparently are absorbed in the female
architypal case into the Queen figure (which, by the way, weakens the
Queen by deluting it with energies that for the male is squarly in the
"Lover" square, rather than up in the King.)
--
William Edward Woody - wo...@alumni.caltech.edu
In Phase Consulting - http://www.inphase.org
The PandaWave - http://www.pandawave.com
Macintosh and Microsoft Windows Custom Development
mist
wrote:
>This has been bugging me for several years now, and I figured I'd throw
>this out to the group for reaction.
>
>
>A long time ago I came across the masculine architypes of the "King",
>"Warrior", "Magician", and "Lover", first outlined to me in Moore &
>Gillette's book by the same name. My understanding is that a comprable
>quatrane of feminine architypes also exist; the "Queen", "Amazon",
>"Witch/Magician", and "Whore".
>
Probably more of that over-reaching projection, possibly a side-effect
of the misogyny of the age that the system was authored.
It could have a link to the term "Whore of Babylon" so hated-loved by
Crowley, but that would not find in that set of "archetypes"
....mist
--
Due to circumstances beyond my control I find
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.
( from WILLIAM HENLEY & other sources)
Dan Holzman
William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>Anyways, I'd love to get people's reactions of the stereotypes/
>architypes that are being advocated in the name of masculine and
>feminine development, especially to the sharp differences between the
>idealized male lover as a monogamous husband/father, while the idealized
>female lover is a whore/"sacred" prostitute, rather than a monogamous
>wife/mother--attributes which apparently are absorbed in the female
>architypal case into the Queen figure (which, by the way, weakens the
>Queen by deluting it with energies that for the male is squarly in the
>"Lover" square, rather than up in the King.)
My initial reaction is that I'm suddenly glad that I never wasted any
money on Moore and Gilette's book. My second reaction is that Moore
and Gilette have some underlying issues around men, women, and
sexuality.
Suffice it to say, I disagree with the notion of priviliging monogamy,
polygamy, or promiscuity as the archtypical, and therefore most
desirable of emulation, mode of forming sexual relationships. I think
it's a large enough gaffe that it calls the rest of their work into
question.
Tom
"William Woody" <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:woody-DB3312....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>
> But "Lover" verses "Whore"?
>
> The Moore/Gillette description of the idealized male lover is the
> caring, considerate, polite yet understanding, knowledgable, and (most
> importantly) _monogamous_ male lover. Yet the feminine "equivalent" is
> the "whore", the "sacred prostitute", the "unbound lover" who is
> described using every image in the book which denies monogamy. She is
> powerful, sexy--and unbound, free, "liberated."
>
> Why such a significant difference?
The "male" and "female" roles exchange. The independent male imposes order
on his sexuality. The ordered female imposes independence on her
sexuality. Each becomes the other through transcendence of their original
state.
> It most certainly cannot be because monogamous males and female whores
> are "hardwired" into our brains as genetic archetypes, especially given
> the recent evidence that male mating strategies favor males as overt
> whores while female mating strategies favor females as more subversive
> in their cheating.
Of course not. All these roles are social fictions. They are metaphors
for transformation of opposites.
mika
> It most certainly cannot be because monogamous males and female whores
> are "hardwired" into our brains as genetic archetypes, especially given
> the recent evidence that male mating strategies favor males as overt
> whores while female mating strategies favor females as more subversive
> in their cheating.
Do you associate being a whore with cheating, or did the term
"cheating" come up only because it's in the study you referenced?
Be careful about assigning monogamist values to the Whore archetype,
which like any good archetype, transcends our transient cultural/moral
values.
Robert Posey
Tom wrote:
> "William Woody" <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:woody-DB3312....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > But "Lover" verses "Whore"?
> >
> > The Moore/Gillette description of the idealized male lover is the
> > caring, considerate, polite yet understanding, knowledgable, and (most
> > importantly) _monogamous_ male lover. Yet the feminine "equivalent" is
> > the "whore", the "sacred prostitute", the "unbound lover" who is
> > described using every image in the book which denies monogamy. She is
> > powerful, sexy--and unbound, free, "liberated."
> >
> > Why such a significant difference?
>
> The "male" and "female" roles exchange. The independent male imposes order
> on his sexuality. The ordered female imposes independence on her
> sexuality. Each becomes the other through transcendence of their original
> state.
In non high tech societies, a women's sexuality is often one of her best
potential assets to gain power, which is why many of those societies impose all
kinds of restrictions on female behavior to prevent their being able to use this
asset to challenge male power. In societies that don't impose these
restrictions, female usually have much higher status. In fact, if women have
full control of the use of the their sexual assets, they often dominate the
society. Take our closest relative among the great apes, where females are
always in heat, and have full control of their sex lives. In these societies,
despite the large size differential between males and females, females largely
run the show. The same is true of several human societies, including the West
of the Modern world.
William Woody
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "William Woody" <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:woody-DB3312....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > But "Lover" verses "Whore"?
> >
> > The Moore/Gillette description of the idealized male lover is the
> > caring, considerate, polite yet understanding, knowledgable, and (most
> > importantly) _monogamous_ male lover. Yet the feminine "equivalent" is
> > the "whore", the "sacred prostitute", the "unbound lover" who is
> > described using every image in the book which denies monogamy. She is
> > powerful, sexy--and unbound, free, "liberated."
> >
> > Why such a significant difference?
>
> The "male" and "female" roles exchange. The independent male imposes order
> on his sexuality. The ordered female imposes independence on her
> sexuality. Each becomes the other through transcendence of their original
> state.
So you're saying it's in compensation for the current dominate societal
stereotypes of the man who is the "independant male" (or male whore),
and the "ordered female" (or female conservative).
It strikes me that if this is the case, these "archetypal" roles are not
really archetypal, but directional pointers that are not, in fact,
universal, but are simply tools to realign what is considered the
stereotypical male and female sexuality.
It also strikes me that these directions are potentially dangerous to
the conservative male (which I was raised as) or the female whore, as it
does not point in the direction of balance, but instead is a
reaffirmation of the existing dysfunction.
Rowan
William Woody wrote in message ...
>This has been bugging me for several years now, and I figured I'd throw
>this out to the group for reaction.
>
>
>A long time ago I came across the masculine architypes of the "King",
>"Warrior", "Magician", and "Lover", first outlined to me in Moore &
>Gillette's book by the same name. My understanding is that a comprable
>quatrane of feminine architypes also exist; the "Queen", "Amazon",
>"Witch/Magician", and "Whore".
>
>Now there is an obvious parallel between "King" and "Queen", "Warrior"
>and "Amazon", "Magician" and "Witch" in these architypal descriptions.
>And from a descriptive point of view these things at first glance seem
>to make sense, as well as the descriptions of the failures of disbalance
>in any one particular direction.
>
>But "Lover" verses "Whore"?
I conclude that section was written by a male who couldn't get any. Probably
because his attitude to women was 'I want you all to be liberated, so you'll
all fuck me regardless of my other qualities or lack of them!'
BB
Rowan
--
Canterbury, New Zealand
mist
I don't follow you, could you expand on this a bit please.
A bit of detail on what you see as the Whore archetype and maybe an
example on where that clashes on the monogamist concepts.
I understand that a universial/genetic archetype transcends the subset
of those archetypes in practice (practicing as a culture/society)
Is it another case of "no no..Whore means something total different in
this context"?
Normal usage being a woman who makes her sexual abilities available in
exchange for resource or power (cash, gifts, favour/position) from her
client."
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> It also strikes me that these directions are potentially dangerous to
> the conservative male (which I was raised as) or the female whore, as it
> does not point in the direction of balance, but instead is a
> reaffirmation of the existing dysfunction.
I've had people refuse to acknowledge or admit my existence because I
was both in an open relationship and not generically available; their
paradigm wouldn't allow the existence of a woman who neither fit their
"maiden" nor their "whore" slots.
I've found the conceptualization actively annoying and potentially
extremely dangerous at times, and the number of people who think that
the correct way to demonstrate that they are free of the socialisation
towards one extreme is by going to the other extreme irritating.
- Darkhawk, datapoint
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
And if love remains, though everything is lost
We will pay the price, but we will not count the cost.
- "Bravado", Rush
mika
>
> Suffice it to say, I disagree with the notion of priviliging monogamy,
> polygamy, or promiscuity as the archtypical, and therefore most
> desirable of emulation, mode of forming sexual relationships. I think
> it's a large enough gaffe that it calls the rest of their work into
> question.
Good point. Emulating the Lover/Whore has little to do with the
social arrangements one engages in. Just like you don't have to have
seeded or borne a child to emulate the Father/Mother. People's
actions and lifestyle and personality affect how much we can identify
with and deeply understand the Whore, or the Father, or the Crone,
etc, but the archetype itself (by definition?) is a conceptual model.
The Whore is a model that uses sex and sexuality to illustrate a
method or a path one can take to gain magickal/esoteric/occult
understanding, just as the Mother uses childbirth or the Warrior uses
conflict. We learn the most from a particular model by actually
following the same path in our lives, doing what the archetype does,
but we can also learn from these models through meditation and ritual
work alone. Otherwise, they wouldn't be "archetypes", right?
Steve
"mist" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d22dbd4...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On 3 Jul 2002 08:30:04 GMT, William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >This has been bugging me for several years now, and I figured I'd throw
> >this out to the group for reaction.
> >
> >
> >A long time ago I came across the masculine architypes of the "King",
> >"Warrior", "Magician", and "Lover", first outlined to me in Moore &
> >Gillette's book by the same name. My understanding is that a comprable
> >quatrane of feminine architypes also exist; the "Queen", "Amazon",
> >"Witch/Magician", and "Whore".
> >
>
> Probably more of that over-reaching projection, possibly a side-effect
> of the misogyny of the age that the system was authored.
>
> It could have a link to the term "Whore of Babylon" so hated-loved by
> Crowley, but that would not find in that set of "archetypes"
> ....mist
Actually, that archetype is far older, Psalms states "Wisdom rides through
the streets of Jerusalem like a Harlot" (I may be misquoting, if your
interested, Ill look it up), and even Jesus hung with a prostitute (it was
fasionable in the day, a side effect of Gnostisism). The women of Sumeria
actually had to give themselves to a stranger before they could be married.
Mysogenistic or not, the archetype does in fact exist, in the same way as
the rest... In the collective mind. In order to change the archetype, you
have to change the minds of people; not simply rename it.
Me
Joe Cosby
Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also :
a promiscuous or immoral woman
2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
It just shows you how inherent in our mindset it is, that sex for
money or personal gain is considered immoral.
For that matter the fact that they use 'venal or unscrupulous' like
that, as if they were synonyms, says a lot.
I mean venal, originally at least, just comes from Venus, and implies
somebody that likes sex.
Heaven forbid ...
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one
because they're the devil.
- Emo
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
William Woody
mik...@yahoo.com (mika) wrote:
I'm championing nothing, only pointing out that the biological models
apparently favor a female who gives the outward appearance of monogamy,
but who engages in her cuckolding on the sly--that is, "cheating" on the
outwards appearance of monogamous behavior. In this manner we tend to be
more like birds in our mating patterns.
I'm not, however, using the word as an advocation of a monogamous
lifestyle as superior, nor am I using the word in order to pass moral or
ethical judgement on the behavior.
William Woody
lila...@subdimension.com (Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)) wrote:
> William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > It also strikes me that these directions are potentially dangerous to
> > the conservative male (which I was raised as) or the female whore, as it
> > does not point in the direction of balance, but instead is a
> > reaffirmation of the existing dysfunction.
>
> I've had people refuse to acknowledge or admit my existence because I
> was both in an open relationship and not generically available; their
> paradigm wouldn't allow the existence of a woman who neither fit their
> "maiden" nor their "whore" slots.
>
> I've found the conceptualization actively annoying and potentially
> extremely dangerous at times, and the number of people who think that
> the correct way to demonstrate that they are free of the socialisation
> towards one extreme is by going to the other extreme irritating.
Perhaps this should be taken as an inditement of the "archetype" mode of
thinking about human existance. Meaning that it's clear, even from
Gillette and Moore's works, that giving completely into archetypal
posession (or rather, giving into one archetype over another) is a Bad
Idea, and attempting to put people into a particular archetypal pigeon
hole is also equally a Bad Idea.
I know I've met plenty of people who expect me to behave according to
one archetype or another, and while I'm a very simple man, I tend to
upset people by not living to their expectations of the archetype they
project onto me.
It's unfortunate that archetypal theory has been used to pigeon hole
people more than it has to disuade people of such stereotypical roles.
And with unknowledgable self-described "neo-Pagans", I've noticed the
same people who would whole heartedly reject the stereotype of the
"domesticated wife in a white apron barefoot and in the kitchen" leap
full-bore into the stereotype of the "sacred prostitute," the "kitchen
witch maiden", or the "wandering Gandalf-like wizard." That is, they've
simply replaced the societally accepted set of stereotypes with another
set of equally restrictive stereotypes.
William Woody
> >Do you associate being a whore with cheating, or did the term
> >"cheating" come up only because it's in the study you referenced?
> >
> >Be careful about assigning monogamist values to the Whore archetype,
> >which like any good archetype, transcends our transient cultural/moral
> >values.
> >
>
> Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
> sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
>
> 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also :
> a promiscuous or immoral woman
> 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
> 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
Oh, dear.
The term "also" in definition 1 suggests that this is an <<additional>>,
or <<optional>> definition, and not a required definition. That is, a
'whore' == 'a woman who engages in sexual acts for money' does not
necessarly imply immorality.
