Radical feminism and morality

[sw85]

I don’t particularly have patience to quote and respond to each of atheist’s 10-12 badly formatted posts, which don’t amount to much of anything but complaining and more irrelevant dictionary-citing, anyway. I’ll simply say what I’ve been saying:

(1) Women are wired differently with respect to sexual desire than men. This is scientific fact (consider, for instance, women’s overrepresentation in sexual arousal disorders and tendency toward lower libido and long-term decline in sexual desire) and common knowledge (relayed to us by, like, every married stand-up comic ever).

(2) This difference translates into women having an easier time with respect to chastity than men.

(3) A “double standard” is not, in principle, a bad thing, because we employ them literally all the time, and abandoning them would lead to a terrible all-around arrangement (in which, for instance, we might be compelled to conscript women in large numbers in order to destroy the “double standard” that requires men to disproportionately shoulder the burden of military service).

These things are simply true; at the very least, I have not yet heard a cogent argument against them. Therefore a “double standard” with respect to sexuality (i.e., the recognition that men and women have different sexual natures and thus should be evaluated according to different standards) is perfectly reasonable, provided chastity is regarded as a virtue and thus something worth valuing.

(I’m surprised no one arguing against me has simply said that chastity should not be valued. This seems like the one thing most consistent with their actual beliefs.)

Pointing to instances in which this standard translates into pathological extremes doesn’t prove anything. The exception doesn’t void the rule – if it did, it wouldn’t be the exception, as there’d be no rule for it to deviate from. And again, that Nazi biologists committed horrors doesn’t prove that biology is false and must be abandoned.

I see no reason why valuing chastity in women is the same thing as treating them as sexual instruments, nor have I heard a good argument to this effect. As I said before:

Of course we shouldn’t love women just because they’re virgins. Then we’d just be loving an abstraction (virginity) and not the women themselves, which is our real duty and joy. But that principle applies to everything else – beauty, intelligence, gentleness, fertility, etc.

That doesn’t mean we can’t admire beauty, intelligent, gentleness, fertility, or chastity, or admire women who possess these traits. These are all goods, after all, and goods are worthy objects of love.

So, again, the idea that we must not like any traits whatsoever because this would translate into liking people solely as vehicles for those traits (whether chastity or height or cup size or skin tone, etc.), rigorously applied, leads to absurdity. So why should we believe it? Are we also going to say that we must not value beauty because that means we would treat people as a mere vehicle for beauty? That we should not value intelligence for the same reason? BlueEyedLady has herself admitted she likes “tall, dark, and handsome.” I don’t begrudge her her preferences, but does this mean she’s treating men as instruments for appeasing her visual preferences? If not, why not – in what respect do these things differ from the argument with respect to chastity?

Finally, if we’re going to complain about sexual objectification, where is the anger about all the modern innovations – divorce, contraception, casual fornication, teaching kids to put bananas on condoms in elementary school – that have more or less completely destroyed the relations between the sexes and raised a generation of heartless sluts and cads interested in nothing more than racking up sex partners without respect to the emotional devastation wrought by this awful lifestyle? Could any society except this one have produced someone like Tucker Max? Why should we pretend we’re doing women a favor when this lifestyle is disproportionately harming them?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t particularly have patience to quote and respond to each of atheist’s 10-12 badly formatted posts, which don’t amount to much of anything but complaining and more irrelevant dictionary-citing, anyway. I’ll simply say what I’ve been saying:

(1) Women are wired differently with respect to sexual desire than men. This is scientific fact (consider, for instance, women’s overrepresentation in sexual arousal disorders and tendency toward lower libido and long-term decline in sexual desire) and common knowledge (relayed to us by, like, every married stand-up comic ever).

(2) This difference translates into women having an easier time with respect to chastity than men.

(3) A “double standard” is not, in principle, a bad thing, because we employ them literally all the time, and abandoning them would lead to a terrible all-around arrangement (in which, for instance, we might be compelled to conscript women in large numbers in order to destroy the “double standard” that requires men to disproportionately shoulder the burden of military service).

These things are simply true; at the very least, I have not yet heard a cogent argument against them. Therefore a “double standard” with respect to sexuality (i.e., the recognition that men and women have different sexual natures and thus should be evaluated according to different standards) is perfectly reasonable, provided chastity is regarded as a virtue and thus something worth valuing.

(I’m surprised no one arguing against me has simply said that chastity should not be valued. This seems like the one thing most consistent with their actual beliefs.)

