Hyerdahl3 wrote:
> >From: Mark Sobolewski mark_sobolewski{at}yahoo.com
> > Heidi (wrote)
> Sex and affection create these inequalities.  I have to
> disagree, Mark.
>
> >It's not so bad, really.
>
> What isn't, sexism?

I can't understand clearly what Heidi meant myself but yes,
that's what I'm referring to.

>  IMO, the whole point of intimacy is
> someone you don't need to bargain with or balance things out so much
> as a normal business or platonic relationship.
>
> Sex itself, and intimacy is really all about trust, and sometimes
trust and
> love.

Yikes!  I trust a number of people I certainly don't want to
have sex with.  I'm reminded of a cute line from "The Graduate"
where Dustin Hoffman assures a family friend that his sex
with the man's wife was impersonal and similar to shaking hands.
The man responded: "Pardon me if I don't shake your hand!" :-)

Without getting too philosophical, I think it's reasonable to say
that sex is about specific physical contact with a person
we find sexually desirable.  That's it.  There's ways to
make sex more enjoyable and part of something bigger including
having trust in the other person but sex isn't "about"
trust.

> Certainly it would be impossible to have a really good sex life (or
> intimate life) with someone who took on the role of lord and master.


That's your opinion, but millions of women's personal preferences
and fantasies prove you wrong.

> So when
> you say, "it isn't that bad" I guess I have to wonder why you have to
accept
> something that isn't terrific.

I was being fecetious.  Not only isn't it that bad, but it's openly
desired by many if not most women.  Equality is all very nice
and good, but there are some things about inequality that "rule"
too!  Consider:

Offer women in your workplace the hypothetical choice of marrying
a man whose a billionaire or someone who earns about as much
as they do.  Is inequality bad in that case?

You love or tolerate inequality where it suits women and you rail
against it as if there's some kind of conspiracy where it doesn't.
I view hypocrisy as a function of people being so powerfully self
focused
that they lose perspective and think that's how the world is
constructed:
To suit them. Then they rail at the injustice that life doesn't
work the way they think it should.

Perhaps the biggest waste of time (Andre, pay attention here) is
to actually get upset at such a person as if they're getting
away with something.  As Lincoln once said: You can fool
all of the people some of the time and all of the people some
of the time but not all of the people all of the time.
Whoever is right: Me, you, Andre, etc. I believe will be proven
with time.  God will get the job done in whatever mysterious
way is required.

>  Isn't it about>being "accepted for who you are".
>
> No.  It's really about accepting the "other' for what he or she is.
If you are
> a jerk, you're still a jerk.  :-)  And a slave will never really love
the
> master, or trust him.

You talk about "slave" as if it's a bad thing. :-)

The fact is that traditional men are PROVIDERS.
Slaves are also providers.  So, in essence, men are the slaves.

It takes a pretty warped mind for you to claim that women who
quit their jobs as waitresses to marry a doctor and play tennis
all day and have maids clean their homes have "sacrificed"
to benefit him!

Men have been "sharing" with women for the past 10,000 years or so both
individually and collectively even as you, yourself, can see
no reason for women to support men.  Discussions with you
only serve to help create a framework to prove every single
thing sexists told you as a child.  Good going!

> So, perhaps your alleged wife is really the person you should ask.
If she
> responds by saying, "well...it isn't that bad"....I guess I'd start
> contemplating more.  :-)

HAHAHAHAHA!

She made our first New Year's toast by saying "May the
next year be not as bad as the last."  Eastern Europeans can be
VERY pessimistic. :-)

As I said in another thread, your agenda hasn't helped to make
women's lives better or "happy" but to provide them with
"equality".
They aren't the same thing as you realize.  Most women,
including Maureen Dowd, probably don't want equality with you. :-)

regards,
Mark Sobolewski



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/11/05 2:44:25 PM ---