Or visa-versa; a "promiscuous woman" is also a "whore" under the
definition without requiring (by definition) that that promiscuous woman
is inherently immoral.
Granted, immorality is implied in the popular mindset. However, most
writers I've seen who are advocating the archetype of the "sacred whore"
or "sacred prostitute" are not advocating immorality, nor are they
suggesting that sexually aggressive women are basically immoral. They
are in fact trying to reclaim the word--that is, use the word 'whore' in
a context which strips it of it's implied (but not required) definition
of "immorality", in much the same way that earlier, those reclaiming the
word "witch" did so dispite it's popular definition of fictional green
ugly fat women with warts on their noses flying around on broomsticks
during Holloween.
> It just shows you how inherent in our mindset it is, that sex for
> money or personal gain is considered immoral.
Your mindset is not mine; dude. Please do not project your own stuff (or
your perception of the dominate societal framework) onto me!
My question was to split a different hair; to understand what motivates
the archetypal projections of idealized male lovers as monogamous, while
idealized female lovers as non-monogamous. But in understanding this,
it's not my intent to pass judgement on either mode of behavior--only to
understand why those who advocate these particular archetypal
definitions appear to be passing differing judgement on men then on
women.
Voxwoman
Joe Cosby wrote:
> mik...@yahoo.com (mika) hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
> thunder crashed, mik...@yahoo.com (mika) laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>
>>William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<woody-DB3312....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
>>
>>
>>>It most certainly cannot be because monogamous males and female whores
>>>are "hardwired" into our brains as genetic archetypes, especially given
>>>the recent evidence that male mating strategies favor males as overt
>>>whores while female mating strategies favor females as more subversive
>>>in their cheating.
>>>
>>Do you associate being a whore with cheating, or did the term
>>"cheating" come up only because it's in the study you referenced?
>>
>>Be careful about assigning monogamist values to the Whore archetype,
>>which like any good archetype, transcends our transient cultural/moral
>>values.
>>
>>
>
> Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
> sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
Waitaminute! What about the word "Witch" ?! Go look THAT up... it's
likely almost the same definition, but add "baby killer" to the list (or
Satan Worshipper).
I define whore as someone who does ANY activity SOLELY because they will
get paid to do it. Everyone is a whore.
>
> 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also :
> a promiscuous or immoral woman
> 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
> 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
>
> It just shows you how inherent in our mindset it is, that sex for
> money or personal gain is considered immoral.
>
> For that matter the fact that they use 'venal or unscrupulous' like
> that, as if they were synonyms, says a lot.
>
> I mean venal, originally at least, just comes from Venus, and implies
> somebody that likes sex.
>
> Heaven forbid ...
It does, doesn't it?
Wendy of NJ
Tom
"Robert Posey" <mu...@raytheon.com> wrote in message
news:3D235614...@raytheon.com...
>
> In non high tech societies, a women's sexuality is often one of
> her best potential assets to gain power, which is why many of
> those societies impose all kinds of restrictions on female
> behavior to prevent their being able to use this asset to challenge
> male power.
This is also often true in highly technical societies, too.
> In societies that don't impose these
> restrictions, female usually have much higher status.
> In fact, if women have full control of the use of the their
> sexual assets, they often dominate the society.
Which society is dominated by women?
> Take our closest relative among the great apes, where females are
> always in heat, and have full control of their sex lives. In these
> societies, despite the large size differential between males and
> females, females largely run the show.
Which apes are those?
> The same is true of several human societies, including the West
> of the Modern world.
Exactly which society are you talking about?
Martin Swain
> Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
> sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
>
> 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also :
> a promiscuous or immoral woman
> 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
> 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
No man. A prostitute or 'whore' is not someone who is sexually
aggressive or even necesarily someone who enjoys sex. They are
predatory types who are using other people to pursue thier own
agendas. Note that this involves at least misleading behaviour,
at least as far as women vs. men goes. Men generally invest a *lot*
more emotionally in sex than women do. A hooker is just a woman who
takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
Also note that this kind of behaviour is *not* gender-specific,
although the way it manifests probably is. In fact men are far
more likely to behave badly towards others, just look at the ratio
of men to women in lock-ups.
The image of the prostitute has been way romanticised by Holyweed,
vis. The Goodbye Girl, Pretty Woman, etc. Which is pure crap. Not
every girl who hits hard times sells her ass. The truth is probably
something like, people who are not nice do things that are not nice,
that's how we know what they're like. Don't be a candyass about it
dude.
The correspondence between male/lover and woman/whore is simple,
they are both sluts. A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
So what if the name is a little more palatable? An asshole by any
other name still stinks. The difference in social perception is just
evidence of the fact that we live in a patriachal society.
N
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> Men generally invest a *lot*
> more emotionally in sex than women do.
I think I can number the number of times I've seen this claim on one
hand, as opposed to the opposite one.
Which just goes to show that they're both silly claims.
Some people invest a lot more emotionally in sex than other people.
> A hooker is just a woman who
> takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
Supply and demand: if someone wants it, someone will probably sell it.
So long as both parties consent to the behaviour, no harm, no foul.
> The correspondence between male/lover and woman/whore is simple,
> they are both sluts. A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
> around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
You seem to have misplaced the fact that the "lover" archetype under
discussion is monogamous.
There exist humans that are neither accurately described by "monogamous"
nor "slut"; sexual activity, indeed sexual promiscuity, is by no means
an indication that anyone is being "taken advantage of".
This is the maiden/whore complex: Sex is dirty and filthy and so you
should only do it with the one you love. Only sexual contact within a
sanctioned relationship is legitimate and potentially un-dirty, and
sanctioned relationships contain the expectation of exclusive rights to
the genitalia. Someone who has sexual contact out of the officially
sanctioned contexts is a whore, a slut, is sleeping around, is taking
advantage.
> The difference in social perception is just
> evidence of the fact that we live in a patriachal society.
I believe the liberation from the aspects of the "patriarchal society"
that make for stupid sexual politics comes in recognizing that one's
genitalia are one's own, to do with as one pleases, not automatically
consigned to one's current bedpartner.
To those who would form monogamous bonds, I would think the choice of
exclusivity is much more powerful, of greater ritual significance, if it
is chosen and consciously enacted, rather than sort of coming along as
an afterthought, a hidden rider, a presumption.
To those who would not form monogamous bonds, the ability to freely make
that choice without being demonized, cast out, called "whore" or "slut"
or "deceiver", the ability to speak to a partner with offerings of what
can be given rather than presumptions of what is owed, that is a good
thing too.
As for those who would deceive their partners into a belief that they
have chosen a monogamous bond, and pursue other interactions, I call
them forsworn, and I do not know them.
A lot of people are scared to talk about these things: about what they
want, about what they can fairly offer. Some deceive, some do not know
how to tell the truth, some offer honestly things that are not
sufficient to woo, some make relationships fair by their word, offering
what they can offer and no more but also no less. Some make
partnerships in good faith and learn that they cannot keep their vows,
and of those some deceive, some leave, some attempt to renegotiate.
One of the things that first drew me to paganism, back even before I
knew what my sexual orientation actually was, was the idea that sex was
_mine_, to do with as I will: to hold to myself, to share with those I
choose on whatever basis I choose to share it, to call down gods for the
Great Rite or devote to a chaste maiden-goddess. Not something
regulated by surrounding society, by those people I am not interested in
having in my bed, by the scornful looks given to the virgin who is too
old or the woman with many lovers. My choice. My body, my choice. My
spirit, my body, my choice.
S'all good.
- Darkhawk, wordy
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain) laughed
madly, then wrote:
>joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote in message news:<3d2375cf...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>
>> Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
>> sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
>>
>> 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also :
>> a promiscuous or immoral woman
>> 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
>> 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
>
>No man. A prostitute or 'whore' is not someone who is sexually
>aggressive or even necesarily someone who enjoys sex. They are
>predatory types who are using other people to pursue thier own
>agendas.
I guess.
It says there "for money" though, those merriam-webster guys.
I didn't like to point out that that would both indicate a prostitute
and a wedding contract.
Prostitutes don't get alimony though, so prolly a wedding contract
would be a more appropriate example.
>Note that this involves at least misleading behaviour,
Does it?
Missed that.
What misleading behavior do you think this involves?
Enjoying sex?
>at least as far as women vs. men goes. Men generally invest a *lot*
>more emotionally in sex than women do.
!!!
You reckon?
Uhm.
That hasn't been my impression.
>A hooker is just a woman who
>takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
Beats working at 7-11, I guess.
>
>Also note that this kind of behaviour is *not* gender-specific,
>although the way it manifests probably is. In fact men are far
>more likely to behave badly towards others, just look at the ratio
>of men to women in lock-ups.
>
>The image of the prostitute has been way romanticised by Holyweed,
>vis. The Goodbye Girl, Pretty Woman,
Well I definitely don't get the way women with big teeth has been
romanticized.
But that's just me.
>etc. Which is pure crap. Not
>every girl who hits hard times sells her ass.
Nah. Some of'em get married.
HAR
I just don't give up.
>The truth is probably
>something like, people who are not nice do things that are not nice,
>that's how we know what they're like.
Good definition.
Not sure what it fits though.
Or, more to the point, what it doesn't fit.
>Don't be a candyass about it
>dude.
>
Hokay.
>The correspondence between male/lover and woman/whore is simple,
>they are both sluts.
Main Entry: slut
Pronunciation: 'sl&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English slutte
Date: 15th century
1 chiefly British : a slovenly WOMAN
2 a : a promiscuous WOMAN; especially : prostitute b : a saucy GIRL :
minx
***
(caps mine.)
DANG! Those merriam-webster guys sure don't make it easy to make a
point, do they?
Do you want me to do 'prostitute' and 'minx' or do you wanna knock it
out?
>A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
>around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
I agree.
Funny there's no male-specific name for it though, innit?
>So what if the name is a little more palatable?
So what if a piece of wood discovers it's a violin?
>An asshole by any
>other name still stinks. The difference in social perception is just
>evidence of the fact that we live in a patriachal society.
>
We DO?
Who'd a thunk it.
>> Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one
>> because they're the devil.
>> - Emo
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
I had fried octopus last night. You have to be really quiet when you
eat it. Otherwise, it emits a cloud of black smoke and falls on the
floor.
-- Steven Wright
mist
>mik...@yahoo.com (mika) hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
>thunder crashed, mik...@yahoo.com (mika) laughed madly, then wrote:
>
>>William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<woody-DB3312....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
>>
>>> It most certainly cannot be because monogamous males and female whores
>>> are "hardwired" into our brains as genetic archetypes, especially given
>>> the recent evidence that male mating strategies favor males as overt
>>> whores while female mating strategies favor females as more subversive
>>> in their cheating.
>>
>>Do you associate being a whore with cheating, or did the term
>>"cheating" come up only because it's in the study you referenced?
>>
>>Be careful about assigning monogamist values to the Whore archetype,
>>which like any good archetype, transcends our transient cultural/moral
>>values.
>>
>
>Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
>sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
>
I have only ever heard the term "whore" in used a derogative manner.
There are other terms which do not have such essential associations.
If the archetype listed does not have a negative aspect then why
choose a strongly negatively label for it.
The only link I see tying "sexual agressive woman" to a negative image
is the word choice. A choice I would question to its reasoning.
I have always consiered the trm "temple/sacred whore" to be the lack
of a better word in an masculine-evolved English language.
mist
The list is split into 2 groups. The most obvious difference between
those groups is male vs female
King Queen
Warrior Amazon
Magician Witch/Magician
Lover Whore
Going down the list we see
Authority/power/control/ age?/treachery?
Physical prowess/endurance/perserverence/ honor?
Thought/intellect/esoteric knowledge/
Lover/desire/sexual desire.
Why then does this require a negative term in female (x) desire slot.
And are these the only archetypes used in the scope of the analysis,
because if so it will add a negative factor to all associations with
the archetype that is labelled Whore.
mist
>
>>A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
>>around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
>
>I agree.
>
>Funny there's no male-specific name for it though, innit?
>
So whats a gigolo then?
Asiya
Clearly. Archetypes aren't meant to encompass the whole of a person.
Asiya
Thorn
> joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
> My question was to split a different hair; to understand what motivates
> the archetypal projections of idealized male lovers as monogamous, while
> idealized female lovers as non-monogamous. But in understanding this,
> it's not my intent to pass judgement on either mode of behavior--only to
> understand why those who advocate these particular archetypal
> definitions appear to be passing differing judgement on men then on
> women.
Possibly because regardless of partners a woman will always know the
children she gave birth to are hers, while for a male to be 100% sure he
needs his partner to be a virgin and monogamous?
If there is meant to be linear progression between the archetypes then Lover
must be monogamous to proceed to Father. Whore can proceed to Mother without
applying the same condition?
Biological 'realities' shouldn't necc apply when working with archetypes but
that seemed a possible logical non judgemental reason for the difference
expectations in behaviour. I don't like Whore as a term because it does have
too many negative connatations
--
Thorn
To your own self be true
Asiya
news:200dc075.02070...@posting.google.com...
> joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote in message
news:<3d2375cf...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
>
> > Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that
a
> > sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
> >
> > 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE;
also :
> > a promiscuous or immoral woman
> > 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
> > 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
>
> No man. A prostitute or 'whore' is not someone who is sexually
> aggressive or even necesarily someone who enjoys sex. They are
> predatory types who are using other people to pursue thier own
> agendas.
Whores are predators? Oh those poor, victimized men.
> Men generally invest a *lot*
> more emotionally in sex than women do.
