printThe genus Rep. Anthony Weiner, an “engorged organism” indigenous to DC, has an exotic-looking, ravishing mate. (Full image posted below.) But men—at least American men—prefer what I’ve termed (in “Sluts Galore”) the porn aestehtic:
Ideas about feminine beauty are bust. The sublime 1350 B.C. bust of Queen Nefertiti showcases her fine cheekbones and graceful neck. Her Western contemporary look-a-like, down to the perfectly shaped dainty face, was Audrey Hepburn. Catherine Deneuve embodied the French ideal of female beauty, immortalized in the bust of Marianne.
But forget these regal beauties; they, apparently, have nothing on the double-chinned, large, flat expanses that make up Britney Spears’ crude mug. Nefertiti, Hepburn, Deneuve—your patrician pulchritude no longer excites the “porn generation”; the sly, weasel-like looks of a Paris Hilton do.
The culture’s aesthetic preferences are now shaped by the basest of instincts. I call it the porn aesthetic, another example of which is Hue Hefner’s harem of hos. The three kept creatures are currently starring in a reality show called “The Girls Next Door” …
UPDATE: The addiction excuse is just that: an excuse and an error. (Read “Evil, Not Ill.”) The liberal establishment—it includes Republicans and Democrats—has accepted that all bad behavior is a disease. From lying to murder: every bit of human nastiness is said to be a biological-based disorder. The premise for this conceit is the Rousseauist notion that humans are all equally good and would remain pristine if not for external agents, namely biological or societal forces. The problem is, as I have shown in my writing, and Dr. Thomas Szasz has done over the course of half a century: there is no basis for this claim—not in biology, much less in morality.
I quote from “Mel’s ‘Malady,’ Foxman’s Fetish”:
The Delphic oracles of the disease theory of delinquency (the “experts”) have slapped all manner of misconduct with diagnostic labels. At the root of this diseasing of behavior is the eradication of good and bad. Placing bad behavior beyond the strictures of traditional morality, moreover, makes it amenable to external, “therapeutic” or state interventions.
Liberals first, and conservatives in short succession, have taken to the idiom of disease like ducks to water. Left and right now insist, based on wispy pseudoscience, that just about every human excess is an illness as organic as cancer or diabetes.
Looks have nothing to do with sexual addiction; I just finished reading “Out of the Shadows” by Patrick Carnes, and his wife could have been Helen of Troy, and this still would have happened.
You don’t look so bad yourself, Ilana. But, then, what do I have to go on but the portrait on your blog? I think Yeats expressed it well in “Adam’s Curse,” “That beautiful mild woman for whose sake/There’s many a one shall find out all heartache/On finding that her voice is sweet and low/Replied, ‘To be born woman is to know-/Although they do not talk of it at school-/That we must labour to be beautiful.'”
Ilana, I seem to remember Vox mentioning something about this woman preferring the company of Madam Secretary instead…
I am not one of those American men who prefer the porn look. It is trashy and tacky. You are right though, that too many men prefer this look. A good looking woman with a good head on her shoulders is a real prize. I just got your book in the mail today and I will start reading it this weekend. I’m looking forward to it.
[Hooray: please write a review on Amazon when you finish my book.]
This ‘eradication of good and bad’ has siblings : ‘criminals are victims too, every kid has talent, all women are beautiful’. These mantras are of course cherished by the left, but pragmatically, I see this more as a money grab. Semi-quack ‘somethingologists’ find in the state a rich, gullible customer for services for which there is much less demand in the private market. And I got your book yesterday !
These “lapses” in judgement from prominent men are no mystery. These men think they are above the rules we regular types have to follow. Their egos and lack of scruples make them slaves to their urges. I also like classy women. Of course statuesque doesn’t hurt either. Anybody out there remember Julie Newmar?
I must not be much of an American Male. The four most attractive women I know, (including my wife) are relatively petite, well proportioned (in the classical Greek sense, not “busting out all over”), have beautiful eyes, and outgoing personalities. My wife has the most beautiful dark brown eyes I’ve ever seen and she has a smile that “lights up the room”. None of these women would fit the porn look. [I love brown eyes the most: the color of my daughter’s enormous, doe-like eyes.]
