Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (32127)	3/7/1999 2:55:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

I thought of something else, this about Pamela Anderson's breasts. (Don't you think a clever way to get everyone to go to a link one wanted them to visit would be to say it was about Pamela Anderson's breasts, by the way? I wonder how many people didn't click on the url?!) You can look at her striking characterization of Pamela Anderson's breasts as "raised scar tissue" the same way. (Though I dare say Germaine doesn't refer to her own breasts as lumps of "fatty meat.") Who would make a silly decision to have dramatically raised scar tissue on their chest instead of small lumps of fatty meat? Maybe no one, if the choice is seen so simply. But P.A.'s decision looks different if certain other information is included in the equation, such items as that millions of men would begin instantly to desire her, she would become rich and famous and have enormous freedom to do as she liked for the rest of her life, she could take care of her children and grandchildren into infinity, etc. Inveighing against plastic surgery is like inveighing against the wish of a woman to be desirable to as many men as she can manage, that is, to have as much sexual choice herself as possible in the world. It's like saying women shouldn't wear mascara or lipstick or revealing clothes and certainly one's little girl shouldn't get braces on her crooked teeth. I know and understand why people are upset at the appearance-standards generated by the media. I just think expression contempt for the strong drive to make oneself desirable to one's preferred sex is a losing, and generally hypocritical, battle. In a way, I don't blame the media. The thing is, they operate in a market. People give ratings to some images, not to others. Before TV, the local high school girls measured themselves (literally sometimes) against the other 50 girls their age in their school. Maybe there were one or two girls there who were dazzling, and attracted the most desirable boys. After TV, though, the images to which a high school girl is comparing herself are those of the most dazzling from all the high schools in the country! Naturally, she's going to head at some point for whatever technology can offer to make her feel less disadvantaged in that new, difficult comparison. These same standards are, at the same time, being internalized by boys, of course. It's unhealthy in a way, and in another way it's so inevitable and comprehensible that it is almost pointless to blame it on anyone. I hasten to add that I am aware that qualities other than looks also act as attractants or repellants. But those are probably not what primarily explained Marilyn Monroe's appeal to Arthur Miller. The most highly situated male will likely choose, among his current universe of physically attractive women, the one/s with other qualities he also likes, or thinks he does, to carry his genes into the future. 'Repellant' shows up as red on spellcheck. But it seems to me that, used as a noun, it should end with 'ant,' not 'ent.' And I'm too lazy to check it out.

To: E who wrote (32127)	3/7/1999 7:18:00 PM
From: James R. Barrett	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

>>"When I read this current quote in the link you provided, "no sex is better than bad sex," it struck me as a..........."<< It sounds to me like Germaine Greer prefers vibrators to men. Lets see, what are the advantages of vibrators? 1. They maintain a permanent erection. 2. They can be carried around in a purse for emergency use. 3. No Swanee River running down your leg. 4. No sticky mess to clean up afterwards. 5. Your thighs never wind up getting glued together. 6. They never ask for a BJ. 7. They never fall asleep. 8. They never come too soon. 9. Extremely safe. No possibility of getting AIDS or VD. 10. They never leave you for a younger woman. Jim

To: E who wrote (32127)	3/8/1999 1:46:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I would agree with you that the early feminists wrote from their own experience, and that they had more skills and were better educated than many of the women who took a leap of faith based on their advice, and may have had bad endings as the result. However, in my reading of the review of "The Whole Woman", it is much more of an indictment of feminism in general, and seems to have little to do with sex at all, good bad or indifferent, but rather the things women lost as the result of the movement. So I think we are extrapolating something widely divergent from it: asia.yahoo.com And in my own opinion, not totally wonderful sex sometimes leads to a very nice cuddle, which is also good in its own way. And I think I would rather have a life-long relationship with a man that I loved overall and trusted than incredible sex with a lesser partner.