I think some people invest a lot more emotionally in sex than other
people. Men vs. women doesn't factor into it.
> A hooker is just a woman who
> takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
A john is just a man who takes advantage of the fact that there's an
easily obtainable woman who will help him cum.
Ya get it? It's an exchange. Sex for money.
Asiya
Asiya
news:3d23f15...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain) hunched over a computer,
> typing feverishly;
> thunder crashed, martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain) laughed
> madly, then wrote:
> >
> >A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
> >around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
>
> I agree.
>
> Funny there's no male-specific name for it though, innit?
Womanizer.
Asiya
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
"gigolo" is the appropriate term in the context in question. --BB, Gale
Dan Holzman
Thorn <thorn...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>Possibly because regardless of partners a woman will always know the
>children she gave birth to are hers, while for a male to be 100% sure he
>needs his partner to be a virgin and monogamous?
>
>If there is meant to be linear progression between the archetypes then Lover
>must be monogamous to proceed to Father. Whore can proceed to Mother without
>applying the same condition?
If biological fatherhood is all there is, or even most, to the
Archetype, then Fatherhood is far too small to be an Archetype. If,
instead, it is primarily about the part of parenting that comes in the
20 years after the birth, then the biological aspect is very small,
and completely unnecessary for someone to engage in Fatherhood.
What's more, lifetime monogamy is hardly required to ensure that a
child is sires by a given man. 9 months plus time to conception of monogamy
will suffice.
Dan Holzman
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) <lila...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>
>This is the maiden/whore complex: Sex is dirty and filthy and so you
>should only do it with the one you love.
ANd there's a whole other complex hiding right behind the phrase "the
one you love."
Dan Holzman
Martin Swain <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>No man. A prostitute or 'whore' is not someone who is sexually
>aggressive or even necesarily someone who enjoys sex. They are
>predatory types who are using other people to pursue thier own
>agendas. Note that this involves at least misleading behaviour,
>at least as far as women vs. men goes.
Actually, prostitutes are really up front about what they are and are
not offering.
>Men generally invest a *lot* more emotionally in sex than women do.
You're kidding, right?
>The correspondence between male/lover and woman/whore is simple,
>they are both sluts. A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
>around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
You didn't read the rest of the post, did you? The archetype of
"lover" in this instance isn't a slut, but monogamous.
Dan Holzman
mist <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I have only ever heard the term "whore" in used a derogative manner.
I would direct your attention to _Whores and other Feminists_, edited
by Jill Nagle -- for starters..
Dirk Bruere
> Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
> sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
>
> 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also :
> a promiscuous or immoral woman
> 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
> 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
>
> It just shows you how inherent in our mindset it is, that sex for
> money or personal gain is considered immoral.
When the full Capitalist system wins out there will be no morality
associated with anything that can be bought and sold.
OTOH, does selling a desirable renewable resource rather than giving it away
make one a better person, or a worse?
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
"Dan Holzman" <hol...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ag1rd0$i7o$1...@panix2.panix.com...
A bit like 'Niggers With Attitude'.
Dirk
Thorn
> In article <ag1e9k$i3km3$1...@ID-151225.news.dfncis.de>,
> >
> >If there is meant to be linear progression between the archetypes then
Lover
> >must be monogamous to proceed to Father. Whore can proceed to Mother
without
> >applying the same condition?
>
> If biological fatherhood is all there is, or even most, to the
> Archetype, then Fatherhood is far too small to be an Archetype. If,
> instead, it is primarily about the part of parenting that comes in the
> 20 years after the birth, then the biological aspect is very small,
> and completely unnecessary for someone to engage in Fatherhood.
It was a thought offered up, not a conclusion as such. Neither of the trios
are ones I've ever worked with.
It simply occured to me that in matrilinear societies such as the Celts may
have been a woman wasn't expected to be monogamous while in a patriarchal
one like Rome they were, tied in with property and inheritance laws because
the father had to be sure that the line was secure.
Its one of those areas that Julius Caeser commented on that Celtic women
were very free offering the 'friendship of the thighs to men' in contrast to
Roman matrons.
>
> What's more, lifetime monogamy is hardly required to ensure that a
> child is sires by a given man. 9 months plus time to conception of
monogamy
> will suffice.
True but as part of a family unit that is expected to produce more children?
Does the father archetype retain the monogamy aspect of the Lover? Checking
back up the thread William seems to say that when Whore becomes Queen she
takes on the aspect of monogamy, but not if the reverse is true, that the
Father/King gives it up?
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, mist...@hotmail.com (mist) laughed madly, then
wrote:
>On 3 Jul 2002 22:50:10 GMT, joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
>
>>mik...@yahoo.com (mika) hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
>>thunder crashed, mik...@yahoo.com (mika) laughed madly, then wrote:
>>
>>>William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<woody-DB3312....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
>>>
>>>> It most certainly cannot be because monogamous males and female whores
>>>> are "hardwired" into our brains as genetic archetypes, especially given
>>>> the recent evidence that male mating strategies favor males as overt
>>>> whores while female mating strategies favor females as more subversive
>>>> in their cheating.
>>>
>>>Do you associate being a whore with cheating, or did the term
>>>"cheating" come up only because it's in the study you referenced?
>>>
>>>Be careful about assigning monogamist values to the Whore archetype,
>>>which like any good archetype, transcends our transient cultural/moral
>>>values.
>>>
>>
>>Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
>>sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
>>
>
>I have only ever heard the term "whore" in used a derogative manner.
>There are other terms which do not have such essential associations.
>If the archetype listed does not have a negative aspect then why
>choose a strongly negatively label for it.
>
>The only link I see tying "sexual agressive woman" to a negative image
>is the word choice. A choice I would question to its reasoning.
>
>
Well in modern use I suspect the 'whore' aspect is used because of
it's threatening connotation.
It's like there's this social pressure on women to behave a certain
way, in order to avoid the label 'whore'. By using the label
provocatively, it could be kind of a way of saying "I don't care about
your label and I reject the behavioral rules you are trying to impose
on me".
But IMO if people accept a negative label on themselves, they run the
risk of allowing the negative side of the label to start to affect
their self-image.
>
>I have always consiered the trm "temple/sacred whore" to be the lack
>of a better word in an masculine-evolved English language.
I agree, but I also think it reflect a generally negative attitude
towards sex.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
My friend Sam has one leg. I went to his house. I couldn't go up the stairs.
-- Steven Wright
William Woody
> The list is split into 2 groups. The most obvious difference between
> those groups is male vs female
>
> King Queen
> Warrior Amazon
> Magician Witch/Magician
> Lover Whore
>
> Going down the list we see
> Authority/power/control/ age?/treachery?
> Physical prowess/endurance/perserverence/ honor?
> Thought/intellect/esoteric knowledge/
> Lover/desire/sexual desire.
>
> Why then does this require a negative term in female (x) desire slot.
Well, the ones I've seen who are using this term are also trying to
"reclaim" the term by stripping away it's negative connotations.
Keep in mind that throughout most of the history of man, prostitution
was not considered a terrible thing, nor was it viewed with derision. As
I recall, even the Roman Imperial wives occassionally picked up some
spare change by working in the brothels. Further, there were the "sacred
prostitutes" of Greece, women who were employed by temples as
prostitutes to the congregation.
It was only in the last hundred and a half years that prostitution got a
bad name. In fact, in many parts of the west, prostitution was first
outlawed in order to curb what was popularly called in the press "white
slavery." That is, rumors were started and picked up by the press,
backed by a sensational case where it did in fact happen, and backed up
by the "huge numbers" of women who were disappearing, that various
world-wide rings existed to kidnap white women and carry them overseas
to force them into slavery as prostitutes abroad.
Today, the political cry is "for the Children." In the 1800's/early
1900's, the cry was "for the Women"--and "white slavery" played squarly
into this political cry, by emphasizing the problem that innocent
helpless white women were being kidnapped in order to fuel the overseas
(in this case, frontier America)'s burgeoning prostitution needs. So,
since it was prostitution that was presumably fueling the demand for
kidnapped white women, the answer was to stigmatize prostitution and
eventually outlaw it.
Nevermind that most prostitutes working in brothels were runaways, not
kidnap victims, and nevermind the fact that there were plenty of
American Indians in the west who could be pressed into prostitution
without having to create an entire international infrastructure for
transporting kidnapped white women. "White slavery" was repeated in the
press often enough that it became political truth, and prostitution was
outlawed throughout the west.
Archetypes are not about what we as a society today presume is "good" or
"bad"; they supposedly relate to modes of existance which predate
society or even conscious thought. And in that relm, we have thousands
of years of history where "whore" was not some skanky drug-addicted
prostitute hiding from the police and turning tricks in despiration to
fuel her need for drug money.
William Woody
"Thorn" <thorn...@lycos.com> wrote:
> "William Woody" <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:woody-381EDD....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
> > My question was to split a different hair; to understand what motivates
> > the archetypal projections of idealized male lovers as monogamous, while
> > idealized female lovers as non-monogamous. But in understanding this,
> > it's not my intent to pass judgement on either mode of behavior--only to
> > understand why those who advocate these particular archetypal
> > definitions appear to be passing differing judgement on men then on
> > women.
>
>
> Possibly because regardless of partners a woman will always know the
> children she gave birth to are hers, while for a male to be 100% sure he
> needs his partner to be a virgin and monogamous?
>
> If there is meant to be linear progression between the archetypes then Lover
> must be monogamous to proceed to Father. Whore can proceed to Mother without
> applying the same condition?
In California, the natives here were not monogamous, though issues of
who was the biological father of a child was moot. Many tribes practiced
forms of "marriage", where two people came together to build a
family--but monogamy was not part of this equation. And while you could
consider family lines in "patrilieal" terms, the husband of the mother
who gave birth was always considered the father.
In fact, in some circles it was considered bad to marry a virgin--why
would you want someone who was inexperienced in sexual things, when you
can have someone who knows what she's doing?
In short, at least in some tribes of California, monogamy was moot when
it came to progression from the "Lover" to the "Father" archetype. It
also was moot to maintaining the "Father" archetype, as the expectations
on a good husband was to maintain a good home and provide good food, not
to remain strictly monogamous.
And this assumption, by the way, that the husband of the mother is
always considered the father, is reflected today in the laws of some
states of the United States. Though this legal assumption doesn't work
as well as it should, given our society's high value placed on monogamy.
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> If biological fatherhood is all there is, or even most, to the
> Archetype, then Fatherhood is far too small to be an Archetype. If,
> instead, it is primarily about the part of parenting that comes in the
> 20 years after the birth, then the biological aspect is very small,
> and completely unnecessary for someone to engage in Fatherhood.
As someone one of whose partners is adopted, I cite his philosophy on
the subject: "'Parent' is something you do, not something you are."
A sire and a dam do not a 'parent' make.
Nor, for that matter, does a monogamous partnership make for parents,
even if there are children involved.
Parenting does not require genetic bond, or the magic number two.
- Darkhawk, not sure she likes monogamy taken as an
aspect of a conscientious lover archetype
nor promiscuity as an aspect of a
liberated archetype at all. . . .
catherine yronwode
> Parenting does not require genetic bond, or the magic number two.
I agree.
> - Darkhawk, not sure she likes monogamy taken as an
> aspect of a conscientious lover archetype
> nor promiscuity as an aspect of a
> liberated archetype at all. . . .
This latter identifation of promiscuity with an "archetype" of
liberation is especially pernicious in the ranks of the Anti-Victorian
League. Not so common now, more than a century after the end of that
era, but we see it still -- and there is also, accompanying it in many
cases, a remnant tendendency to link non-kinky sex with non-liberation
on the part for those for whom kink is of interest.
It's as if freedom of choice itself were not enough for some folks --
they act as if they have greater freedom if they define their freedom by
the sharp contrast of castigating other forms of freedom for which which
legal and social acceptance preceeded theirs.
Silly humans.
cat yronwode
The Mage's Guide to the Internet ------ http://www.luckymojo.com/magi
Tom
>
> Well, the ones I've seen who are using this term are also trying to
> "reclaim" the term by stripping away it's negative connotations.
>
> Keep in mind that throughout most of the history of man, prostitution
> was not considered a terrible thing, nor was it viewed with derision. As
> I recall, even the Roman Imperial wives occassionally picked up some
> spare change by working in the brothels. Further, there were the "sacred
> prostitutes" of Greece, women who were employed by temples as
> prostitutes to the congregation.
Sacred temple prostitutes weren't called "whores", though. That term came
later, from Old English and possibly Gothic, sometime around the 11th
Century. It had no reverent connotation among those people.
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
>On 4 Jul 2002 08:30:01 GMT, joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote:
>>
>>>A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
>>>around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>Funny there's no male-specific name for it though, innit?
>>
>
>So whats a gigolo then?
Isn't that midway between a piccolo and a viola?
>....mist
>--
>Due to circumstances beyond my control I find
>I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.
>( from WILLIAM HENLEY & other sources)
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that amateurs built the Ark,
professionals built the Titanic.
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
please indicate silly answers by [FLUFF] in the header; I think the other readers are expecting serious responses. BB, Gale
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Asiya" <asiya_...@SATNAMatt.net> laughed madly,
then wrote:
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3d23f15...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain) hunched over a computer,
>> typing feverishly;
>> thunder crashed, martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain) laughed
>> madly, then wrote:
>> >
>> >A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
>> >around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> Funny there's no male-specific name for it though, innit?
>
>Womanizer.
>
Yeah, but there's not so much a negative connotation to that word
The other person suggested gigolo, which is a little closer, but then
how many times do you hear the word 'whore' for every time you hear
the word 'gigolo'?
