The New And Improved Fashion Board

[pony_trekker]

Originally posted by nononono
And how's the pay?

We didn't even get to political contributions, by the way. Much is encouraged here as well.

You know, pony, when I'm having to make some serious concessions for my children's christmas experience, not to mention regular church and charity contributions, plus the holiday amp-up, not to mention worrying about my fucking mortgage, I'm not feeling like a partner in my firm needs 3 separate "hope you feel better" gifts funded by that partner's co-workers and reports.

Think of the cost benefit involved in being on the shit list by not contributing.

That being said though, it is surely some token amount they seek. The gifts should flow down, or if someone is sick, at least laterally.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
2. I didn't play victim. I ran a wild argument up a dead end. I take full responsibility. I said it. It's right there.

God damn, you're just a giant pussy these days. What's gotten into you? I hope you get back on the booze or the drugs or whatever it is that allowed the Sebastian of olden days ride an absurdist argument to the bitter end like a scene from Dr. Strangelove. What is up with whatever abstinence you are undergoing, anyway? Are you nursing?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by nononono
And how's the pay?

We didn't even get to political contributions, by the way. Much is encouraged here as well.

Are you PI, too? Half of a PI firm's profits go to poitical contributions.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Oh for the fucking love of christ, you are not making this into some bullshit political thing, are you?

No, that's what nononononono is doing.

Because power in the sense that I am understanding it (which is not Sebby's "all about fucking" way) in this conversation basically boils down to having control over what happens in your own world -- which frequently is connected to money and/or charisma.

Your everyday world need to have some connection to money, but hopefully not too much. If you're truly Greedy, Greedy, Greedy, well, then, who cares how you whore yourself to get money? It's all the same.

Charisma - it's fun to be around. What does it have to do with power, unless you're trying to translate that Charisma into something other than a good time.

People whose opinions and wants are routinely disregarded at work and at home and in life in general have no power. They could probably get that power through charisma and/or money. People who are catered to, who have a lot of other people in their lives figuring out what the person wants and making it happen, or doing the bidding of the person to cause the person's wishes to be "made so," have power.

Maybe female beauty corresponds to charisma and is therefore a source of power? Somehow, as I think Sebby has now acknowledged, this doesn't seem like it has that much widespread effect, or if it does for the truly beautiful, there are so few truly beautiful women that those few who do have a lot of other people eager to please them that it doesn't make a dent in the general power level of women.

This is a fine rant that I fully endorse. Exactly - at home at work, it's good to be listened to and have input. It's good to get your way a lot of the time. And there are pros and cons in each column to being a woman or a man. But power is not all about whether your BSD makes you swagger when you walk down the street.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Borat

Borat like picture but no like people talk about stripper like philosopher.

You know, if you're going to post here, you really need to change your avatar to something board appropriate:

[nononono]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Are you PI, too? Half of a PI firm's profits go to poitical contributions.

No! But lots of the attorneys are very politically active and pretty hooked in, and the firm does some issue-specific lobbying as well. People notice if you show up to listen to a candidate give his spiel and don't plop an envelope with at least a few zeroes into the basket at the end of it. For certain other reasons, I am particularly expected (as in they would think I would, not so much they "suggest" I do - I think) to contribute to certain political people. So, some of this is specific pressure on me, but in general, it's "liked" if you throw money at politicians.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by nononono
My statement simply was that, whatever power I* may have as a woman to make a man want to fuck me, it doesn't - generally speaking - provide true empowerment in and of itself.

True. But whatever power you* may have as a lawyer to make the business community respect you doesn't - generally speaking - provide for truly great sex in and of itself.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
True. But whatever power you* may have as a lawyer to make the business community respect you doesn't - generally speaking - provide for truly great sex in and of itself.

* ="the general you"?

So you define power as the ability to find great sex?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Charisma - it's fun to be around. What does it have to do with power, unless you're trying to translate that Charisma into something other than a good time.

