If you’re a man who seeks out people just for sex, you’re looked at as possibly having too much self confidence or being selfish.
On the other hand, if you’re a woman who does the exact same thing, you are viewed as someone who has no self respect.
Why the difference?
Monogamy is deemed respectable in society as it is what is viewed as benefitting a stable system of governance by men, promoting stability and equity among men, first and foremost. Our perspective is that of male authority figures.
Told by government that society treats them all as equal, men decry a man who monopolizes more than his fair share of women, or they may smugly congratulate him, if he is their friend and can share hordes of women.
Similarly, if you are a woman and you want to pursue and have indiscriminate sex with men, you are an even greater destabilising influence on equality between men. Not only will you disturb the equity among men in access to women by, if there are a group of you, gravitating towards the most attractive men, but even the most attractive man will loose some of the control they have over you as a woman, as he can look forward to the possibility of ‘sharing’.
This is because if sexual satisfaction is a woman’s aim rather than monogamy, circumstances may arise where more women will openly chase after fewer men, a prospect many men secretly fear. Women who are not monogamous and do not reproduce might act like men: uncontrollable and competitive in the realm of sex. These man-like women may behave differently towards men, may in fact be asexual, or they could be nymphomaniacs, as they won’t be weaned on a lifestyle of being pleasing for men like girls and women today. Many of the most young and fertile women will be shrewd and out of reach. They might choose to be ugly, successful in business, so they can be rich and buy male prostitutes.
In any case the entire ritual of sex risks becoming one in which women have a lot more control, and that could lead to other types of control.
This is why, in our narratives of fiction and policy, largely controlled by men, women practicing ‘casual sex’ lose respectable status, especially in the eyes of men.
There are harsh consequences of laws touching women especially who have casual sex for example, children may be not provided health, care or education by the state placing an undue burden on single parents, women’s sexual health care is accessible, not paid for or is poorly distributed. At worst women are not allowed access to abortions, not allowed birth control, or whatever other pains men in government can inflict upon this offensively destabilising female sexual freedom.
Socialisation in early life
Most women are taught not be be sexually assertive. In early life, girls find their chastity and beauty are idealised. Female privilege goes along with that, wrapped in promises of happy marriage, gifts, leisure, self-indulgence, work-free lifestyle and other forms of sexual entitlement that females are bought with. Chastity is part of the price of that gift, and women sacrifice their sexual assertiveness. Women who ‘sleep around’ may think they have forfeited all that female privilege, that they are ‘loose women’ who ‘have no self respect.’
The ingrained psychology of shame may haunt women who ‘sleep around’ despite the newfound anonymity of the internet. It is now easier than ever for women to escape a loss of social status among her peers when seeking casual sex.
Sexual assertiveness in women is something that can be very rewarding, as women often learn in later in life. One day the sense of shame may vanish and women will wonder why they were ever tricked into thinking casual sex would degrade them to society.
Men and women also have other very valid reasons to be monogamous apart from social status: health, children or a preference for work or other activities. But hopefully this is a helpful explanation of why dating is different for men and women.
Amid the crickets from UK media on what is shaping up, just in the two weeks since the #parisattacks, to be another epic illegal war, this time in Syria not Iraq, waged by our elected representatives with our tax money…
Premier David Cameron has proposed arms funding of £12 billion to be used to fight ISIS.
Russian Media, RT comes out with this gem explaining how this is all very illegal, on top of the other practical reasons not to get involved in a war that really does not have anything to do with your immediate security:
Syria’s Government in September said essentially “Don’t bomb us or terrorists on our territory, it’s illegal” in two letters to the UN.
Illegal airstrikes in Syria are nevertheless ongoing from Russia, France and the US.
UN resolution last Friday used fuzzy language authorising countries to use “all necessary actions” to stop IS but didn’t make it legal (still) to bomb Syria, according to an article on European Journal of International Law (EJIL).
Last Wednesday, UK government pulled UK tax billions into the trigger happy mayhem.
Call me a conspiracy theorist but this looks like bit like the start of WWI to me, a terrorist event (French theatregoers vs. Arch Duke Ferdinand) resulted in proxy war and then all out war between superpowers in a divided Europe. Which was, by the way, a very nasty war.
We should avoid entering a war between superpowers if possible, no amount of tax money will repay for the lives lost.
Airstrikes require deaths that are certainty, rather than a possibility, such as they are in the world tolerating the existence of ISIS.
So, is it really true that wind power is “not fuel efficient”, cause more emisisons than they create could not survive without commie “green” subsides and taxes to prop them up?
Research like this gets loads of press: http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html
And it manages to confuse people.
One point to be made, when discussing subsidies, is fossil fuel infrastructure is already built and already has an access to an existing private finance regime, so of course it’s going to be cheaper.