I guess my only point is, I think society creates an idealized image
of a woman as being somebody who is kind of passive and for whom sex
is a very feathery matter.
Regardless of the words, I think you do hear women being criticized
for fucking anything with two legs more than you hear men being
criticized for the same behavior, just in day-to-day life.
In America, anyway. In the short time I was in Germany, in
comparison, the distinction didn't seem as sharp. A woman having
boyfriends and sleeping around didn't seem to raise as much hostility;
though I was an outsider to that culture, so maybe I just didn't hear
it.
>Asiya
>
>
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> "gigolo" is the appropriate term in the context in question. --BB, Gale
>
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Memes don't exist. Tell your Friends.
William Woody
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Even so, prostitution did not obtain it's negative stigma until much
later than the 11th century.
Voxwoman
William Woody wrote:
Please do some research. There is still forced prostitution in many
parts of the world, and women don't have it so good everywhere.
>
>
>
mist
wrote:
>In article <jS4V8.43$st.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "William Woody" <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> news:woody-B5D3E2....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > Well, the ones I've seen who are using this term are also trying to
>> > "reclaim" the term by stripping away it's negative connotations.
>> >
>> > Keep in mind that throughout most of the history of man, prostitution
>> > was not considered a terrible thing, nor was it viewed with derision. As
>> > I recall, even the Roman Imperial wives occassionally picked up some
>> > spare change by working in the brothels. Further, there were the "sacred
>> > prostitutes" of Greece, women who were employed by temples as
>> > prostitutes to the congregation.
>>
>> Sacred temple prostitutes weren't called "whores", though. That term came
>> later, from Old English and possibly Gothic, sometime around the 11th
>> Century. It had no reverent connotation among those people.
>
>Even so, prostitution did not obtain it's negative stigma until much
>later than the 11th century.
>
That was for the term prostitute, but how about whore. Why use and
abuse a term that has never held a neutral//positive connotation.
They could have used "prostitue" and said what you have said - that
the negative connotation is recent cultural slant. Instead they have
picked a negative word, assumably because they wish to make use of
that association (or they might have just chosen that word
inappropriately.)
I don't see prostitution as inheritantly bad, I don't see it as
advantageous physically or psychologically (over the _long_term_.)
That is why I object to "whore" which carries basic negative meanings.
Why would someone publish an *archetype* list, then try to "reclaim" a
word!!! Isn't that just a bit backwards?
Is not the point of labelling archetypes with stereotypical words to
help bring the meaning/thought-shape of the archetype to the language
of the reader and utilising that sterotype to identify the properties
and principles inherent in the archetype.
mist
>
>True but as part of a family unit that is expected to produce more children?
>Does the father archetype retain the monogamy aspect of the Lover? Checking
>back up the thread William seems to say that when Whore becomes Queen she
>takes on the aspect of monogamy, but not if the reverse is true, that the
>Father/King gives it up?
>
Maybe the King is where the masculine gives up the monogamy. Taking
on herd leader, prima-nocturn (sp!!) etc
After "its good to be the king" ;) ;)
mist
>
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> "gigolo" is the appropriate term in the context in question. --BB, Gale
>
Does that mean in context with the original archetypes list given,
that the man in question is more evident in his "whore" parts.
That would mean that the final pairing "lover/whore" is looking at
giving/sharing vs selling/stealing that latter also carrying a
negative connotation in todays world. With the possibility that the
original authors over-extended themselves in trying to preserve a
false masculine/feminine dichotomy for all of the entries.
mist
wrote:
>Whores are predators? Oh those poor, victimized men.
In a way they are. The prey/feed/make use of the opportunity on a
"weakness" of their client. A john is only a john. He exists to pay.
In his turn the john is a predator (often a more empowered one) who
preys on the availability of sex and relies on his cash and position
to lure out his prey that he uses to satisfy his hunger. (noted that
females can also be johns, only its much less common, just as male
prostitutes for use by either sex are also common)
There are several reasons why each type hunts...
mist
wrote:
Let me guess... another "reclaiming".
I wonder why the word "Whore" was chosen to go on the front cover??
shock value?
challenge?
"dirty" "little" sexual hooks?
I would hold the title itself as support for my argument.
mist
:)
Do you think that the demand for payment for any action or thought is
a desirable consequence?
I find it amusing that some users of low magics would consider the
coin bowl with water as a money attractant, yet expect the coming age
of Aquarius to more free-love and giving.
I know my countries is becoming more pay-for-service, user-pays and
nothing-for-nothing in both business and relationships.
I think its a bad sad thing, but the rest seem to like it.
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> laughed
madly, then wrote:
>In article <jS4V8.43$st.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "William Woody" <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> news:woody-B5D3E2....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > Well, the ones I've seen who are using this term are also trying to
>> > "reclaim" the term by stripping away it's negative connotations.
>> >
>> > Keep in mind that throughout most of the history of man, prostitution
>> > was not considered a terrible thing, nor was it viewed with derision. As
>> > I recall, even the Roman Imperial wives occassionally picked up some
>> > spare change by working in the brothels. Further, there were the "sacred
>> > prostitutes" of Greece, women who were employed by temples as
>> > prostitutes to the congregation.
>>
>> Sacred temple prostitutes weren't called "whores", though. That term came
>> later, from Old English and possibly Gothic, sometime around the 11th
>> Century. It had no reverent connotation among those people.
>
>Even so, prostitution did not obtain it's negative stigma until much
>later than the 11th century.
You don't think 11th century English or German speaking peoples had a
negative image of prostitutes?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
Martin Swain
"Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" <lila...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:1feryhk.10pffmq15vdf4pN%lila...@subdimension.com...
> Martin Swain <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Men generally invest a *lot*
> > more emotionally in sex than women do.
>
> hand, as opposed to the opposite one.
>
> Which just goes to show that they're both silly claims.
I said generally. I too have seen many claims, but in my expereince
this is how I have seen it happen.
> > A hooker is just a woman who
> > takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
>
> Supply and demand: if someone wants it, someone will probably sell it.
> So long as both parties consent to the behaviour, no harm, no foul.
And why do they want it?
> > The correspondence between male/lover and woman/whore is simple,
> > they are both sluts. A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
> > around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
>
> You seem to have misplaced the fact that the "lover" archetype under
> discussion is monogamous.
Yeah right. It's just the old boys club covering up for the scallywag.
> There exist humans that are neither accurately described by "monogamous"
> nor "slut"; sexual activity, indeed sexual promiscuity, is by no means
> an indication that anyone is being "taken advantage of".
In fact it generally does work out that way. The only exception I can
think of being 'rough trade'. Like it or not, feelings are a part of sex.
> This is the maiden/whore complex: Sex is dirty and filthy and so you
> should only do it with the one you love. Only sexual contact within a
> sanctioned relationship is legitimate and potentially un-dirty, and
> sanctioned relationships contain the expectation of exclusive rights to
> the genitalia. Someone who has sexual contact out of the officially
> sanctioned contexts is a whore, a slut, is sleeping around, is taking
> advantage.
Um, that's not what I meant at all. Who gives a shit for whether or
not one's latest piece of tail has got some stamp of approval (from who?)
(My current one has a big "Grade A" and damn well deserved too, but that's
another story) or not? All I am saying is that promiscous behaviour results
in
hurt feelings. That is easily avoidable, people don't have to hurt one
another, but they
do anyway, presumably because they are assholes who don't care.
> > The difference in social perception is just
> > evidence of the fact that we live in a patriachal society.
>
> I believe the liberation from the aspects of the "patriarchal society"
> that make for stupid sexual politics comes in recognizing that one's
> genitalia are one's own, to do with as one pleases, not automatically
> consigned to one's current bedpartner.
Depends on the agreement you've made with them doesn't it. In interpersonal
relationships that includes implied promises.
Think about going into a new relationship, where expectations play a very
large
role, indeed where roles play a large role. Perhaps you are a 'happy
swinger',
that is indeed a role one can play, but it is one I have never seen carried
out
successfully.
> S'all good.
Then why are divorce rates so high? I am not talking about anything specific
here, just how people treat one another.
> - Darkhawk, wordy
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> "Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" <lila...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
> news:1feryhk.10pffmq15vdf4pN%lila...@subdimension.com...
> > Martin Swain <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Men generally invest a *lot*
> > > more emotionally in sex than women do.
> >
> > I think I can number the number of times I've seen this claim on one
> > hand, as opposed to the opposite one.
> >
> > Which just goes to show that they're both silly claims.
>
> I said generally. I too have seen many claims, but in my expereince
> this is how I have seen it happen.
It's not what I've seen; I've seen far more frequently the idea that
women invest far more in sex, and I've seen no evidence that either
claim is correct.
> > Supply and demand: if someone wants it, someone will probably sell it.
> > So long as both parties consent to the behaviour, no harm, no foul.
>
> And why do they want it?
I don't think that's any of my damn business. People want what people
want. Me, I want a parrot.
> > You seem to have misplaced the fact that the "lover" archetype under
> > discussion is monogamous.
>
> Yeah right. It's just the old boys club covering up for the scallywag.
Read for content.
> > There exist humans that are neither accurately described by "monogamous"
> > nor "slut"; sexual activity, indeed sexual promiscuity, is by no means
> > an indication that anyone is being "taken advantage of".
>
> In fact it generally does work out that way. The only exception I can
> think of being 'rough trade'. Like it or not, feelings are a part of sex.
Yes, they are. No, it does not "generally work out that way". I don't
know what way it "generally works out"; I don't have the data. I don't
happen to believe that you do either.
> Depends on the agreement you've made with them doesn't it. In interpersonal
> relationships that includes implied promises.
And explicit ones. Someone who plays the game and says, "I never
promised that" is playing mind-games. Someone who starts out saying
that they're not playing along with the social game at the outset can't
be faulted for not doing so.
> Think about going into a new relationship, where expectations play a very
> large role, indeed where roles play a large role.
I'm all full up on relationships, so no, I don't feel like thinking
about doing into a new one. Two is plenty by me.
I tend to prefer to make my expectations explicit, because it generally
works out better. I think that people who get hurt by presuming that
other people think the way they do and want what they want are being
pretty dim to start out with, and that it's a crying shame that the
common social assumptions are, for example, that everyone's straight,
monogamous, Christian, and wants kids, so nobody actually needs to talk
about these things.
William Woody
> >> Sacred temple prostitutes weren't called "whores", though. That term came
> >> later, from Old English and possibly Gothic, sometime around the 11th
> >> Century. It had no reverent connotation among those people.
> >
> >Even so, prostitution did not obtain it's negative stigma until much
> >later than the 11th century.
>
> That was for the term prostitute, but how about whore. Why use and
> abuse a term that has never held a neutral//positive connotation.
One could also ask the same thing about the word "witch," which, until
concerted efforts to redefine the word came along in the 60's, was
almost exclusively a prejorative.
> Why would someone publish an *archetype* list, then try to "reclaim" a
> word!!! Isn't that just a bit backwards?
*shrug* As a two-by-four over the head?
After all, as much as I disagree with the notion that women's sexuality
should be defined in terms of a single archetype, it is true that
women's sexuality has been stigmatized for most of the 20th century.
William Woody
> Please do some research. There is still forced prostitution in many
> parts of the world, and women don't have it so good everywhere.
Please hit the 'back' button and re-read my post. I did not suggest that
women throughout the world had it good, nor that forced prostitution did
not exist. Hell, even though white slavery was overblown significantly
in the 1800's, white slavery *did* exist--and in fact, still exists,
even today. (In fact, I alluded to the fact that forced prostitution of
American Indians in the west was one major reason why international
shipping of white women to be enslaved as prostitutes did not exist in
large numbers. It is this forced prostitution which was a major source
of syphallis in the California Indian population which lead to mass die
offs in the 1850's.)
However, this does not change the fact that prostitution was outlawed in
order to "stop the scourge of white slavery" and "in order to protect
the Women." Nor does it change the fact that prostitution gained it's
highly negative connotation relatively recently in the history of the
west.
In fact, if you had bothered to read my post instead of just responding
to a gut reaction, you would have noticed my alluding to the racist
attitudes in the politics which lead to the decline of prostitution.
(The fact that it was called "white slavery", while on the other hand
there were absolutely no crys in the press to stop enslaving American
Indians for the same purpose speaks volumes.) In fact, I'd say it's
fairly safe to say that in the politics of the west, most instances
where political attitudes led to a major societal shift, racism and
sexism were just underneath the surface.
Viyan
"mist" <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d24ffa8....@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On 4 Jul 2002 14:20:08 GMT, "Asiya" <asiya_...@SATNAMatt.net>
> wrote:
<snip>
> There are several reasons why each type hunts...
> ....mist
> --
Well put. In the case of female prostitutes money seems to be the obvious
reason, followed by the power of and the potential power over, man-juice.
Have you read 'Siddhartha' by Herman Hesse?
Its rather curious that when signifigant gains are about to be made
magickally or spiritually a woman suddenly enters the picture. Which brings
us to the ultimate reason for the hunt: sex as the seductive deterent from
spirit and womans' often times unconscious advocation of matter supremacy.
The War in Heaven? Yeah.
There's a 42 in there somewhere, isn't there? Dot, Dot, Dot. * barf*
Martin Swain
> martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain) hunched over a computer,
> typing feverishly;
> What misleading behavior do you think this involves?
>
> Enjoying sex?
No. We are talking archetypes right? Your archetypical 'John' harbours
the secret hope that 'Jenny' will fall in love with him, and beg him to
whisk
her away from her tawdry life in the streets.