Pointing to instances in which this standard translates into pathological extremes doesn’t prove anything. The exception doesn’t void the rule – if it did, it wouldn’t be the exception, as there’d be no rule for it to deviate from. And again, that Nazi biologists committed horrors doesn’t prove that biology is false and must be abandoned.

I see no reason why valuing chastity in women is the same thing as treating them as sexual instruments, nor have I heard a good argument to this effect. As I said before:

So, again, the idea that we must not like any traits whatsoever because this would translate into liking people solely as vehicles for those traits (whether chastity or height or cup size or skin tone, etc.), rigorously applied, leads to absurdity. So why should we believe it? Are we also going to say that we must not value beauty because that means we would treat people as a mere vehicle for beauty? That we should not value intelligence for the same reason? BlueEyedLady has herself admitted she likes “tall, dark, and handsome.” I don’t begrudge her her preferences, but does this mean she’s treating men as instruments for appeasing her visual preferences? If not, why not – in what respect do these things differ from the argument with respect to chastity?

Finally, if we’re going to complain about sexual objectification, where is the anger about all the modern innovations – divorce, contraception, casual fornication, teaching kids to put bananas on condoms in elementary school – that have more or less completely destroyed the relations between the sexes and raised a generation of heartless sluts and cads interested in nothing more than racking up sex partners without respect to the emotional devastation wrought by this awful lifestyle? Could any society except this one have produced someone like Tucker Max? Why should we pretend we’re doing women a favor when this lifestyle is disproportionately harming them?

If you’re not interested in replying to what I have actually said, then just be honest and admit that you are not interested in debating.

Moreover, how can you so casually dismiss Pope John Paul II’s words on women and the historical oppression of them?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t particularly have patience to quote and respond to each of atheist’s 10-12 badly formatted posts, which don’t amount to much of anything but complaining and more irrelevant dictionary-citing, anyway. I’ll simply say what I’ve been saying:

(1) Women are wired differently with respect to sexual desire than men. This is scientific fact (consider, for instance, women’s overrepresentation in sexual arousal disorders and tendency toward lower libido and long-term decline in sexual desire) and common knowledge (relayed to us by, like, every married stand-up comic ever).

(2) This difference translates into women having an easier time with respect to chastity than men.

(3) A “double standard” is not, in principle, a bad thing, because we employ them literally all the time, and abandoning them would lead to a terrible all-around arrangement (in which, for instance, we might be compelled to conscript women in large numbers in order to destroy the “double standard” that requires men to disproportionately shoulder the burden of military service).

These things are simply true; at the very least, I have not yet heard a cogent argument against them. Therefore a “double standard” with respect to sexuality (i.e., the recognition that men and women have different sexual natures and thus should be evaluated according to different standards) is perfectly reasonable, provided chastity is regarded as a virtue and thus something worth valuing.

(I’m surprised no one arguing against me has simply said that chastity should not be valued. This seems like the one thing most consistent with their actual beliefs.)

Pointing to instances in which this standard translates into pathological extremes doesn’t prove anything. The exception doesn’t void the rule – if it did, it wouldn’t be the exception, as there’d be no rule for it to deviate from. And again, that Nazi biologists committed horrors doesn’t prove that biology is false and must be abandoned.

I see no reason why valuing chastity in women is the same thing as treating them as sexual instruments, nor have I heard a good argument to this effect. As I said before:

Originally Posted by sw85
Of course we shouldn’t love women just because they’re virgins. Then we’d just be loving an abstraction (virginity) and not the women themselves, which is our real duty and joy. But that principle applies to everything else – beauty, intelligence, gentleness, fertility, etc.

That doesn’t mean we can’t admire beauty, intelligent, gentleness, fertility, or chastity, or admire women who possess these traits. These are all goods, after all, and goods are worthy objects of love.

So, again, the idea that we must not like any traits whatsoever because this would translate into liking people solely as vehicles for those traits (whether chastity or height or cup size or skin tone, etc.), rigorously applied, leads to absurdity. So why should we believe it? Are we also going to say that we must not value beauty because that means we would treat people as a mere vehicle for beauty? That we should not value intelligence for the same reason? BlueEyedLady has herself admitted she likes “tall, dark, and handsome.” I don’t begrudge her her preferences, but does this mean she’s treating men as instruments for appeasing her visual preferences? If not, why not – in what respect do these things differ from the argument with respect to chastity?

