The New And Improved Fashion Board

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I guess it depends on what you define as power. I deal with "powerful" men all the time. They have some dough and some ego. But I think the biggest power derives merely from how you carry yourself, and what you are innately. Carl Icahn can fuck a lot more women than me. The difference I'd like to think exists is that I could fuck a lot more women who actually wanted to fuck me. Sex isn't a commodity like the rest. To actually get good sex, and by good sex I mean the kind where the woman digs your shit, and she wants you, as opposed to wanting what you have, is a function of You, not your power, prestige, etc... I meet high powered women and waitresses I want to fuck all the time. It's not about what they have or their drive to achieve. What winds up my libido is some thing I can't put my finger on - a combination of looks and intelligence that sort of just radiates out of some people. I think that's power, and women who can elicit those reactions from men wield incredible power.

I think the influence my wife, or any woman, holds over a man by sheer sexual need and desire, is more powerful in a cosmic sense than any power you or I could wield in a boardroom. It's just a different kind of power. Bringing people to do your bidding by sheer force isn't so much power as mere resource allocation. They have to do what you say because you can crush them. Bringing people on even footing to do what you want by manipulation is true power. Men try that. I'm not bad at it. But women... shit, they have that skill from birth.

I think sex drives all because at the end of the day we can't escape that we are primates, and no matter what you get, no matter what you achieve and no matter how many women you bed, you still have to look in the mirror and consider why she's fucking you. There's nothing worse in life than to "make it" in all regards, but understand every moment of your life, that you have zero "Kavorka." I'd rather attract women than any other skill on this planet, so they'll always own me (even those I;ve fucked over). But that's just me. Like I said, everybody has a different definition of power.

ETA: Upon further reading of this, I realize it's also entirely possible I've just been hopelessly pussy whipped in a sense by every attractive woman I've met since I was old enough to fuck.

So women have all the power, but the power rests in being sexually attractive, so really, the reins of power in the world rest with hot women.

Got it.

[Sparklehorse]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Well that, and shoes.

I just read some place that some fashion-forward laydees are now also collecting handbags!!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by nononono
Hmmm, let's see, if we're forcing choices here, and if I had to choose between fucking someone so they'd put a roof over my head and having the means to do it myself, I'm pretty sure I'd choose the latter. Which would then lead to my having the ability to select my sex partner (increasing the odds both of love and of great sex) rather than to be beholden to the highest bidder.

You don't have to go with the highest (monetary) bidder. Really you are choosing between all of those with the money to buy the roof -- everything above that is gravy (and/or the sky). And it seems like after the wedding, you don't need to fuck them so much.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can't debate with you or TM that women objectively have less of what most people call "power" in our society. I'm using a broader, more expansive definition of "power." Some background's necessary...

When I talk about power, I'm not talking sheer corporate of govt force or hierarchical achievement. I view the "power" allocation in those realms as bifurcated - there are risk takers at the top, controlling decisions, and everybody else. The difference between the two involves sex, partly for the reasons you cite. But there's more to it than that. There's a lot of luck and native ability that factors in. I'd say sex is a part of it, and a not insignificant one, but hardly the largest.

The power I'm talking about (and maybe this is more a confession than a rebuttal) is the subtle interplay I see driving so much of what men do. I never wanted any achievement, career or shit as much as I wanted to meet a hot chick with brains who fell for me. That was always my white whale, and I think it's most men's white whales. We do everything we do to try to get the perfect mate. The odd thing about women is they are technically not holding the levers of "power," but all the levers of power are being pulled by people trying to get a resource they exclusively hold (even if the people pulling those levers don't realize it at the time they're doing it). Which makes women pretty powerful.

Caveat: To accept this, you have to believe that for most people, sex isn't a mere commodity, but at least a very unique one. You also have to believe that people have an innate desire to bond with, rather than merely dominate, one another.

Levers of power. Heh.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think this is a bullshit observation by someone who has access to pretty much every aspect of power that can be defined.

You're thinking inside the box. I'm not talking about immediate recognizable power. Step away from the "lawyer" view of power and think about power in a larger social context.

It's also a laughable comment considering I did nothing but gripe about lack of power over my circumstancces in an industry I loath for the last 7 years.

YMMV. I stand by what I wrote. And I now know how Spanky feels.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I can't debate with you or TM that women objectively have less of what most people call "power" in our society. I'm using a broader, more expansive definition of "power." Some background's necessary...