Jenny knows this, and fosters it, at least for as long as it takes to
separate
John from his money. That is misleading.
> >at least as far as women vs. men goes. Men generally invest a *lot*
> >more emotionally in sex than women do.
>
> !!!
>
> You reckon?
>
> Uhm.
>
> That hasn't been my impression.
Then why is it that women don't pay for sex?
> >A hooker is just a woman who
> >takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
>
> Beats working at 7-11, I guess.
Bet your parents are glad they had a boy.
> >
> >Also note that this kind of behaviour is *not* gender-specific,
> >although the way it manifests probably is. In fact men are far
> >more likely to behave badly towards others, just look at the ratio
> >of men to women in lock-ups.
> >
> >The image of the prostitute has been way romanticised by Holyweed,
> >vis. The Goodbye Girl, Pretty Woman,
>
> Well I definitely don't get the way women with big teeth has been
> romanticized.
>
> But that's just me.
>
>
> >etc. Which is pure crap. Not
> >every girl who hits hard times sells her ass.
>
> Nah. Some of'em get married.
>
> HAR
>
> I just don't give up.
Ever been married? Marriage kills humor dead.
> >The truth is probably
> >something like, people who are not nice do things that are not nice,
> >that's how we know what they're like.
>
> Good definition.
>
> Not sure what it fits though.
>
> Or, more to the point, what it doesn't fit.
>
> >Don't be a candyass about it
> >dude.
> >
>
> Hokay.
Don't take it the wrong way, I just mean to say, let's not be shy about
calling a shovel a shovel.
>
> >The correspondence between male/lover and woman/whore is simple,
> >they are both sluts.
>
> Main Entry: slut
> Pronunciation: 'sl&t
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English slutte
> Date: 15th century
> 1 chiefly British : a slovenly WOMAN
> 2 a : a promiscuous WOMAN; especially : prostitute b : a saucy GIRL :
> minx
>
> ***
>
> (caps mine.)
>
> DANG! Those merriam-webster guys sure don't make it easy to make a
> point, do they?
>
> Do you want me to do 'prostitute' and 'minx' or do you wanna knock it
> out?
>
> >A man who takes advantage of women and sleeps
> >around is no different in character from a woman who does the same.
>
> I agree.
Thought you might.
> Funny there's no male-specific name for it though, innit?
Yeah, well consider that a promiscous man might sleep with a few
dozen women, (unless his name is Ron Jeremy), whereas a promiscous
women might sleep with a couple hundred men. Hardly seems worthy
of name when one looks at it that way. Maybe if we could all just
try a little harder...
Cheers,
Martin
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) laughed madly,
then wrote:
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> please indicate silly answers by [FLUFF] in the header; I think the other readers are expecting serious responses. BB, Gale
>
Where did you come from?
I didn't notice you down there before.
Hi.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"The difference between Heaven and Hell is which end of the pitchfork
you're on!"
-- Popess Lilith von Fraumench
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
This thread is crossposted to two moderated newsgroups, as an examination of the "Newsgroups" line will disclose. -Baird
Martin Swain
"Asiya" <asiya_...@SATNAMatt.net> wrote in message
news:LIVU8.76396$UT.52...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Martin Swain" <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:200dc075.02070...@posting.google.com...
> > joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) wrote in message
> news:<3d2375cf...@news.cis.dfn.de>...
> >
> > > Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that
> a
> > > sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
> > >
> > > 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE;
> also :
> > > a promiscuous or immoral woman
> > > 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
> > > 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
> >
> > aggressive or even necesarily someone who enjoys sex. They are
> > predatory types who are using other people to pursue thier own
> > agendas.
>
> Whores are predators? Oh those poor, victimized men.
Mislead for sure. Victimised by thier own stupidity perhaps.
>
> > Men generally invest a *lot*
> > more emotionally in sex than women do.
>
> I think some people invest a lot more emotionally in sex than other
> people. Men vs. women doesn't factor into it.
See my reply to Joe. You might want to have a look at a book called
'Sexual Persona' by Camille Paglia. It is (amongst other things) quite a
good
delineation of men vs. women.
>
> > A hooker is just a woman who
> > takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
>
> A john is just a man who takes advantage of the fact that there's an
> easily obtainable woman who will help him cum.
>
> Ya get it? It's an exchange. Sex for money.
>
> Asiya
>
No, sorry. It just aint like that. You're supposed to be enlightened hey?
I suppose you think they're victims. Poor crack smoking
heroin booting partying victims, god forbid they should ever have to work
for a nickel. Think about it. Sex is nothing without emotional content. It
would be, i dunno, mechanical. Who would pay for that?
N
Martin Swain
> My question was to split a different hair; to understand what motivates
> the archetypal projections of idealized male lovers as monogamous, while
> idealized female lovers as non-monogamous. But in understanding this,
> it's not my intent to pass judgement on either mode of behavior--only to
> understand why those who advocate these particular archetypal
> definitions appear to be passing differing judgement on men then on
> women.
IMO: A lower-level archtype. Man as provider, woman as nurturer. To be a
good provider, a man must commit *all* his resources to one woman,
(includes her children by default) i.e., he must be monogamous. To be a
good nurturer though, i mean honestly good at it, a woman has to care about
people in general, i.e. she must be promiscous.
Cheers,
N
Dan Holzman
Martin Swain <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > A hooker is just a woman who
>> > takes advantage of that fact to get to a man's cash.
>>
>> Supply and demand: if someone wants it, someone will probably sell it.
>> So long as both parties consent to the behaviour, no harm, no foul.
>
>And why do they want it?
One would think it obvious, but...
The client wants sex because sex feels good.
The hooker wants cash because you can buy stuff with it.
>> You seem to have misplaced the fact that the "lover" archetype under
>> discussion is monogamous.
>
>Yeah right. It's just the old boys club covering up for the scallywag.
So, when Moore and Gilette were discussing the lover Archetype they
were promoting as being monogamous, they meant that the Archetype
isn't monogamous?
>> There exist humans that are neither accurately described by "monogamous"
>> nor "slut"; sexual activity, indeed sexual promiscuity, is by no means
>> an indication that anyone is being "taken advantage of".
>
>In fact it generally does work out that way. The only exception I can
>think of being 'rough trade'. Like it or not, feelings are a part of sex.
I'm unsure how this is sequitor to the statement to which it responds.
>All I am saying is that promiscous behaviour results in hurt feelings.
While it can, this is not necessarily the case in all instances.
>Think about going into a new relationship, where expectations play
>a very large role, indeed where roles play a large role. Perhaps
>you are a 'happy swinger', that is indeed a role one can play, but
>it is one I have never seen carried out successfully.
You must not get out much. It's been carried out successfully, and
not merely as a role being played.
>Then why are divorce rates so high? I am not talking about anything specific
>here, just how people treat one another.
I can't help but notice that promiscuity wasn't a factor in my
divorce. Sometimes divorce is just about the two people getting
divorced.
Dan Holzman
mist <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I would direct your attention to _Whores and other Feminists_, edited
>>by Jill Nagle -- for starters..
>>
>Let me guess... another "reclaiming".
>I wonder why the word "Whore" was chosen to go on the front cover??
>
>shock value?
>challenge?
>"dirty" "little" sexual hooks?
>
>I would hold the title itself as support for my argument.
You would do better to read the book.
Dan Holzman
mist <mist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I would direct your attention to _Whores and other Feminists_, edited
>>by Jill Nagle -- for starters..
>>
>Let me guess... another "reclaiming".
>I wonder why the word "Whore" was chosen to go on the front cover??
>
>shock value?
>challenge?
>"dirty" "little" sexual hooks?
>
>I would hold the title itself as support for my argument.
You would do better to read the book.
Elaine Stutt
> Voxwoman <voxw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Please do some research. There is still forced prostitution in many
>> parts of the world, and women don't have it so good everywhere.
> Please hit the 'back' button and re-read my post. I did not suggest that
> women throughout the world had it good, nor that forced prostitution did
> not exist. Hell, even though white slavery was overblown significantly
> in the 1800's, white slavery *did* exist--and in fact, still exists,
> even today. (In fact, I alluded to the fact that forced prostitution of
> American Indians in the west was one major reason why international
> shipping of white women to be enslaved as prostitutes did not exist in
> large numbers. It is this forced prostitution which was a major source
> of syphallis in the California Indian population which lead to mass die
> offs in the 1850's.)
Actually, you didn't make that clear, the problem with alluding. I know
from reading you over time that you are Indian so I didn't get the
impression that a healthy tribal society was offering their women freely
to strangers. No, I didn't go back and check but in my memory's reading
I 'd say the conclusion jumped to wasn't as off base as your reaction
would imply.
Just butting in, good thread. S.r.p had been a little quiet.
William Woody
Erp?
I'm not sure what I think of this. I mean, if the man is a provider,
he's providing to more than just one person, but to the family. And if
the woman is being a nurturer, she's nurturing, again, primarly the
family.
So I'm not sure if I see by extension the notion that a man being a
provider and a woman being a nurturer must necessarly extend to the man
being monogamous and the woman promiscuous. I just don't see the
connection.
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>Keep in mind that throughout most of the history of man, prostitution
>was not considered a terrible thing, nor was it viewed with derision. As
>I recall, even the Roman Imperial wives occassionally picked up some
>spare change by working in the brothels. Further, there were the "sacred
>prostitutes" of Greece, women who were employed by temples as
>prostitutes to the congregation.
As I understand it, the social norm in Greece was that middle-class
women should remain virgins until getting married. Prostitution was
essentially encouraged for the same reason that single men were
encouraged to have same-sex relations: so that middle-class women
could remain virgins. (I'm not really disagreeing with you here; just
adding this to provide some context.)
>It was only in the last hundred and a half years that
>prostitution got a bad name.
Bear in mind that prostitution had a bad name at the time the Bible
was written. When Jesus hugged prostitutes, he was breaking a
religious taboo against doing so on the basis that prostitutes were
unclean and you weren't supposed to touch them. There are other
instances of this mentality in various other cultures too. In fact,
stratification and poverty are sometimes used to force (some) poor
women into prostitution, so they are forced into it yet ostracised for
it at the same time. This is one of the (many) reasons that I advocate
welfare capitalism and the eradication of poverty, incidentally.
>In fact, in many parts of the west, prostitution was first outlawed in
>order to curb what was popularly called in the press "white slavery."
It's rather unfortunate that (a) forced prostitution against non-white
ethnic groups wasn't taken equally seriously; and (b) that the
*victims* of forced prostitution were being blamed for it. In any
case, if you really want to reduce the prevalence of prostitution,
then you need to reduce poverty and to address the gender issues
behind why there's been such a demand for it in various societies.
Calling it "immoral" and stigmatising it just means that people who
want to do it will do so privately -- which makes things even worse.
I'm not judging any individual who freely chooses to be involved in
prostitution. However, I do believe that it's better for society if
this practice is reduced in prevalence. I can't see how anyone could
compromise their dignity by paying someone for sex, rather than having
a mutualistic relationship based on pleasuring each other equally. I
can see how someone would want to be a prostitute if they needed the
money, but other than that I can't see it being desirable.
My personal feeling is that hardly anyone would want to be a
prostitute if they weren't trapped into it through poverty. However,
since I don't have any hard evidence for this claim, the best way to
approach it would be to make it legal but remove poverty, and then
those individuals who freely chose to be prostitutes could do so;
whereas those who didn't want to be prostitutes, wouldn't have to.
>Nevermind that most prostitutes working in brothels were
>runaways, not kidnap victims,
They're still not consenting freely if they are dependent upon
prostitution for survival (not that you disagreed with this).
>and nevermind the fact that there were plenty of
>American Indians in the west who could be pressed into prostitution
>without having to create an entire international infrastructure for
>transporting kidnapped white women.
Agreed.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>To be a good provider, a man must commit *all* his
>resources to one woman, (includes her children by
>default) i.e., he must be monogamous.
I don't see the connection. You can be polyamorous but commit all your
resources to your primary partner. Also, both the man and the woman
can participate in paid employment, and take equal responsibility for
childcare and housework.
>To be a good nurturer though, i mean honestly
>good at it, a woman has to care about people
>in general, i.e. she must be promiscous.
Again, I don't see the connection. I care about lots of people that I
have no sexual involvement with, and so do plenty of other men and
women. Why should sexual involvement be necessary for either a woman
or a man to care about someone? That doesn't make any sense. Also,
note that sex is never a duty that one person owes to another; it
should always involve willingness by both partners.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
Nicoll)) wrote:
>I've had people refuse to acknowledge or admit my existence because I
>was both in an open relationship and not generically available; their
>paradigm wouldn't allow the existence of a woman who neither fit their
>"maiden" nor their "whore" slots.
Sorry to hear that you've been treated that way. It's scary that many
people have such a poor grasp of the concept of individuals having
consent rights, and being free to say either "yes" or "no" to whoever
they like.
>I've found the conceptualization actively annoying and potentially
>extremely dangerous at times, and the number of people who think that
>the correct way to demonstrate that they are free of the socialisation
>towards one extreme is by going to the other extreme irritating.
Excellent point - it's a very misleading false dichotomy. It's a bit
like suggesting that all premarital sex must be meaningless. The
historical overextension of the term "whore" to include sexually
active women who aren't prostitutes also reflects a false dichotomy,
in that women were expected to be virginal or close to it in order to
avoid being tarred with that label.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Matthew Vincent
>I define whore as someone who does ANY activity SOLELY because
>they will get paid to do it. Everyone is a whore.