A better way of thinking about the “is wind power expensive” question, and one which better reflects a non-too-distant future when renewables have access to more private captial and infrastructure, is in terms of capital or investment costs per MW.
Those capital costs are either paid by the public through energy bills as profits ( in the case of fossil fuels) or through subsides ( in the case of renewables). The difference is that fossil fuel companies take the equity and the finanicial risk of building new things and that comes out of our bills as profit not subsidy. Take a look, they’re close to equal in places like India (except for Solar PV):
So is wind power expensive? Yes, it appears to be marginally more expensive according to some estimates, and marginally less expensive according to other estimates.
This report, Samuela Bassi, Alex Bowen and Sam Fankhauser, “The case for and against onshore wind energy in the UK” explains why it is so hard to make this case solidly as one research paper on one energy system and economy is not applicable to every energy system and every economy in the world. Costs for things like energy, fuel and taxes vary worldwide:
“Estimates vary because different assumptions can be made about uncertain parameters, such as the discount rate (i.e. the cost of capital through time), the effect of the exchange rate, commodity prices (e.g. for steel) and the cost of complying with national legislation. But, despite some differences due to these assumptions, costs tend to be of the same order of magnitude. Overall, onshore wind appears likely to be one of the cheapest energy technologies available in 2030.”
Let us suppose that the naysayers are right and wind power is marginally more expensive, but if you’re contemplating building renewables its because you’ve recognized that something is awry with your fossil fuel system, be it the fuel costs, the transmission, the eventual depletion of fossil fuels, or the availability.
For example, Solar PV, while expensive in India in terms bang-per-buck (excuse the americanism), has the hidden bonus of not requiring ANY transmisison costs if it is on you rooftop, plus other benefits, such as the factyou can use it in a natural catastrophie. It also gets around the hurdle of not having consistent access to natural gas in India, a poorer coutnry prone to fuel shortages.
Wind turbines don’t pollute
The other counterpoint to wind power, often made by misguided renewable energy advocates, is to say wind power consumes fuel emissions nearly as much as fossil fuels power does.
That argument goes like this: The machines that manufacture turbines and cars they are trucked to the run on fossil fuels. Wind turbines also consume small amounts of fossil fuel electricity when they are not running.
The above-mentioned report also explains why the emissions/damage to environment required by wind turbines is just very tiny in comparison to fossil fuel power:
“Unlike other generation sources, wind does not require significant amounts of water, produces little waste and requires no mining or drilling to obtain fuel (IPCC, 2011). It is true that, from a life-cycle perspective, wind energy is not entirely a zero-carbon technology, as some greenhouse gas emissions are generated during the manufacturing, transport, installation, operation and decommissioning of turbines. These, however, are considered to be very limited. Global estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2011) indicate that these are of the order of 8 to 20 gCO2/kWh. By comparison, the average emissions from power generation in the UK were around 540 gCO2/kWh in 2008 (CCC, 2010). In accordance with current accounting conventions, these emissions are measured and assigned to the activities where they occur (such as transport or steel production).”
Take a look at “lifecycle emissions’ per unit of energy for each technology, which is lowest of all for Offshore Wind and Hydro:
Again, to say that wind turbines must necessarily consume fossil fuels is deceptive because the argument is based on a specific type of existing energy system: it’s all relative to where you are and what they use as an energy source there.
The typical assumption is that all other sources of electricity are fossil fuels —- and does not take into account a future where all of that that power comes from another renewable source, making your turbine carbon-neutral.
It is not far fetched to assume that all cars will one day be electric and not fossil fuel powered. So arguments that say wind turbines require polluting are really misleading.
Producing energy from fossil fuels requires releasing 98% more emissions than wind energy does as fossil fuel energy continuously requires fuel… some even say wind power nearly carbon neutral.
Inefficient wind power: what does that even mean?
As far as efficiency goes, if you mean efficiency in respect to operating time for wind turbines in varied wind conditions, generally about 30% you’d be interested to know that in Europe utilisation rates/operating time per annum for gas fired power plants dropped to 37% in 2013 according to law firm Linklaters. They’re shutting down due to competition with renewables. European taxpayers still subsidise the shut-down gas fired plants with capacity mechanisms.
2012’s hands-down winner of commie subsidies handouts is fossil fuels, which governments need to keep people warm and cozy and prevent revolutions, also require subsidies, which are reportedly growing worldwide.
I see only military and police responses proposed as solutions to terrorism. Considering 200 people are killed in terror attacks in Iraq on a typical day….
The mess in Syria and Iraq probably wouldn’t be half as bad, or even have happened if the weapons manufacturers that happily headquarter in the UK and the US hadn’t been allowed to send weapons to the Middle East and if governments in US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran had respected the sovereignty of Syria, as well as Iraq in the prior years.