Finally, if we’re going to complain about sexual objectification, where is the anger about all the modern innovations – divorce, contraception, casual fornication, teaching kids to put bananas on condoms in elementary school – that have more or less completely destroyed the relations between the sexes and raised a generation of heartless sluts and cads interested in nothing more than racking up sex partners without respect to the emotional devastation wrought by this awful lifestyle? Could any society except this one have produced someone like Tucker Max? Why should we pretend we’re doing women a favor when this lifestyle is disproportionately harming them?

What is the point of this post?

You mention me and my objections to what you have said but don’t go into detail (but rather just dismiss them out of hand).
Instead you simply reply to your own post.

You are quite literally having a conversation with yourself sw85.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t particularly have patience to quote and respond to each of atheist’s 10-12 badly formatted posts, which don’t amount to much of anything but complaining and more irrelevant dictionary-citing, anyway. I’ll simply say what I’ve been saying:

(1) Women are wired differently with respect to sexual desire than men. This is scientific fact (consider, for instance, women’s overrepresentation in sexual arousal disorders and tendency toward lower libido and long-term decline in sexual desire) and common knowledge (relayed to us by, like, every married stand-up comic ever).

(2) This difference translates into women having an easier time with respect to chastity than men.

(3) A “double standard” is not, in principle, a bad thing, because we employ them literally all the time, and abandoning them would lead to a terrible all-around arrangement (in which, for instance, we might be compelled to conscript women in large numbers in order to destroy the “double standard” that requires men to disproportionately shoulder the burden of military service).

These things are simply true; at the very least, I have not yet heard a cogent argument against them. Therefore a “double standard” with respect to sexuality (i.e., the recognition that men and women have different sexual natures and thus should be evaluated according to different standards) is perfectly reasonable, provided chastity is regarded as a virtue and thus something worth valuing.

(I’m surprised no one arguing against me has simply said that chastity should not be valued. This seems like the one thing most consistent with their actual beliefs.)

Pointing to instances in which this standard translates into pathological extremes doesn’t prove anything. The exception doesn’t void the rule – if it did, it wouldn’t be the exception, as there’d be no rule for it to deviate from. And again, that Nazi biologists committed horrors doesn’t prove that biology is false and must be abandoned.

I see no reason why valuing chastity in women is the same thing as treating them as sexual instruments, nor have I heard a good argument to this effect. As I said before:

So, again, the idea that we must not like any traits whatsoever because this would translate into liking people solely as vehicles for those traits (whether chastity or height or cup size or skin tone, etc.), rigorously applied, leads to absurdity. So why should we believe it? Are we also going to say that we must not value beauty because that means we would treat people as a mere vehicle for beauty? That we should not value intelligence for the same reason? BlueEyedLady has herself admitted she likes “tall, dark, and handsome.” I don’t begrudge her her preferences, but does this mean she’s treating men as instruments for appeasing her visual preferences? If not, why not – in what respect do these things differ from the argument with respect to chastity?

Finally, if we’re going to complain about sexual objectification, where is the anger about all the modern innovations – divorce, contraception, casual fornication, teaching kids to put bananas on condoms in elementary school – that have more or less completely destroyed the relations between the sexes and raised a generation of heartless sluts and cads interested in nothing more than racking up sex partners without respect to the emotional devastation wrought by this awful lifestyle? Could any society except this one have produced someone like Tucker Max? Why should we pretend we’re doing women a favor when this lifestyle is disproportionately harming them?

If its not in principal a bad thing then why is it almost always in practice horribly unfair to women?
What would be an example of a *good *system of sexual standards that puts more of a burden on women?
You keep accusing others (in this thread) of not providing any evidence, so YOU should provide some of your own to avoid being hypocritical.

 

[severus68]

I don’t particularly have patience to quote and respond to each of atheist’s 10-12 badly formatted posts, which don’t amount to much of anything but complaining and more irrelevant dictionary-citing, anyway. I’ll simply say what I’ve been saying:

I thought AngryAtheist was actually making a great effort to respond to your points.

On your points:

1. Please show us the evidence of such ‘scientific facts’ Sorry, Stand-up comics and their jokes do not count.
2. Your first premise has not been proved so your second cannot;
3. Double standards are about judging differently all things being equal.

"A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or to different people in the same situation.[1] (Wiki).