Do you even hear yourself? I am not talking about Charisma Carpenter here.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I agree with you on interests, not work. 5% of us do what we love.

I am no more natively a lawyer than I would be a blacksmith or yoga instructor. I did it for money.

And that says something about your personality. You might say it makes you ambitious or that it means you are willing to sacrifice job satisfaction for a higher paycheck for whatever your reasons are. If that's not indiciative of your personality, I don't know what is. (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, by the way - I respect ambition or wanting to make money - nothing wrong with that.)

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I liked her fine with nothing. But you're right - we certainly shared interests. We liked having a good time and we liked talking to each other and found each other attractive. I couldn't care less if she were a street urchin, and she never asked about what I did or what I made.

It sounds like I'm not explaining myself very well. I'm not saying your job determines who you are, I'm saying that who you are determines what job you select for yourself or what you do with your time.

I am well aware that you can love someone who has nothing; the person who has nothing has made choices about his/her life that are reflective of his/her personality and what is important to that person. Personality is inherent in making the choices that shape a person's life. It is possible to admire/love a person for his/her personality even if that personality has resulted in something other than financial rewards, isn't it?

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And as I explained earlier, "looks" involve more than just the immediate physical attributes. They're an important part of a larger presentation, including how you carry yourself and how you carry on a casual conversation. You can't divorce them from the equation, and you can't say they're less important than interests.

I can (and do) say that someone's looks are less important than someone's interests and personality. No matter how good-looking someone is, appearance can never make up a lousy personality in the long run. Physical attraction is important, but the sustaining force in relationships is not appearance-driven.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Sorry, I can't give a simple answer.

I wasn't looking for a simple answer.

[Shape Shifter]

The use of the words "sex" and "power" in the same sentence is forbidden unless it is a discussion of sex toys.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by dtb
I am well aware that you can love someone who has nothing; the person who has nothing has made choices about his/her life that are reflective of his/her personality and what is important to that person. Personality is inherent in making the choices that shape a person's life. It is possible to admire/love a person for his/her personality even if that personality has resulted in something other than financial rewards, isn't it?

Is this a hypothetical?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

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.

Oh, this is complete dreck and you know it. You're just going on and on because it feels good.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Oh, this is complete dreck and you know it. You're just going on and on because it feels good.

Not in the least. If there's any craven sub-agenda, it's a venting of a lot of frustrations I have with the types of men I work around. I also think people think way too fucking simplistically about what "power" is. My argument isn't holding much water in this group, but that doesn't mean it's dreck (though it is boring).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
And that says something about your personality. You might say it makes you ambitious or that it means you are willing to sacrifice job satisfaction for a higher paycheck for whatever your reasons are. If that's not indiciative of your personality, I don't know what is. (I'm not saying this is a bad thing, by the way - I respect ambition or wanting to make money - nothing wrong with that.)





It sounds like I'm not explaining myself very well. I'm not saying your job determines who you are, I'm saying that who you are determines what job you select for yourself or what you do with your time.

I am well aware that you can love someone who has nothing; the person who has nothing has made choices about his/her life that are reflective of his/her personality and what is important to that person. Personality is inherent in making the choices that shape a person's life. It is possible to admire/love a person for his/her personality even if that personality has resulted in something other than financial rewards, isn't it?



I can (and do) say that someone's looks are less important than someone's interests and personality. No matter how good-looking someone is, appearance can never make up a lousy personality in the long run. Physical attraction is important, but the sustaining force in relationships is not appearance-driven.




I wasn't looking for a simple answer.

1. My sacrificing for nearly a decade my interests for money (a) degraded my personality and (b) is not in any way laudable.

2. I disagree with your second paragraph. More people are driven by circumstance than drive circumstances.

3. Yes.

4. I agree. But we may use different curves/ratios to determine where one reaches a low where the other can't compensate for it.

5. I didn't mean to sound snippy. I meant that honestly because, well, I actually hadn't figured out where this argument would wind up, so I'm kind of learning my position on the fly here.