I’m a journalist investigating how people routinely cover their webcams to protect themselves from surveillance, or photos being taken of them by malware, companies, hackers, police, or government. If you send me a photo, I’ll use it as the basis for an article I’m writing about NSA (National Security Agency) and corporate privacy violations through webcams as well as an art project.
How to take a photo:
1. Please navigate to the main search page of Google* on your laptop
2. Please take a photo of the entire screen, including the covered webcam. It’s okay to cut off the keyboard.
3. Email the image to me in a blank email with the subject “Covered Webcams” at email@example.com, OR post the image to art webpage https://www.facebook.com/pages/Contemporary-Experimental-Art-Archive/207826019279384 OR a link to the pic to my website in the comments section of this blog
*The reason Google is chosen is because of its participation in NSA’s PRISM program that collected and stored private citizen’s communications.
If you want a credit or updates on the project, tell me and send your name in the email body.
Witness kitsch. Witness high rise ‘atrocities’ posturing as architecture, totally devoid of narrative and sensuality: rather like the human corpse without sensual and mental functions. Mechanical reproduction has taken the craftsmanship out of artwork. No doubt remains: art is dead, and technology has killed it.
Or has it? Can we possibly decry the impact mechanical reproduction has had upon art by liberating it from meaning? Meaning, so intertwined with a craftsman’s thought and intention, has been blithely shunted aside by the technology of mechanical production.
If you say that art is not devoid of meaning today, you need to look no further than Damien Hirst’s diamond covered skull which has taken meaning (defined as having an interpretable intended signification) and turned it into a cute conceptual toy.
At first, the Futurists and Constructivists romanticised the machines of reproduction. Machines had positive, warlike characteristics of brute force, virility and sensuality. But the glittering machines of war, like soldiers themselves, have long since been rusted-out and broken down and assumed innocuous civilian functions.
However, Walter Benjamin remained optimistic about ‘art in the age of mechanical reproduction’ and thought that the photographic and cinematic image would end romanticised narratives. As a Jew who died fleeing the Nazis, he hoped for a world with less ideology. He would be pleased that, in the post-modern age we have attained art ‘free from ideology’, being cleansed and purified by mechanical means, via electronic enema.
Benjamin was prophetic, as Warhol, who said, ‘I think everybody should be a machine’, made mechanically reproduced art the stylistic norm for the next half a century. He did this by taking reproduced commercial products, labelling them art, declaring ‘art means nothing’ at the top of his lungs and finding it hilarious, (probably because he was on LSD at the time).
And last we are presented with the internet, a new era in the reproduction of art with a potentiality, perhaps Pan-modern, for the great synthesis of everything within a locale, if not within a narrative. Is there a possibility of pan-modernist art within the internet?
We see warnings from Gibson and Dick of the cybernetic future of art: digitized stars, androids given synthetic memories, confusing our sense of what is human. This confusion comes partly from the indirectness of the referent and the hidden hand of the artist; from image capture, to commercialization, to cyberspace, we are thrice removed from from the sensual experience of the artist creating artwork, and so from original meaning.
One problem facing artists drawing from the cybernetic glut of information is that they find it difficult to narrow down possible meanings and convey them in the short time for which they hold the viewers attention, and thus they must rely either on clichés overburdened with meaning or on the shock value of scary randomness. The question remains: how can art convey meaning in the postmodern age?
Meaning is bound within the artistic process. To know what the artist meant, we must be able to re-experience how they created the artwork. This is because the artist’s process of production and distribution communicates the intention of the work itself, as much as the meaning of a found object placed in a gallery differs from a soda can found in the street.
For example, a photograph does not always have an elaborate artistic process. The intended effect upon the audience, therefore, cannot be interpreted clearly and its meaning is confusedly subjective, as described by Roland Barthes in Camera Lucinda.
I was impressed by a piece I saw at the Gargosian’s Homage to Ballard the other day, a constructed space called ‘Preface to The 2004 Edition’ by Mike Nelson. It was a simulation of an old hotel hallway. I could imagine the artist creating this piece, and though envisioning him scraping the walls by hand and putting it together from refuse, I could establish his intent by envisioning his process, and found his positive valuation of the subject readily conveyed by the sensuality in the first hand experience of a piece which, smelling of cigarettes and requiring me to open old doors, was tactile and olfactory.
With reference to pan-modernism, perhaps in such an artwork there is a return to the past by reconstituting it. There is memory and human thought echoing off of Nelson’s piece, like what Benjamin once called the ‘aura’. Perhaps this is the attraction to the bodily specimens, such as taxidermy and bloody undergarments, found in works by Emin and Hirst: We want to experience history first hand, wonder at an artistic process, and understand the artist’s feeling on the subject.
Technology’s critics and champions agree as to its impact upon art, and that the outcome has thus far been a post-modern commerciality, sterility and meaninglessness. We will create meaningful art when we find a way to combine technology’s productive potential with a new sensuality in art and artistic process.