Pointing to instances in which this standard translates into pathological extremes doesn’t prove anything. The exception doesn’t void the rule – if it did, it wouldn’t be the exception, as there’d be no rule for it to deviate from. And again, that Nazi biologists committed horrors doesn’t prove that biology is false and must be abandoned.

Pointing to Nazi horrors does not give your arguement credibility.
I see no reason why valuing chastity in women is the same thing as treating them as sexual instruments, nor have I heard a good argument to this effect. As I said before:

So, again, the idea that we must not like any traits whatsoever because this would translate into liking people solely as vehicles for those traits (whether chastity or height or cup size or skin tone, etc.), rigorously applied, leads to absurdity. So why should we believe it? Are we also going to say that we must not value beauty because that means we would treat people as a mere vehicle for beauty? That we should not value intelligence for the same reason? BlueEyedLady has herself admitted she likes “tall, dark, and handsome.” I don’t begrudge her her preferences, but does this mean she’s treating men as instruments for appeasing her visual preferences? If not, why not – in what respect do these things differ from the argument with respect to chastity?

Finding yourself attracted to “tall, dark and handsome” men is about subjective, non logical traits. BlueEyedLady never said, short, light haired’ men are dishonest etc or have more to prove, have the greater onus to stay ‘pure’.

Finally, if we’re going to complain about sexual objectification, where is the anger about all the modern innovations – divorce, contraception, casual fornication, teaching kids to put bananas on condoms in elementary school – that have more or less completely destroyed the relations between the sexes and raised a generation of heartless sluts and cads interested in nothing more than racking up sex partners without respect to the emotional devastation wrought by this awful lifestyle? Could any society except this one have produced someone like Tucker Max? Why should we pretend we’re doing women a favor when this lifestyle is disproportionately harming them?

“Heartless sluts”??? You appear to have a problem with women. Would it be better in your opinion that women should be kept on a a short chain, kept under control , to stop all these ‘modern innovations’?

 

[sw85]

I thought AngryAtheist was actually making a great effort to respond to your points.

On your points:

1. Please show us the evidence of such ‘scientific facts’ Sorry, Stand-up comics and their jokes do not count.
2. Your first premise has not been proved so your second cannot;
3. Double standards are about judging differently all things being equal.

"A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or to different people in the same situation.[1] (Wiki).

If you think that constitutes “great effort” you are ideologically blinkered. I’m not even going to respond to his silliness anymore.

Regarding your points:

It’s common knowledge that women are overrepresented in rates of sexual dysfunction and difficulties with arousal relative to men. But if you need journal articles, an approximately 8 second google search returned the following from WebMD, which summarizes some of the literature on the topic. Note the names there include Roy Baumeister, a prominent social and personality psych researcher at FSU. Among the conclusions, men think more about sex, desire it more strongly and more consistently, and their desires are less subject to social influence (perhaps another reason they are invulnerable to social stigma about sexuality in a way women aren’t).

Of course, whether or not men and women are in “similar situations” with respect to sexuality is precisely what’s under discussion. I’m saying they aren’t.

Pointing to Nazi horrors does not give your arguement credibility.

That example was intended to show that pathological extremes do not prove anything about the norm.

Again, that biology was used for evil in that one instance is not evidence that biology is in principle evil.

So that the recognition of female sexuality *can *be used for evil is not evidence that recognition of female sexuality is in principle evil. (In fact, not recognizing it would amount to an intentional affectation of ignorance about something of grave social importance – how is *that *not evil?)

Exact same logic; if it doesn’t compare somehow I’m going to need to insist on a reason why.

Finding yourself attracted to “tall, dark and handsome” men is about subjective, non logical traits. BlueEyedLady never said, short, light haired’ men are dishonest etc or have more to prove, have the greater onus to stay ‘pure’.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

BEL said that we must not value chastity because this amounts to treating women like sexual instruments, i.e., vehicles for conveying appeal to our appreciation for chastity.

But if we apply these principles rigorously, then we must never value any trait because it amounts to treating everyone as vehicles for those traits.

(I argued before this is a bad distinction in the first place, because true love is as particular as its object, and since the object of love cannot be reduced to a set of traits, neither can the love itself).

Thus, for instance, it would be “objectifying” men to admire those who are tall, dark, and handsome, and BEL, by her own logic, should be condemned as a horrible sexist.

But obviously this is absurd, and BEL herself doesn’t believe it. Why should she? So there’s no reason to believe her when she says that admiring chastity in women is the same as admiring them solely for their chastity. It’s possible to do two things at once, after all. You can love a person and also admire the virtues they exhibit.