Do I notice women who have the porn look? Sure, I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that. If I were single would I chase a woman with the “porn look”? Not bloody likely!
Let me also say that I find your dark intense eys and facial features attractive as well.
One of the women I mentioned above is divorced she indicated that her husband “slept around”. They had five children together. I saw her recently for the first time since 1972. She still looks beautiful. She is probably more interesting and engaging than when I knew her ‘back in the day”. I wondered what kind of a guy would sleep around on this woman. I sure wouldn’t have!
I sometimes wonder if men like Congressman Weiner pursue women like hunters. However, instead of mounting their trophies on the wall these men mount thier trophies in the bedroom, or virtually on the internet.
PS your book is on its way and I’m looking forward to reading it. I expect it to be a good read that will: 1) challenge some of my preconcieved notions about apathied, 2) challenge me in ways I don’t expect, 3) make me further appriciate the founders respect for private property, and 4) further confirm my observations and thoughts on multiculturalism.
When I went to a Catholic University in the early seventies, the Criminology professor extorted the theories of a Socialist Theorist (not political socialist) whose name escapes me. However, the important aspect of his theory was that we are all exposed to different behaviors everyday, but responsible for the one we accept.ie, its not the gun, its the person pulling the trigger. My Franciscan ethics instructor stated that life was a series of ‘Y’ decisions. ie every decision leads to a choice and we become responsible for that choice and the subsequent decisions that it leads too. Both theories come to the same conclusion- it ain’t nobody’s fault but his own.
The liberal establishment—it includes Republicans and Democrats—has accepted that all bad behavior is a disease. From lying to murder: every bit of human nastiness is said to be a biological-based disorder. The premise for this conceit is the Rousseauist notion that humans are all equally good and would remain pristine if not for external agents, namely biological or societal forces.
This is because liberals do not believe in accountability. They do not believe anyone should accountable for anything at all. This is also the purpose of all bureaucracy, which is to shield everyone in it from any kind of accountability.
Porn is fine but it is the JUNK FOOD of sexuality – real romance needs love and respect (and in my case, an intelligent soulmate).
As for the appropriately named WEINER, in the synagogue his aunt sometimes attends, we learned a few commandments yesterday including something concerning adultery. Huda Abedin, his Pak-Indo Saudi-educated pregnant wife photographs well but she does look 1 falafel away from anorexia:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/new-york-times-anthony-weiners-wife-is-pregnant/
and perhaps the super-thin are not as uninhibited in bed as a pleasingly plump Lewinsky jumping up and down with multiple orgasms. The advantage of monogamy is to prevent spouses from engaging in “comparison shopping”. Weiner respects his marriage like he respects the Constitution (e.g. not at all).
Nevertheless, Weiner is a TZADDIK (righteous soul) compared to the Scumbag-In-Chief John Edwards who had his wife take (cancer accelerating) fertility hormones in late middle age to pop out a replacement for his (tragically) lost son and subsequently fathers a bastard son out of wedlock while his wife is dying of cancer and then maneuvers to cover it up. Compared to Newt, Slick Willie, Barney Frank, Spitzer, and Weiner, no one tops Edwards.
Of course, most of these politician-porno-cheaters like Weiner are perfectly comfortable with the POLITICAL-SOCIAL EMASCULATION of men – I refer to the uber-cynical Fred Reed’s excellent column on that subject:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/SexualFuture.shtml
The medical view of pathology confounds me. What is a sociopath, or psychopath?
Didn’t Hanna Arendt and Milgram successfully show that evil is banal, not biological. If it were not true, profiling serial killer childhoods would actually work.
We are bent on destroying the concept of personal choice, both by intent and neglect.
Think of the bright side.
Oscar Mayer now has a new spokesman. [No idea who this is.]
Ilana:
Oscar Mayer now has a new spokesman. [No idea who this is.]
Oscar Mayer hot dogs = Weiner…