Emma, I think I love you. In 18 words you manage to say everything I have ever wanted to write shout speak complain about Ayn Rand only in far longer and more boring sentences and paragraphs. I bow and thank you.
Treating someone like an "object" lacks humanity… it's classless and more about control… in men, it's their limp dick notion that somehow women are the blame for all the world's problems and that being his "eye candy" makes him feel like he's really in control (what a lie). In, women, it's usually the sad, angry, or sexually frustrated types who pretend to be passionate about one thing or another, only to really see the object is really not the true answer to her problem in the first place… People like each other and stay friends (or a couple) mostly out of habit, social expectation, etc. and many do because they truly like each other… Scientifically speaking, monogamy has a shorter shelf life than a carton of yogurt that sits in the sun…
We've all got this basic human cocktail called dopamine, phenylethylamine, and oxytocin that supplies the fuel for our short-lived attraction to one another… what happens after that wears off is the problem… Respecting people is about differences and that celebration should last a lifetime… yet, if we become victims of our own notions about other people, rather than let them be(come), we make certain that slippery slope into "objectification" and the end of our genuine need to have someone who will be there to accompany, comfort, debate, relax with, excite, pleasure, and hold…
-- Modified on 8/7/2005 1:23:15 PM
In short,
It is easy to be (as one provider explained it) in love lust for a brief period of time. It is difficult to maintain that level of committment and passion over a lifetime. So for a marriage to work on more than a social expectation level, the relationship must evolve to a higher level of companionship - Mine, sadly, did not.
It also helps explain why providers can put up with us - they too, know that their experience with us will be for a short period of time... And for the ones that I have fallen for, I am sure that they are well aware that I would not be their best bet for long term happiness.... what, being green and all....
Thanks. That was quite thought provoking...
Don't mean to be naive. I understand the concept of a "user"--someone who thinks everyone else exists to be manipulated for their gain. I suspect that there are many of the distaff members of the human race who qualify. So if I see a hottie and think a romp in the hay would be great with her, have I objectified her? What if I thought that a romp would only be good if it gave her as much pleasure as it did me? And what if she wanted something from me in trade? Voila, the hobby. So are we all objects to each other?
Don't get me wrong, one of the reasons I'm not leaving my SO to chase some 22 year-old porn starlet is because I strongly suspect that the starlet won't be around to take care of me when I'm 64. There'd better be something stronger binding us together than loins afire. But does this exclude physical relationships based on mutual need and desire? I confess I don't know. But I also don't know that just because I fantasize about torrid sex with the woman who skated by me on the bike path yesterday that I "objectified" her any more than she did the blonde and tanned surfer dude that she skated past a moment later. I guess what I'm saying is I wonder whether objectification is as objectionable as we make it out, or perhaps we need a carefully bounded definition.
Actually, I think your post gives a couple of practical definitions, though not to Webster's satisfaction and Bebedoll certainly extolled the virtues of being "objectified." In a very limited point of view, I was explaining a concept in relation to how many providers would rather not be treated.
I write about it all the time.. crave it.. need it.. and request it. Piece of meat, blow up doll, 3 holes no waiting.. yumm yummm YUMMM. What usually makes a yummm time vs a bad time is whether one is being used as an object consensually or not. I own my kink and I know who I am. I LOVE being used and that is in fact why I entered this profession. To be used for another's pleasure.. at another's whim and direction.. has the possibility of opening up places of magic.. earth shattering even. Our animal selves and our fantasies have A LOT to teach us about who we are. I not only listen to my masturbations...I live what they tell me... as long as they will not bring me to harm of course. But okay it is true.. I have been accused of using other people to use me. LOL
It also saves you the unbearable tedium of wading through the turgid prose of the insufferable Ayn Rand.
-- Modified on 8/7/2005 5:02:32 PM
I actually spent about an hour this weekend reading the first 50 pages of Atlas Shrugged and am convinced that Ayn Rand has a lot to do with the warped postings of Whos John Galt. He actually said in one post that he "can't imagine" Dagny Taggart (the heroine of Atlas Shrugged) as a provider. Boy, talk about issues!!
And Emma, just when I thought that I had seen ALL web sites, well, let's just say, guess not....!
Emma, I think I love you. In 18 words you manage to say everything I have ever wanted to write shout speak complain about Ayn Rand only in far longer and more boring sentences and paragraphs. I bow and thank you.
Rand was a terrible writer, and a shallow thinker. If you finish "Atlas Shrugged," you're bound to be fanatically objectivist by the end, simply from the fact that otherwise you might slit your throat. Better to think that it's the most profound thing you ever read, than to realize you force-marched your bored, sleepy, eyes mercilessly across a vast 1100 page swamp of bad writing and admit it was the biggest waste of time in your life. I call that the "bad book syndrome."
Better to laud it as the best thing ever written than to admit you've crashed yourself into a dead end. Some objectivist never recover from "Atlas Shrugged."
It isn't just that, but in reading her non-fiction (in which she quotes her fictional characters as experts, infomercial style) she doesn't show any profound thoughts. Her critique of Kant, for example, suggests to me that she didn't have the first idea what he was talking about. All she says about him: he's bad.