Of course, as I said, it is wrong to admire men solely because they are tall, dark, and handsome, and likewise it is wrong to value women solely because they are chaste. As I said earlier, this amounts to admiring an abstraction (tallness, darkness, handsomeness, chastity), and not the man himself or woman herself. But who in the world actually does that? No one, at least not in this thread. One doesn’t follow the other. So the argument kind of misses the point.

“Heartless sluts”??? You appear to have a problem with women. Would it be better in your opinion that women should be kept on a a short chain, kept under control , to stop all these ‘modern innovations’?

Heartless sluts and cads, yes. Do you deny this generation is sexually degenerate? That no previous one could’ve produced Tucker Max, Girls Gone Wild, or massive amounts of conspicuous pornography?

Why, if this generation is sexually enlightened, is it the one in which women are suffering the most, being routinely used for sexual satisfaction and discarded, forced to deal alone with the consequences of these actions (as witnessed by the spike in single motherhood and illegitimacy in recent decades), often with ruinous personal consequences (i.e., the feminization of poverty)? Is Tucker Max – the legendary cad who made his fortune telling hysterical crowds about his antics ruthlessly exploiting and humiliating women for sexual gain – a traditionalist?

 

[aragonjohn1]

The united states is run by the people for the people not polls ( 74% of statistics are made up on the spot) or the Goverment or those who want to make abortion and contraception rampant like in roman times nor those who want no religious freedom or inter-faith diologue, or people looking to degrade woman and treat them as objects scarring or permanantly injuring with abortion, contraception, sterilization, and other means.

You can use the new media, write and submit to newspapers, cable channels, stations, their advertisers, etc… Speak on local radio stations ( if you know what you are doing ) etc………
You can make an impact on the culture and those that don’t know/refuse to view the logic and evidence against violations of natural law whatever religion you are or whether you believe in God or not this issue impacts YOU.

God bless you all!
Shalom.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Promoting marriage and virginity doesn’t necessarily raise the status of women.
And did the Catholic Church ever actually say that men and women were equal in dignity, worth, etc. prior to the 20th century?

Yes it was the only religion that promoted the dignity and sanctity of woman ( besides the Jews ) during roman times while the Romans were employing abortion and a “primitive” means of contraception to degrade woman and use them as objects.

Also there are more females canonized as saints than men. And the church has always spoke and written of the dignity woman in her encyclicals, doctrines, and dogma more than any other religion in history.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by severus68
I thought AngryAtheist was actually making a great effort to respond to your points.

On your points:

1. Please show us the evidence of such ‘scientific facts’ Sorry, Stand-up comics and their jokes do not count.
2. Your first premise has not been proved so your second cannot;
3. Double standards are about judging differently all things being equal.

"A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or to different people in the same situation.[1] (Wiki).

**If you think that constitutes “great effort” you are ideologically blinkered. I’m not even going to respond to his silliness anymore.**Regarding your points:

It’s common knowledge that women are overrepresented in rates of sexual dysfunction and difficulties with arousal relative to men. But if you need journal articles, an approximately 8 second google search returned the following from WebMD, which summarizes some of the literature on the topic. Note the names there include Roy Baumeister, a prominent social and personality psych researcher at FSU. Among the conclusions, men think more about sex, desire it more strongly and more consistently, and their desires are less subject to social influence (perhaps another reason they are invulnerable to social stigma about sexuality in a way women aren’t).

Of course, whether or not men and women are in “similar situations” with respect to sexuality is precisely what’s under discussion. I’m saying they aren’t.

That example was intended to show that pathological extremes do not prove anything about the norm.

Again, that biology was used for evil in that one instance is not evidence that biology is in principle evil.

So that the recognition of female sexuality *can *be used for evil is not evidence that recognition of female sexuality is in principle evil. (In fact, not recognizing it would amount to an intentional affectation of ignorance about something of grave social importance – how is *that *not evil?)

Exact same logic; if it doesn’t compare somehow I’m going to need to insist on a reason why.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

BEL said that we must not value chastity because this amounts to treating women like sexual instruments, i.e., vehicles for conveying appeal to our appreciation for chastity.

But if we apply these principles rigorously, then we must never value any trait because it amounts to treating everyone as vehicles for those traits.

(I argued before this is a bad distinction in the first place, because true love is as particular as its object, and since the object of love cannot be reduced to a set of traits, neither can the love itself).