Actually, since becoming an adult (i.e. since having to pay tax
whenever I work for money), I can say that I have *never* worked
solely for financial reasons. I've always had non-financial reasons
for doing the work concerned, and usually they are the main reasons
and the financial reasons are only secondary.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Voxwoman
William Woody wrote:
OK. <raising arm with hand limply extended palm down in the primate
gesture of submission (your response is to tap the extended hand with
your own, if you didn't know already)>
It was just that your examples were from the over 100 years ago, and the
frightening web documentary was filmed perhaps last year. I don't
remember enough of the details but it had to do with luring young women
into financially runious contracts with people who are basically pimps
and they spend years on their backs trying to get out of these horrid
situations. The women come from Eastern Europe and also Nepal (among
other places). It's a lot easier to talk about things in an abstract way
when everyone involved has died of old age, rather than something going
on right now someplace in the world.
>
Voxwoman
Martin Swain wrote:
<snip>
>
> Then why is it that women don't pay for sex?
That hasn't been my experience. We may not leave cash on the nightstand,
but I think being saddled with a child for 20 years is certainly paying
out something for sex. (not to mention the terrible choices I made with
sex partners in my jaded youth. To the last man of them, they were all
broke, and generally needed a car)
>
>
> Yeah, well consider that a promiscous man might sleep with a few
> dozen women, (unless his name is Ron Jeremy), whereas a promiscous
> women might sleep with a couple hundred men. Hardly seems worthy
> of name when one looks at it that way. Maybe if we could all just
> try a little harder...
or take up the Bass or Guitar. That will add a zero or two to the
cumulative number of lovers for you. And you'll teach all those women
NOT to date musicians anymore <g>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
>
Matthew Vincent
>>It just shows you how inherent in our mindset it is, that sex for
>>money or personal gain is considered immoral.
>
>When the full Capitalist system wins out there will be no morality
>associated with anything that can be bought and sold.
How are you defining "capitalism", then? Do you not agree that you can
have capitalism without having an unrestricted "free market"? Do you
seriously think that the following items should be, or even will be,
available for money with no moral boundaries..?
Anthrax
Blood
Hard drugs
Human beings (e.g. slavery)
Prizes and awards (e.g. Nobel Prize)
Forced prostitution (e.g. child prostitutes) and forced marriages
Criminal justice (e.g. bribing one's way out of a sentence)
Political office (we're halfway there with Bush and the oil companies)
Freedom of religion/press/speech/association
Desperate exchanges (i.e. people in poverty, mainly in third-world
countries, selling body parts or organs)
Basic welfare services (e.g. schooling, emergency services)
>OTOH, does selling a desirable renewable resource rather than
>giving it away make one a better person, or a worse?
Worse, if we're talking about a "resource" in the usual sense of the
word, like water or plants. However, I don't think the idea that sex
is a "resource" that women give to men is very helpful. Ideally, it
should be something that both partners enjoy equally; or else it's not
worth doing at all.
Blessed be,
Matthew
Dirk Bruere
> >> Even just by using the word 'whore' we've reinforced the idea that a
> >> sexually aggressive woman is basically negative.
> >>
> >> 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : PROSTITUTE; also :
> >> a promiscuous or immoral woman
> >> 2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
> >> 3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
> >>
> >> It just shows you how inherent in our mindset it is, that sex for
> >> money or personal gain is considered immoral.
> >
> >When the full Capitalist system wins out there will be no morality
> >associated with anything that can be bought and sold.
> >
> >OTOH, does selling a desirable renewable resource rather than giving it
away
> >make one a better person, or a worse?
> >
>
> :)
> Do you think that the demand for payment for any action or thought is
> a desirable consequence?
In general, no.
It is only in the case where others will materially profit by what one might
otherwise give away.
> I find it amusing that some users of low magics would consider the
> coin bowl with water as a money attractant, yet expect the coming age
> of Aquarius to more free-love and giving.
I have no aversion to money. I just do not believe that Human interactions
should all have a monetary value placed upon them. Especially whyen it is
not necessary.
> I know my countries is becoming more pay-for-service, user-pays and
> nothing-for-nothing in both business and relationships.
> I think its a bad sad thing, but the rest seem to like it.
The world of the rich and the world of the poor are very different places.
Having been poor, I prefer the world of the rich.
Dirk
Dirk Bruere
"Matthew Vincent" <mb...@NOSPAM.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:3d25950e...@news.canterbury.ac.nz...
> On 4 Jul 2002 16:05:01 GMT, "Dirk Bruere" <art...@kbnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>It just shows you how inherent in our mindset it is, that sex for
> >>money or personal gain is considered immoral.
> >
> >When the full Capitalist system wins out there will be no morality
> >associated with anything that can be bought and sold.
>
> How are you defining "capitalism", then? Do you not agree that you can
> have capitalism without having an unrestricted "free market"? Do you
> seriously think that the following items should be, or even will be,
> available for money with no moral boundaries..?
>
> Anthrax
> Blood
> Hard drugs
> Human beings (e.g. slavery)
> Prizes and awards (e.g. Nobel Prize)
> Forced prostitution (e.g. child prostitutes) and forced marriages
> Criminal justice (e.g. bribing one's way out of a sentence)
> Political office (we're halfway there with Bush and the oil companies)
> Freedom of religion/press/speech/association
> Desperate exchanges (i.e. people in poverty, mainly in third-world
> countries, selling body parts or organs)
> Basic welfare services (e.g. schooling, emergency services)
All of these are available if one has money and is willing to pay the asking
price.
As for morality, that's a very individual thing.
For example, I would have no problem at all if all hard drugs were
decriminalised. Caveat emptor.
> >OTOH, does selling a desirable renewable resource rather than
> >giving it away make one a better person, or a worse?
> Worse, if we're talking about a "resource" in the usual sense of the
> word, like water or plants. However, I don't think the idea that sex
> is a "resource" that women give to men is very helpful. Ideally, it
> should be something that both partners enjoy equally; or else it's not
> worth doing at all.
A rather limited viewpoint, esp where prostitution is concerned.
Dirk
-ZZ
> > ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> > please indicate silly answers by [FLUFF] in the header; I think
> > the other readers are expecting serious responses. BB, Gale
> >
>
> Where did you come from?
>
> I didn't notice you down there before.
>
> Hi.
Must be the I.P.U. finally stepped in.
And you're the boy who drew It out, Joe.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
- ZZ
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
I assume you and Joe are posting from alt.magick; the thread is cross-posted to arwm & srp, so all posts go through the approval queue of one group or the other. -- BB, Gale
Dan Holzman
Matthew Vincent <mb...@NOSPAM.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>
>Bear in mind that prostitution had a bad name at the time the Bible
>was written. When Jesus hugged prostitutes, he was breaking a
>religious taboo against doing so on the basis that prostitutes were
>unclean and you weren't supposed to touch them.
Bear in mind that there are prostitutes and there are prostitutes. Even
today, a streetwalker has a different status in society than does
a call girl, party girl, or kept woman.
Jewish prohibitions against touching prostitutes are much like Jewish
prohibitions against eating unkosher food in origin: avoiding even
the appearance of participating in a pagan rite. Since someone might
construe a Jew touching a prostitute as engaging in sacred rites with
a temple prostitute, it's forbidden.
>I'm not judging any individual who freely chooses to be involved in
>prostitution. However, I do believe that it's better for society if
>this practice is reduced in prevalence. I can't see how anyone could
>compromise their dignity by paying someone for sex, rather than having
>a mutualistic relationship based on pleasuring each other equally. I
>can see how someone would want to be a prostitute if they needed the
>money, but other than that I can't see it being desirable.
Of course, I can think of plenty of jobs that people only do because
they need the money.
Dan Holzman
This is packed with absurdities.
To be a good provider, a man must commit enough of his resources to
one woman to provide well for her. It is only if those resources are
limited to the amount it takes to provide well for one woman (and
children) that this would require being limited to one.
To truely care about people in general in no way requires sexual
promiscuity. "Caring about" is not the same thing as "having sex with."
And just how sexist is this "man as provider-women as nurterer" idea,
anyway?
Feh.
Dan Holzman
Martin Swain <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>No. We are talking archetypes right? Your archetypical 'John' harbours
>the secret hope that 'Jenny' will fall in love with him, and beg him to
>whisk her away from her tawdry life in the streets.
Some may. This is hardly universal.
>> That hasn't been my impression.
>
>Then why is it that women don't pay for sex?
What makes you think they do not? That they do so in smaller
proportion to men has a whole lot to do with who has the money to
spend on sex.
>Ever been married? Marriage kills humor dead.
I hadn't noticed.
>Yeah, well consider that a promiscous man might sleep with a few
>dozen women, (unless his name is Ron Jeremy), whereas a promiscous
>women might sleep with a couple hundred men.
Where are you coming up with this?
Dan Holzman
Martin Swain <martin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>See my reply to Joe. You might want to have a look at a book called
>'Sexual Persona' by Camille Paglia. It is (amongst other things) quite a
>good delineation of men vs. women.
You misspelled "schizophrenic ramblings of an academic desperate to
secure her position through iconoclasism." Hope this helps.
>> Ya get it? It's an exchange. Sex for money.
>
>No, sorry. It just aint like that.
YOur basis for saying this is...?
>You're supposed to be enlightened hey?
"Enlightened" is not a synonym for "agrees with Martin Swain."
>I suppose you think they're victims. Poor crack smoking
>heroin booting partying victims, god forbid they should ever have to work
>for a nickel. Think about it.
>Sex is nothing without emotional content. It would be, i dunno, mechanical.
The key words in the above is "i dunno."
>Who would pay for that?
Johns.
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
Careful, Dan -- this thread is running through arwm with its "no flame" charter; a couple of your comments are skirting that provision. -- BB, Gale
William Woody
> >> That hasn't been my impression.
> >
> >Then why is it that women don't pay for sex?
>
> What makes you think they do not? That they do so in smaller
> proportion to men has a whole lot to do with who has the money to
> spend on sex.
And with the relative availability of sexual partners, the relative
unwillingness of women to overcome that social stigma, and the relative
cluelessness that many men have over what women are looking for in an
idealized sexual partner.
But there are men who do get paid a lot of money being prostitutes to
women.
William Woody
> And just how sexist is this "man as provider-women as nurterer" idea,
> anyway?
*shrug* It's the same sexism which causes most women to prevail over
men in child custody battles.
Bah.
William Woody
> "Matthew Vincent" <mb...@NOSPAM.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
> > Worse, if we're talking about a "resource" in the usual sense of the
> > word, like water or plants. However, I don't think the idea that sex
> > is a "resource" that women give to men is very helpful. Ideally, it
> > should be something that both partners enjoy equally; or else it's not
> > worth doing at all.
>
> A rather limited viewpoint, esp where prostitution is concerned.
Well, you could take the other viewpoint (which I do) that everything in
the world is a resource, is to one degree or another desirable, and
creates it's own natural economy by which people are willing to pay for
that resource. However, good moral, ethical, or social sense indicates
that some "economies" are not desirable to promote and are worth
limiting access to that resource or making bidding on that resource
nearly meaningless, while others are worth artificially balancing in
order to assure easier access.
That is, everything naturally becomes something that people are willing
to trade for money, but social dictates prevent us from allowing truely
'free' markets. Hense we have laws, which either flatten certain markets
to allow people equal opportunity, or which make things prohibitively
expensive so people aren't likely to do that thing.
In this world view (one I happen to have), most questions then boil down
to how we are willing to fiddle with the various markets, and what price
we as a society are willing to pay to alter those markets. (So, for
example, the issue of drugs boils down to how much are we willing to pay
to increase the street price of drugs, and how many people's lives are
we willing to spend fighting drug imports and productions verses how
many people's lives we'd be willing to spend losing them to drug
overdoses and accidents caused by intoxicated users. And how much *more*
are we willing to spend in that equation in the name of "morality".)
I strongly believe in capitalism. I do not believe in pure free markets.
William Woody
> OK. <raising arm with hand limply extended palm down in the primate
> gesture of submission (your response is to tap the extended hand with
> your own, if you didn't know already)>
<Tap.>
> It was just that your examples were from the over 100 years ago, and the
> frightening web documentary was filmed perhaps last year. I don't
> remember enough of the details but it had to do with luring young women
> into financially runious contracts with people who are basically pimps
> and they spend years on their backs trying to get out of these horrid
> situations. The women come from Eastern Europe and also Nepal (among
> other places). It's a lot easier to talk about things in an abstract way
> when everyone involved has died of old age, rather than something going
> on right now someplace in the world.
In fact, a few years ago there was a bust right here in downtown Los
Angeles where a bunch of women were rescued from such pimps who were
keeping them effectively enslaved through ruinous contracts exactly as
you described. Most of them were (as I recall) from Russia.
The difference from the stories a hundred and a half years ago that were
used to outlaw prostitution in the first place was that these Russian
women were tricked into coming to the United States, and then trapped
into slavery, rather than kidnapped off the streets of Europe and
shipped in the bottom holds of shipping liners. (It was the possibility
that your wife, your daughter, or your niece would just disappear in the
middle of the night and reappear a month later in a brothel half ways
around the world against their will that had gripped the popular
imagination.)
Voxwoman
Matthew Vincent wrote:
Let me put it another way.... if all your "material needs" were being
taken care of (say you won the lottery or whatever), would you still be
going to your "day job"? If the answer is "no", then you are whoring
yourself. If the answer is "yes" then you are a lucky so-and-so <g>!
