- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 15:10:35 +0000
Christ the Holy Son
Christ the Holy Son
Christ the Holy Son
Seduction was and will always remain the female form of power
So I have to whore myself to even be remotely comparable to a man?
Nope, as a woman you've got MANY more options. The two emotions that almost every male felt in the presence of Lou Andreas-Salomé were confusion and excitement—the two prerequisite feelings for any successful seduction. People were intoxicated by her strange mix of the masculine and the feminine; she was beautiful, with a radiant smile and a graceful, flirtatious manner, but her independence and her intensely analytical nature made her seem oddly male. This ambiguity was expressed in her eyes, which were both coquettish and probing. It was confusion that kept men interested and curious: no other woman was like this.They wanted to know more. The excitement stemmed from her ability to stir up repressed desires. She was a complete nonconformist, and to be involved with her was to break all kinds of taboos. Her masculinity made the relationship seem vaguely homosexual; her slightly cruel, slightly domineering streak could stir up masochistic yearnings, as it did in Nietzsche. Salomé radiated a forbidden sexuality. Her powerful effect on men—the lifelong infatuations, the suicides (there were several), the periods of intense creativity, the descriptions of her as a vampire or a devil—attest to the obscure depths of the psyche that she was able to reach and disturb. The woman who succeeds by reversing the normal pattern of male taking the risky initiative in matters of love and seduction will have untold powers. A man's apparent independence, his capacity for detachment, often seems to give him the upperhand in the dynamic between men and women. A purely feminine woman will arouse desire, but is always vulnerable to the man's capricious loss of interest; a purely masculine woman, on the other hand, will not arouse that interest at all. Follow the path of the woman who reverses the traditional dynamic, however, and you neutralize all a man's powers. Never give completely of yourself; while you are passionate and sexual, always retain an air of independence and self-possession. You might move on to the next man, or so he will think. You have other, more important matters to concern yourself with, such as your work. Men do not know how to fight women who use their own weapons against them; they are intrigued, aroused, and disarmed. Few men can resist the taboo pleasures offered up to them by such a woman.
Or, I can forget all that s**t, and take what I want the same way the men not only do, but are honored for.
All that talk of seduction, yet such tactics are why women are chided as decietful, weak, and evil. That woman you talked about was portrayed as EVIL. She was not celebrated, she was reviled and scorned.
The Radical's strength, but also the Radical's problem, is that he or she often works through transgressive feelings relating to sex roles. Although this activity is highly charged and seductive, it is also dangerous,since it touches on a source of great anxiety and insecurity. The greater dangers will often come from your own sex. Lord Byron had immense appeal for women, but men hated him. He was constantly dogged with accusations of being perversely unmasculine. Salomé was equally disliked by women; Nietzsche's sister, and perhaps his closest friend, considered her an evil witch, and led a virulent campaign against her in the press long after the philosopher's death(Which increased her fame and made her desirable). There is little to be done in the face of resentment like this. Some Radicals try to fight the image they themselves have created to please people, but this is unwise: to prove his masculinity, Lord Byron would engage in a boxing and fencing, anything to prove his masculinity. He wound up looking only desperate. Better to accept society's occasional gibes with grace and insolence. After all, the Radical's charm isthat they don't really care what people think of them. That is how Andy Warhol played the game: when people tired of his antics or some scandal erupted, instead of trying to defend himself he would simply move on to some new image—decadent bohemian, high-society portraitist, etc.—as if to say, with a hint of disdain, that the problem lay not with him but with other people's attention span.Another danger for the Radical is the fact that insolence has its limits. Beau Brummel prided himself on two things: his trimness of figure and his acerbic wit. His main social patron was the Prince of Wales, who, in later years, grew plump. One night at dinner, the prince rang for the butler, and Brummel snidely remarked, "Do ring, Big Ben." The prince did not appreciate the joke, had Brummel shown out, and never spoke to him again.Without royal patronage, Brummel fell into poverty and madness.Even a Radical, then, must measure out his impudence. A true Radical knows the difference between a theatrically staged teasing of the powerful and a remark that will truly hurt, offend, or insult. It is particularly important to avoid insulting those in a position to injure you. In fact the pose may work best for those who can afford to offend—artists, bohemians, etc. In the work world, you will probably have to modify and tone down your Radical image. Be pleasantly different, an amusement, rather than a person who challenges the group's conventions and makes others feel insecure.
Once again, you encourage me to continue the behavior that is unrewarded and that the very MRA's and people like GirlWritesWhat condemns in the first ******** place. No win situation with you punks, so guess what; I go with what I want to do and feels right anyway.