Thus, for instance, it would be “objectifying” men to admire those who are tall, dark, and handsome, and BEL, by her own logic, should be condemned as a horrible sexist.

But obviously this is absurd, and BEL herself doesn’t believe it. Why should she? So there’s no reason to believe her when she says that admiring chastity in women is the same as admiring them solely for their chastity. It’s possible to do two things at once, after all. You can love a person and also admire the virtues they exhibit.

Of course, as I said, it is wrong to admire men solely because they are tall, dark, and handsome, and likewise it is wrong to value women solely because they are chaste. As I said earlier, this amounts to admiring an abstraction (tallness, darkness, handsomeness, chastity), and not the man himself or woman herself. But who in the world actually does that? No one, at least not in this thread. One doesn’t follow the other. So the argument kind of misses the point.

Heartless sluts and cads, yes. Do you deny this generation is sexually degenerate? That no previous one could’ve produced Tucker Max, Girls Gone Wild, or massive amounts of conspicuous pornography?

Why, if this generation is sexually enlightened, is it the one in which women are suffering the most, being routinely used for sexual satisfaction and discarded, forced to deal alone with the consequences of these actions (as witnessed by the spike in single motherhood and illegitimacy in recent decades), often with ruinous personal consequences (i.e., the feminization of poverty)? Is Tucker Max – the legendary cad who made his fortune telling hysterical crowds about his antics ruthlessly exploiting and humiliating women for sexual gain – a traditionalist?

But you have never responded to my posts in a meaningful way sw85.
At least not in this thread.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If you think that constitutes “great effort” you are ideologically blinkered. I’m not even going to respond to his silliness anymore.

Regarding your points:

It’s common knowledge that women are overrepresented in rates of sexual dysfunction and difficulties with arousal relative to men. But if you need journal articles, an approximately 8 second google search returned the following from WebMD, which summarizes some of the literature on the topic. Note the names there include Roy Baumeister, a prominent social and personality psych researcher at FSU. Among the conclusions, men think more about sex, desire it more strongly and more consistently, and their desires are less subject to social influence (perhaps another reason they are invulnerable to social stigma about sexuality in a way women aren’t).

Of course, whether or not men and women are in “similar situations” with respect to sexuality is precisely what’s under discussion. I’m saying they aren’t.

That example was intended to show that pathological extremes do not prove anything about the norm.

Again, that biology was used for evil in that one instance is not evidence that biology is in principle evil.

So that the recognition of female sexuality *can *be used for evil is not evidence that recognition of female sexuality is in principle evil. (In fact, not recognizing it would amount to an intentional affectation of ignorance about something of grave social importance – how is *that *not evil?)

Exact same logic; if it doesn’t compare somehow I’m going to need to insist on a reason why.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

BEL said that we must not value chastity because this amounts to treating women like sexual instruments, i.e., vehicles for conveying appeal to our appreciation for chastity.

But if we apply these principles rigorously, then we must never value any trait because it amounts to treating everyone as vehicles for those traits.

(I argued before this is a bad distinction in the first place, because true love is as particular as its object, and since the object of love cannot be reduced to a set of traits, neither can the love itself).

Thus, for instance, it would be “objectifying” men to admire those who are tall, dark, and handsome, and BEL, by her own logic, should be condemned as a horrible sexist.

But obviously this is absurd, and BEL herself doesn’t believe it. Why should she? So there’s no reason to believe her when she says that admiring chastity in women is the same as admiring them solely for their chastity. It’s possible to do two things at once, after all. You can love a person and also admire the virtues they exhibit.

Of course, as I said, it is wrong to admire men solely because they are tall, dark, and handsome, and likewise it is wrong to value women solely because they are chaste. As I said earlier, this amounts to admiring an abstraction (tallness, darkness, handsomeness, chastity), and not the man himself or woman herself. But who in the world actually does that? No one, at least not in this thread. One doesn’t follow the other. So the argument kind of misses the point.

Heartless sluts and cads, yes. Do you deny this generation is sexually degenerate? That no previous one could’ve produced Tucker Max, Girls Gone Wild, or massive amounts of conspicuous pornography?

Why, if this generation is sexually enlightened, is it the one in which women are suffering the most, being routinely used for sexual satisfaction and discarded, forced to deal alone with the consequences of these actions (as witnessed by the spike in single motherhood and illegitimacy in recent decades), often with ruinous personal consequences (i.e., the feminization of poverty)? Is Tucker Max – the legendary cad who made his fortune telling hysterical crowds about his antics ruthlessly exploiting and humiliating women for sexual gain – a traditionalist?