-Wendy of NJ
> Blessed be,
> Matthew
>
>
-ZZ
> > Must be the I.P.U. finally stepped in.
> >
> > And you're the boy who drew It out, Joe.
> >
> > I hope you're proud of yourself.
>
> ======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> I assume you and Joe are posting from alt.magick; the
> thread is cross-posted to arwm & srp, so all posts go
> through the approval queue of one group or the other. -- BB, Gale
Sure. I have no problem with that.
That said, when I'm reading an un-moderated newsgroup and I see a
moderator's comment, I do wonder what's going on. The alt.magick diet
FAQ tells us that the moderator is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I
could be wrong, but I'm guessing you ain't got no horn there.
Have you considered adding ARWM or SRP (whichever is relevent for you)
to the front of your "MODERATOR'S COMMENT"?
Please note, I'm not looking to start a fight, merely suggesting it
might clear up confusion when there are cross-postings. Which does
happen from time to time on Usenet.
- ZZ
======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
An article cross posted to moderated newsgroups is sent first to the first moderated group listed, so those moderators get first crack at it. -Baird
William Woody
> William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >It was only in the last hundred and a half years that
> >prostitution got a bad name.
>
> Bear in mind that prostitution had a bad name at the time the Bible
> was written. When Jesus hugged prostitutes, he was breaking a
> religious taboo against doing so on the basis that prostitutes were
> unclean and you weren't supposed to touch them. There are other
> instances of this mentality in various other cultures too. In fact,
> stratification and poverty are sometimes used to force (some) poor
> women into prostitution, so they are forced into it yet ostracised for
> it at the same time. ...
My understanding was that Jesus interacting with prostitutes was taboo
not just because he was interacting with them, but because he was
holding them in higher esteme than the kings he was also interacting
with.
Keep in mind biblical culture was heavily stratified into several social
classes. Not only did each social class have it's own place, but each
was to be treated according to certain protocols--protocols that Jesus
completely stomped over, and which Paul continued to stomp over later in
the history of Christianity. I think it's safe to say it is this disdane
for social stratification which inspired the Freemasons and the French
Revolutionist, and it was that attitude of equality which eventually
lead to the founding fathers creating the United States on the
underlying assumption of equality--that is, freedom from well-defined
social classes.
> ... This is one of the (many) reasons that I advocate
> welfare capitalism and the eradication of poverty, incidentally.
A logical extension of the notion of a society free from social classes.
(I'm not refering to the social stratification that exists in the United
States today, only to the fact that we do not have laws and
religiously-mandated social behavior revolving around separate
well-defined social classes in the United States. Meaning a cabbie isn't
going to be put to death for chatting with a CEO.)
> >In fact, in many parts of the west, prostitution was first outlawed in
> >order to curb what was popularly called in the press "white slavery."
>
> It's rather unfortunate that (a) forced prostitution against non-white
> ethnic groups wasn't taken equally seriously; ...
Welcome to the racist 1800's... :-)
> ... and (b) that the
> *victims* of forced prostitution were being blamed for it. In any
> case, if you really want to reduce the prevalence of prostitution,
> then you need to reduce poverty and to address the gender issues
> behind why there's been such a demand for it in various societies.
> Calling it "immoral" and stigmatising it just means that people who
> want to do it will do so privately -- which makes things even worse.
Well, yeah. Notice how we live in a society today where damned near
every pleasure, including many illegal pleasures, tend to be limited to
the rich and wealthy.
Notice how we stigmatized "crack", which is simply crystalized cocaine,
by implying that "crack" is the killer drug of the century, but fueled
underneath by limiting "crack" as an 'urban' drug (translation: it's a
'black' drug), while cocaine--which can similarly be heated (freebased)
and abused in <<exactly>> the same way as crack--was handled as a
"problamatic" drug. (Translation: rich whites simply went to Betty Ford.)
Notice how we stigmatize prostitution: "crack whores", "filthy
drug-addicted women" and the like--yet, with the wealthy, if you are
willing to pay for it, clean, polite and nice call girls are readily
available--and are almost accepted by many as a sort of fringe benefit
of wealth. (We almost dismiss promiscuous behavior in wealthy and
powerful men by associating that sort of beahvior with the trappings of
wealth. So much so that when a young woman marries a much older man, we
naturally assume the man is a millionare.)
Notice how we stigmatize pornography--yet encourage "art" which deplicts
nearly the same thing, albeit in a different (and more expensive)
medium. "Pornography" is for trash, but even nude photographs of pretty
women in suggestive poses have passed for "art", not "pornography"--as
long as the photographs are not common--that is, they deplict poses that
are not normally shown in "Hustler" magazine, and as long as the
photograph is relatively expensive and/or an "exclusive".
> I'm not judging any individual who freely chooses to be involved in
> prostitution. However, I do believe that it's better for society if
> this practice is reduced in prevalence. I can't see how anyone could
> compromise their dignity by paying someone for sex, rather than having
> a mutualistic relationship based on pleasuring each other equally. I
> can see how someone would want to be a prostitute if they needed the
> money, but other than that I can't see it being desirable.
Well, and if the prostitutes are clean, nice, expensive and descrete, a
Heidi Fleiss can do quite well brokering prostitutes to the same
powerful people who are trying to stamp out street hookers.
> My personal feeling is that hardly anyone would want to be a
> prostitute if they weren't trapped into it through poverty. ...
I've seen counterexamples. In fact, I wonder if one of the reasons why
women don't want to become prostitutes is because for the most part it
has been stigmatized to the point where only poor women would even
consider it as a viable option.
> ... However,
> since I don't have any hard evidence for this claim, the best way to
> approach it would be to make it legal but remove poverty, ...
My only problem with this approach is that I don't believe we will ever
be able to remove "poverty"--which seems to be as much a condition of
relative wealth and pride than it is a condition of being so poor as not
to be able to survive.
Meaning that, at least in the United States, most poor people have a
roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, food in their stomaches,
and access to some form of entertainment, such as television or even the
occassional movie. In many parts of the world, some of these would be
considered luxuries, not essentials.
I'm not suggesting poor people have it good--far from it. What I'm
suggesting is that even if we could create a welfare state which
elevated the relative wealth of poor people, unless we elevated it to
the point where everyone had exactly the same access to resources (and,
by the way, eliminate any external incentives for people to work), there
will always be poor people. (Or rather, unless we flatten out access to
resources, there will always be people who have less than the average,
and people who have much less than the average.)
And so long as we stigmatize that by having a culture where acquisition
of material wealth is considered a good thing, we will have poverty.
The problem, of course, is that if we take away the incentives to create
wealth, people will by and large stop creating wealth--and we'll wind up
sinking back into the stone age...
Shez
William Woody <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> writes
>In article <jS4V8.43$st.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "William Woody" <wo...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>> news:woody-B5D3E2....@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > Well, the ones I've seen who are using this term are also trying to
>> > "reclaim" the term by stripping away it's negative connotations.
>> >
>> > Keep in mind that throughout most of the history of man, prostitution
>> > was not considered a terrible thing, nor was it viewed with derision. As
>> > I recall, even the Roman Imperial wives occassionally picked up some
>> > spare change by working in the brothels. Further, there were the "sacred
>> > prostitutes" of Greece, women who were employed by temples as
>> > prostitutes to the congregation.
>>
>> later, from Old English and possibly Gothic, sometime around the 11th
>> Century. It had no reverent connotation among those people.
>
>Even so, prostitution did not obtain it's negative stigma until much
>later than the 11th century.
>
>
The original Anglo Saxon for harlot was hoar, its not a long step from
their to whore,
lover is haemedwif which is neutral meaning man or woman, you can see
however that the wife, is already starting to stand out.
Female usage would be lufester
Male usage would be freond, again you can see the natural change in the
word that will eventually become platonic, and friend,
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
Shez
>>
Snip
>> I just don't give up.
>
>Ever been married? Marriage kills humor dead.
I have been married over forty years Martin, and the laughter is still
part of our marriage, possibly the most important part, if you can laugh
together you can live together. , My hubby still makes me laugh, and I
him.
Making sure that the person your thinking of marrying has a sense of
humour and is not just laughing politely at your bad jokes, is very
important, Marriage doesn't kill humour, people do that,
I am amazed at some of the so called jokes I hear especially from young
men, they are nearly always barbed, sarcastic or insulting, that isn't
humour,
Humour is finding laughter in your life, sharing the good and bad, and
being able to laugh about it
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
Shez
writes>news:3d24ffa8....@news.paradise.net.nz...
>> On 4 Jul 2002 14:20:08 GMT, "Asiya" <asiya_...@SATNAMatt.net>
>> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> There are several reasons why each type hunts...
>> ....mist
>> --
>
>Well put. In the case of female prostitutes money seems to be the obvious
>reason, followed by the power of and the potential power over, man-juice.
>
> Have you read 'Siddhartha' by Herman Hesse?
>
>Its rather curious that when signifigant gains are about to be made
>magickally or spiritually a woman suddenly enters the picture. Which brings
>us to the ultimate reason for the hunt: sex as the seductive deterent from
>spirit and womans' often times unconscious advocation of matter supremacy.
>The War in Heaven? Yeah.
>
>There's a 42 in there somewhere, isn't there? Dot, Dot, Dot. * barf*
>
>> Due to circumstances beyond my control I find
>> I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.
>> ( from WILLIAM HENLEY & other sources)
>>
>
>
Actually I would say it was the other way round, just when your getting
somewhere spiritually or magically along comes a man... could it be
that this is a natural thing that it happens to both sexes, and that
women are no more materially inclined than men. And just as spiritual,
after all women are the sex who give birth to the next generation that
tends to make you aware of nature and of spirituality.
I know a lot of women who given the choice would sooner pick a
dishwashing machine, or a clothes washing machine to a Porch.... perhaps
they realise that the kitchen machines give them more time to enjoy
their lives, while the porch is only for status.
Given the choice which would most men choose, the Porch of course it
gives status and a supposed extension of their penis, :)
Most women know the bigger the car the smaller the man in more ways than
one.
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> On 5 Jul 2002 06:00:09 GMT, martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain)
> wrote:
>
> >To be a good provider, a man must commit *all* his
> >resources to one woman, (includes her children by
> >default) i.e., he must be monogamous.
>
> I don't see the connection. You can be polyamorous but commit all your
> resources to your primary partner.
Or have more than one primary partner.
> Also, both the man and the woman
> can participate in paid employment, and take equal responsibility for
> childcare and housework.
Or some larger group of people can organize a tribe, whether polyamorous
or not, and have some subset of them doing the 'domestic' role and
others performing the 'employment' role.
- Darkhawk, IVIC
--
Heather Anne Nicoll - Darkhawk - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
And if love remains, though everything is lost
We will pay the price, but we will not count the cost.
- "Bravado", Rush
Voxwoman
Shez wrote:
or the non-committal term most bass player use during post-coital pillow talk:
"we're just friends" <G>
-Wendy of NJ
Tom
> In article <jS4V8.43$st.1...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Sacred temple prostitutes weren't called "whores", though. That term
came
> > later, from Old English and possibly Gothic, sometime around the 11th
> > Century. It had no reverent connotation among those people.
>
> Even so, prostitution did not obtain it's negative stigma until much
> later than the 11th century.
Where did you get this information?
Grrr
, the Porch of course it
>gives status and a supposed extension of their penis, :)
Now that makes more sense.
by that, i now understand, you mean porsche
>Most women know the bigger the car the smaller the man in more ways than
>one.
The scared little boy hiding in a big ego.
icsel
that was Messalina who was married to the emporer Claudius. She is seen as
being quite bored with her husband and even tried to steal his throne with
one of her powerful lovers only to lose in her attempt. Her stint as a
prostitute was supposed to be motivated not by money but lust.
> > The list is split into 2 groups. The most obvious difference between
> > those groups is male vs female
> >
> > King Queen
> > Warrior Amazon
> > Magician Witch/Magician
> > Lover Whore
> >
> > Going down the list we see
> > Authority/power/control/ age?/treachery?
> > Physical prowess/endurance/perserverence/ honor?
> > Thought/intellect/esoteric knowledge/
> > Lover/desire/sexual desire.
> >
> > Why then does this require a negative term in female (x) desire slot.
>
> Well, the ones I've seen who are using this term are also trying to
> "reclaim" the term by stripping away it's negative connotations.
>
> Keep in mind that throughout most of the history of man, prostitution
> was not considered a terrible thing, nor was it viewed with derision. As
> I recall, even the Roman Imperial wives occassionally picked up some
> spare change by working in the brothels. Further, there were the "sacred
> prostitutes" of Greece, women who were employed by temples as
> prostitutes to the congregation.
>
>
> It was only in the last hundred and a half years that prostitution got a
> bad name. In fact, in many parts of the west, prostitution was first
> outlawed in order to curb what was popularly called in the press "white
> slavery." That is, rumors were started and picked up by the press,
> backed by a sensational case where it did in fact happen, and backed up
> by the "huge numbers" of women who were disappearing, that various
> world-wide rings existed to kidnap white women and carry them overseas
> to force them into slavery as prostitutes abroad.
>
> Today, the political cry is "for the Children." In the 1800's/early
> 1900's, the cry was "for the Women"--and "white slavery" played squarly
> into this political cry, by emphasizing the problem that innocent
> helpless white women were being kidnapped in order to fuel the overseas
> (in this case, frontier America)'s burgeoning prostitution needs. So,
> since it was prostitution that was presumably fueling the demand for
> kidnapped white women, the answer was to stigmatize prostitution and
> eventually outlaw it.