When I talk about power, I'm not talking sheer corporate of govt force or hierarchical achievement. I view the "power" allocation in those realms as bifurcated - there are risk takers at the top, controlling decisions, and everybody else. The difference between the two involves sex, partly for the reasons you cite. But there's more to it than that. There's a lot of luck and native ability that factors in. I'd say sex is a part of it, and a not insignificant one, but hardly the largest.

The power I'm talking about (and maybe this is more a confession than a rebuttal) is the subtle interplay I see driving so much of what men do. I never wanted any achievement, career or shit as much as I wanted to meet a hot chick with brains who fell for me. That was always my white whale, and I think it's most men's white whales. We do everything we do to try to get the perfect mate. The odd thing about women is they are technically not holding the levers of "power," but all the levers of power are being pulled by people trying to get a resource they exclusively hold (even if the people pulling those levers don't realize it at the time they're doing it). Which makes women pretty powerful.

Caveat: To accept this, you have to believe that for most people, sex isn't a mere commodity, but at least a very unique one. You also have to believe that people have an innate desire to bond with, rather than merely dominate, one another.

You're defining power in relationship to your own personal weaknesses and desires. Everyone's definition is going to be different under those circumstances and everyone will end up talking past each other.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The power I'm talking about (and maybe this is more a confession than a rebuttal) is the subtle interplay I see driving so much of what men do. I never wanted any achievement, career or shit as much as I wanted to meet a hot chick with brains who fell for me. That was always my white whale, and I think it's most men's white whales. We do everything we do to try to get the perfect mate.

I think you're arguing against your own argument. Everyone (women and men) wants someone hot who has brains to fall for them. But if you're a woman who isn't hot, you have much less of a chance of achieving that goal. And seeing as there is maybe 1 hot woman in 10, who actually holds the power -- even under your definition?

TM

[nononono]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You don't have to go with the highest (monetary) bidder. Really you are choosing between all of those with the money to buy the roof -- everything above that is gravy (and/or the sky). And it seems like after the wedding, you don't need to fuck them so much.

Eh, the problem with your description is that I would like to be with someone who, after the wedding, I want to fuck even more. But I'm a romantic like that.

[dtb]

Originally posted by nononono
Eh, the problem with your description is that I would like to be with someone who, after the wedding, I want to fuck even more.

Can that happen?!?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You're thinking inside the box. I'm not talking about immediate recognizable power. Step away from the "lawyer" view of power and think about power in a larger social context.

It's also a laughable comment considering I did nothing but gripe about lack of power over my circumstancces in an industry I loath for the last 7 years.

YMMV. I stand by what I wrote. And I now know how Spanky feels.

No, I'm thinking in terms of being someone who is relatively intelligent and occassionally attractive and very sexually aware and more often than not persuasive and always always always being aware that, in the society that I live in, I have to fight a lot harder than my male colleagues to get to the same place in every single aspect of my life.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
YMMV. I stand by what I wrote. And I now know how Spanky feels.

This has to be the biggest cop-out, bullshit response you've written.

TM

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by nononono
Eh, the problem with your description is that I would like to be with someone who, after the wedding, I want to fuck even more. But I'm a romantic like that.

That doesn't really respond to my point on your "highest bidder" comment.

That said, I definitely have not taken the route of depending on a mate to take care of me financially.

And what dtb said.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
The ability to put yourself in a position of power, wealth and/or influence is an attribute that many women find as attractive or more attractive than looks or charisma.

TM

It is apples and oranges... As to the above quote, Kanye West's got my proxy. I consider "loving" someone for his or her power or wealth invalid - outside my hypothetical, which naively assumes we act on legitimate bases. I understand you're citing the "ability" to create that wealth, but I'm very skeptical of anyone who says that which is physically unappealing or lacking in personality can be made truly attractive (in the sense of engendering affection and actual feelings) by its achievements.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
another question - they have waitresses in strip bars?

In some bars they do -- to be sure you're drinking enough of the overpriced Budweiser. They dont want anyone sitting at a front table nursing one beer for 3 hours.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
This has to be the biggest cop-out, bullshit response you've written.

TM

I am I think in full agreement with you.

Holy shit.

Maybe it's a generic winter gathering miracle?