No she has not.
No one in this thread has said that chastity shouldn’t be valued at all.
If you can, produce a quote from her in this thread proving me wrong.
Otherwise admit that there is no substance to your statement.

 

[Nate13]

No she has not.
No one in this thread has said that chastity shouldn’t be valued at all.
If you can, produce a quote from her in this thread proving me wrong.
Otherwise admit that there is no substance to your statement.

BlueEyedLady post #87

That’s what happens when women are judged for their sexuality and experiences. They aren’t looked at as people. Their feelings, minds, viewpoints, all come secondary to whether or not they are “chaste” or “virtuous”, and they are not looked at as people. They are simply seen as toys. Some may be considered good toys, but they are toys nonetheless.

She did not say “only judged” but rather just judged at all. We argue whether that is what she meant or not, but I got the same tune as sw85 did from this post.

His response to this which I agree with:

BEL (Blue Eyed Lady) said that we must not value chastity because this amounts to treating women like sexual instruments, i.e., vehicles for conveying appeal to our appreciation for chastity.

But if we apply these principles rigorously, then we must never value any trait because it amounts to treating everyone as vehicles for those traits.

(I argued before this is a bad distinction in the first place, because true love is as particular as its object, and since the object of love cannot be reduced to a set of traits, neither can the love itself).

Thus, for instance, it would be “objectifying” men to admire those who are tall, dark, and handsome, and BEL, by her own logic, should be condemned as a horrible sexist.

But obviously this is absurd, and BEL herself doesn’t believe it. Why should she? So there’s no reason to believe her when she says that admiring chastity in women is the same as admiring them solely for their chastity. It’s possible to do two things at once, after all. You can love a person and also admire the virtues they exhibit.

Of course, as I said, it is wrong to admire men solely because they are tall, dark, and handsome, and likewise it is wrong to value women solely because they are chaste. As I said earlier, this amounts to admiring an abstraction (tallness, darkness, handsomeness, chastity), and not the man himself or woman herself. But who in the world actually does that? No one, at least not in this thread. One doesn’t follow the other. So the argument kind of misses the point.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I have said nothing of the sort. I have made two points:

1. Valuing a woman for her chastity instead of who she is as a person is wrong.
2. Thinking less of an unchaste woman than you would an unchaste man is wrong.

That’s it. How you have managed to get anything else out of that I don’t know.

 

[Nate13]

I have said nothing of the sort. I have made two points:

1. Valuing a woman for her chastity instead of who she is as a person is wrong.
2. Thinking less of an unchaste woman than you would an unchaste man is wrong.

That’s it. How you have managed to get anything else out of that I don’t know.

I agree except I would add that being chaste is a part of who a person is. Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to be chaste. What is your definition of chastity? You talk about chastity as if its synonymous with virginity.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

I think most Orthodox Catholic men would tell you they could care less whether the woman they are dating is a virgin. What they want to know is whether they are living chastely now, and will in the future. Past failings can have some play in determining whether someone will fail again, but what really matters is who they are now.

 

[sw85]

I have said nothing of the sort. I have made two points:

1. Valuing a woman for her chastity instead of who she is as a person is wrong.

OK, but in that case, why did you even mention this? It’s a total non sequitur with respect to what anyone in the thread has said up to that point.

As Nate has pointed out, chastity is not something completely distinct from the woman, such that talking about it is arbitrary. It speaks to who she is. Nevertheless, she is also not her chastity. As I said before, haecceity matters – no one is reducible to their own traits.

So, again, of course it is wrong to value a woman solely for her chastity. But no one’s doing that. And valuing chastity as a desirable trait is not the same thing as instrumentalizing women.

1. Thinking less of an unchaste woman than you would an unchaste man is wrong.

That’s it. How you have managed to get anything else out of that I don’t know.

Well, I would qualify this by adding “Where the circumstances permit equivalency.” They don’t always permit equivalency. That said, our discussion to this point has largely focused on innate differences and so exaggerated this distinction. Again, I’m no fan of cads (if you haven’t caught on through my personal anecdotes and obvious contempt for “men” like Tucker Max).

At any rate, my point in arguing this from the very beginning has been simply to say that if chastity is something regarded as valuable, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect those who are most capable of exercising it to exercise it.