>
> Nevermind that most prostitutes working in brothels were runaways, not
> kidnap victims, and nevermind the fact that there were plenty of
> American Indians in the west who could be pressed into prostitution
> without having to create an entire international infrastructure for
> transporting kidnapped white women. "White slavery" was repeated in the
> press often enough that it became political truth, and prostitution was
> outlawed throughout the west.
>
>
> Archetypes are not about what we as a society today presume is "good" or
> "bad"; they supposedly relate to modes of existance which predate
> society or even conscious thought. And in that relm, we have thousands
> of years of history where "whore" was not some skanky drug-addicted
> prostitute hiding from the police and turning tricks in despiration to
> fuel her need for drug money.
icsel
years ago. In Roman times, a woman's sexuality was seen as a threat
particularly in one of the ritual festivals that didn't include men. A
woman's sexuality was one of her tools of power. Another would have been a
skill as a poisoner. These tools can be used to save family who may be in
trouble, or advance the career of the husband or other male family member.
The prostitutes of Babylon were sacred, and they praticed as priestesses in
temples. Still, people haven't gotten over it. Sheesh! The Israelites didn't
like it, or were jealous, hence all the 'whore of babylon' talk.
> This has been bugging me for several years now, and I figured I'd throw
> this out to the group for reaction.
>
>
> A long time ago I came across the masculine architypes of the "King",
> "Warrior", "Magician", and "Lover", first outlined to me in Moore &
> Gillette's book by the same name. My understanding is that a comprable
> quatrane of feminine architypes also exist; the "Queen", "Amazon",
> "Witch/Magician", and "Whore".
>
> Now there is an obvious parallel between "King" and "Queen", "Warrior"
> and "Amazon", "Magician" and "Witch" in these architypal descriptions.
> And from a descriptive point of view these things at first glance seem
> to make sense, as well as the descriptions of the failures of disbalance
> in any one particular direction.
>
> But "Lover" verses "Whore"?
That seems arbitrary to me. You have your pan/priapus males and your
venus/ishtar females. These are fertility deities. We refer to Venus as a
love goddess, but really she was a lust goddess. Perhaps the "Lover"
describe the worshiper and the "whore" as the object of adoration. These fit
in with medieval poetry that describes love as a male emotion and woman as
objects, or works of art, or even as muses of inspiration.
>
> The Moore/Gillette description of the idealized male lover is the
> caring, considerate, polite yet understanding, knowledgable, and (most
> importantly) _monogamous_ male lover. Yet the feminine "equivalent" is
> the "whore", the "sacred prostitute", the "unbound lover" who is
> described using every image in the book which denies monogamy. She is
> powerful, sexy--and unbound, free, "liberated."
>
> Why such a significant difference?
Sounds to me like you are pointing to a system of slavery, which used to
barter women, but now also imposes itself on men.
>
> Is it a reaction to the dominate societal stereotype of the man who
> fears commitment and the woman who fears her own body? Is it an
> imposition on one gender of the other gender's idealized image, an
> idealized image fueled by the dominate societal stereotypes? Or is it
> deeper than that, a reaction to the hypothesis advanced first in the
> 60's that societal's ills were all caused by male sexuality run amok,
> and a desire to rebalance things by promoting women as "free sexual
> whores", while bringing male sexual energies under the banner of "caring
> monogamy?"
>
I think 60's folk overestimate their importance.
> It most certainly cannot be because monogamous males and female whores
> are "hardwired" into our brains as genetic archetypes, especially given
> the recent evidence that male mating strategies favor males as overt
> whores while female mating strategies favor females as more subversive
> in their cheating.
>
I think this goes to the reality that motherhood is more certain, while
paternity can be questioned. Heck, just watch your daytime talk shows, many
of the woman have the paternity of their children wrong. But you always know
who the mother is.
>
> Anyways, I'd love to get people's reactions of the stereotypes/
> architypes that are being advocated in the name of masculine and
> feminine development, especially to the sharp differences between the
> idealized male lover as a monogamous husband/father, while the idealized
> female lover is a whore/"sacred" prostitute, rather than a monogamous
> wife/mother--attributes which apparently are absorbed in the female
> architypal case into the Queen figure (which, by the way, weakens the
> Queen by deluting it with energies that for the male is squarly in the
> "Lover" square, rather than up in the King.)
>
Perhaps it is a juxtaposing of the the positions on the tree of life. First
we have Chokmah and Binah with Chokmah being slighly elevated in the
traditional Emporer/Empress role or Father/mother, then perhaps flipped
around with Netzach and Hod. Sort of your whore/femdom and your submissive
man/slave. Who knows?
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, Martin Swain <martin...@hotmail.com> laughed
madly, then wrote:
>
>"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3d23f15...@news.cis.dfn.de...
>> martin...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> misleading behavior ?
>>
>> Enjoying sex?
>
>No. We are talking archetypes right? Your archetypical 'John' harbours
>the secret hope that 'Jenny' will fall in love with him, and beg him to
>whisk
>her away from her tawdry life in the streets.
>
At this point I think we are mixing 'archetypes' and 'stereotypes'
freely.
My own foot into this conversation was to point out that our language
implies a very negative image of a sexaully aggressive woman, more so
than a sexually aggressive man.
When I say "aggressive" I just mean, active, actively looking for it.
Not necessarily aggressive/violent.
>Jenny knows this, and fosters it, at least for as long as it takes to
>separate
>John from his money. That is misleading.
>
Well under the name of archetype you've spelled out a fairly detailed
scenario.
So you think, in general, not to mention archetypally, prostitutes
manipulate a desire in the man for a long-term relationship, and the
prostitute is knowingly manipulating this, the prostitute is herself
emotionally neutral, and is not subject to any such desires?
And really, there hasn't been any break here between my originally
pointing out the definition of the word "whore" and where we are now.
So, you are saying this is characteristic of -any- woman who uses sex
for personal gain? Or, working with definition 3 in the original
post, you are saying this applies to any venal woman?
>> >at least as far as women vs. men goes. Men generally invest a *lot*
>> >more emotionally in sex than women do.
>>
>> !!!
>>
>> You reckon?
>>
>> Uhm.
>>
>> That hasn't been my impression.
>
>Then why is it that women don't pay for sex?
>
What does that have to do with how much people have invested
emotionally in sex?
>
>Yeah, well consider that a promiscous man might sleep with a few
>dozen women, (unless his name is Ron Jeremy), whereas a promiscous
>women might sleep with a couple hundred men. Hardly seems worthy
>of name when one looks at it that way. Maybe if we could all just
>try a little harder...
Where did you come up with that statistic?
If it's true, it would certainly explain why women don't have to pay
for sex, wouldn't it?
***
But I don't know if I agree with either of your ideas. In general, I
think it is easier for a woman to get sex if she wants it. I think if
a woman hits on a man she will be more likely to get to bed with him
than vice versa.
On the other hand, I don't think it tends to work out that way in
practice.
I think our society reinforces an ideal of women as passive and
resisting sex and of men aggressive and seeking sex, and I think that
social image impresses on people. I think the general dynamic is for
males to seek sex and for women to resist that. I don't think that's
the way is has to be, or that that is something pre-ordained or
natural, but that's what I see around me.
I have known many men who were able to sleep with large numbers of
women in my life. I guess you just haven't encountered guys like
this. I mean I've had several friends ... at least three I can think
of off the top of my head, who simply won't go into a nightclub or
whatever and walk out with a woman and go home with her. And three
.. that number, that's just guys I've been very close friends with.
I can think of at least a half dozen over the years that I know were
basically in the same kind of category. As to numbers of women ...
I've had a lot of close woman friends, probably as many as male
friends, maybe more. Probably the number of women I've known who
could do this is larger, women who could get sex whenever they wanted
and have a large range of choice in the matter. Probably at least
twice as many, maybe three times as many.
In general I think the reasons are not where you seem to be going with
this. In general, I think the largest reason is simply that women
take more care of their appearance, and have a better sense of
themselves. They know the magick of becoming something beautiful,
exotic and erotic when they want. By and large. I've known many
women who couldn't get laid to save their lives. Women who wanted
desperately to get laid ... women who were not unattractive, in my
opinion.
Really with men in general I've known I've found it to be a
combination of sexual apathy, really to me a -lack- of any real
emotional investment in sex, a lack of any real charisma, any real
sense of romance and eroticism and drama, and very often a painful
lack of self-confidence.
My feeling is this lack of both charisma and confidence, at least in
American guys, is something they feed off each other with, and feed to
each other. Guys will hunch together, watch baseball and drink beer
in their sweatshirts, and form these social groups where they ignore
and exclude women. I think it's basically just a way of avoiding
emotional risk.
I think women don't form that, women seem to me, in general, to be
more beautiful creatures. Obviously sex might be affecting my
opinion, but really I think it's true in general. Women are more
beautiful and exciting animals. In general. Not always, certainly.
I've never known a guy, however clueless, to wear a jump suit with
like a lime green top and lime green pants. For instance. For all I
admire women in general aesthetically, it boggles my mind sometimes
how utterly feckless some of them are in terms of fashion.
***
And I've certainly known guys that you could not only describe as
'whores' but as 'prostitutes' in a very objective sense. I've known
several guys that lived that way, full time, for all of their lives,
the time I knew them. Extremely charismatic guys who would literally
live their lives supported by women; women whose hearts they melted,
women they swept off their feet. I've known one who simply never had
any other source of income. I don't know what became of him. I can
think of a few who considered it perfectly normal to have women paying
their bills, giving them money whenever they wanted. Some male
dancers I've known ... in fact, quite a few of them, now that I think
about it.
These weren't guys I knew well myself, but in one circle of friends I
knew once, where the women were all these truly gorgeous women,
ironically, they were always smitten by these completely mercenary
guys, very very attractive guys, who would simply sponge off of them.
***
So, what's my point.
I don't think I have one.
Not exactly. You seem to present this narrow view of women, this very
precise scenario, and I find myself wondering where you've been
living. So does that mean the "lover/whore" archetype is wrong? Or
right? Or limited?
I think it just means it depends how far you are willing to go in your
life and the people you know.
But does that make the archetype true? Or not true? Or only true
within a certain range of people?
But let's say the stereotype -does- hold true, STATISTICALLY. Let's
say that, more often than not, there are these women using these fake
attitudes to get money for sex, as you say above, and that there are
these men with these "sweep them off their feet" fantasies.
So why are there other groups where these dancers (and football
players, I forgot them. Some of them are big time whores) where
exactly the opposite is true? Why does one person see one picture and
one person see another?
What is true? What is real?
My point, I guess, is; fuck archetypes.
The difference is, these are people who have had the guts to make
their lives what they want them to be. Archetypes, in the classically
Jungian sense, have nothing to do with whether some woman fucks for
money or not. Archetypes are superhuman, superpersonal mountains and
vallesy in the landscape of consciousness which shape all things
around them.
What we are really talking about here is not archetypes but
stereotypes.
A stereotype is what people fall into if they are too stupid and
unimaginative to create something themselves, to risk ridicule and
trauma in trying to become SOMETHING BETTER.
So I'm not going to stand here and say you're wrong about women and
men. In general. Statistically speaking.
I'm just going to say I don't CARE about anybody who can't make of
their lives something more interesting than what is simple and
typical.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Remember, the plural of 'moron' is 'focus group'.
-- James A. Wolf
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
Joe Cosby
computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, mb...@NOSPAM.student.canterbury.ac.nz (Matthew
Vincent) laughed madly, then wrote:
>On 5 Jul 2002 06:00:09 GMT, martin...@hotmail.com (Martin Swain)
>wrote:
>
>>To be a good provider, a man must commit *all* his
>>resources to one woman, (includes her children by
>>default) i.e., he must be monogamous.
>
>I don't see the connection. You can be polyamorous but commit all your
>resources to your primary partner. Also, both the man and the woman
>can participate in paid employment, and take equal responsibility for
>childcare and housework.
Not to mention you can use a rubber.
Nowadays, anyway.
***
Okay, maybe I'm kinda slipping the whole "archetype" idea here.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Oh you should never never doubt what nobody is sure of
- Willy Wonka
mist
wrote:
>shipped in the bottom holds of shipping liners. (It was the possibility
>that your wife, your daughter, or your niece would just disappear in the
>middle of the night and reappear a month later in a brothel half ways
>around the world against their will that had gripped the popular
>imagination.)
>
Unfortubately it didn't seem to "grip the imagination" strongly enough
for people to stop put cash into the pockets of pimps. After all,
extortion is just for fund raising but they don't give "free rides"
with it. The johns paying the cash make it profitable.
Rape was outlawed by a New Zealand gang when one of the leaders got to
the front of the queue and found his sister on the block. If he'd
given a shit about "wives, daughters and nieces" before then, he'd
have spared a few women much pain (and the occasional life)
....mist
--
mist
>joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) hunched over a computer, typing
>feverishly;
>thunder crashed, joec...@mindspring.com (Joe Cosby) laughed madly,
>then wrote:
>
>>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
>> please indicate silly answers by [FLUFF] in the header; I think the other readers are expecting serious responses. BB, Gale
>>
>
>Where did you come from?
>
>I didn't notice you down there before.
>
>Hi.
>
>--
>Joe Cosby
>http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
>
>"The difference between Heaven and Hell is which end of the pitchfork
> you're on!"
> -- Popess Lilith von Fraumench
>
>
>Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
>
>
>======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT:
> This thread is crossposted to two moderated newsgroups, as an examination of the "Newsgroups" line will disclose. -Baird
>
I thought it was a good bit of fluff though ;)