We Tolkien-lovers have spent no small amount of energy defending him against the charge that his work is “childish”; “unrealistic”, and all the rest of it. In the main, our apology is accurate – properly understood, the Legendarium *is* deeply adult, deeply realistic and a very deep well of *wisdom*. Mostly. But there is one way in which I still feel it isn’t – one thing that for some time has been bugging me and interfering with my enjoyment of re-visiting Middle Earth. That is the question of sex.
Tolkien knew all about the male sexual drive, of course, as evidenced by his personal correspondence. Certainly as a soldier he would have been exposed to (or at least heard about) the full scope of male desire. He must have known that men under pressure, fierce men, sinewed and hard, experience desires.
And yet – what are we to make of the dominant male characters in his world?
There is a tendency for us, as believers, grasping the rich Christian symbolism in LotR, to likewise want to view the *characters* as proto-”Christians” – people to believe in, when our own leaders have so often failed us. If we view chastity as a Christian virtue – well, we naturally want to believe that our heroes are virtuous. But are they? Can we believe it?
I will omit the hobbits, elves and dwarves from this discussion – as “fantasy species” we cannot be quite sure what goes on in their heads. Let us consider just four characters, of the human race that we all know and love: Aragorn, Boromir, Eomer, and Faramir.
Boromir, my favourite character in LotR, is an ambitious, bold, self-confident man, brimming with male vitality and drive. By the time we meet him, he has fought many campaigns, been politically active for years, and by any account seems socially savvy. Is there any way to believe that this man remained chaste?
Similarly, Eomer. Eomer is another of my favourite characters (in the book at least – Karl Urban portrayed him decently, but not excellently. In the book, Eomer shows much more gravitas, judgement, intelligence, less hot-headedness – in short, much more *nobility* of character than Urban can muster. He is more “wild” and uncouth than Boromir, but perhaps even wiser, in the sense that men close to the land often are. His sense of duty at a time when the very existence of his people is at stake is thought-provoking and inspiring, worth reading through in light of our present crisis). But again – are we really to believe that this hard-riding, robust, life-and-death-facing horseman finds himself able to abstain from the pleasures of yellow-haired maids?
What of Aragorn and Faramir? Knowing what we do of their personal characters, it’s easier to believe they remained chaste. Aragorn is the Christ-figure who manages even to resist the temptation of the ring. And yet he is, what, 90 years old when he joins the Fellowship? Is he really virginal at that age? Faramir is the “good” son, who prays before eating and loves tradition and learning. But he too is a man.
Is it believable, then, that sex should have been omitted from the story? Or *is* it, in fact, believable, and am I reading 21st-century assumptions into the story?
I have to say that in my experience, as someone who *does* believe in chastity as a virtue, I must nevertheless acknowledge that most of the best men I’ve known – men who were *alive*, vigourous, and not afraid of their own shadows – had awful trouble maintaining any sort of chastity. Was this really different in other eras?
Or did Tolkien intentionally downplay the sexuality of his characters, in much the same way that he downplayed Christianity to make it less explicit?
Are our heroes merely human after all?
You have to look at the era that LotR and Hobbit were written, especially in the UK at that time. Sex, if not part of the main story line, was down played for the most part (Conan the Barbarian may be a counter example where sexual titillation was part of the sell). Certainly it would have been distracting to the story line and not part of what Tolkien was trying to emphasize which for LotR appears to be a Christian “themed” story with an under current of anti-industrial age propaganda. The Hobbit on the other hand seemed to be a more light adventure novel with no real message with the main characters being mostly non-human and was probably trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible so a sexed up Hobbit would have not been a good idea at that time.
The real problem is that our world is terribly over sexed and no book will sell unless there isn’t some kind of sexuality in it so it seems odd to read books from times past that don’t include this type of thing.
How often does sex appear in the northern myths and legends that inspired Tolkien?
Is the “Battle of Maldon” flawed because it makes no mention of such things?
Why does every story have to cater to the typically female desire to have the plot revolve around sex aka “romance”?
The rampant sex properly belongs among the orcs, who represent cro mags and below. By this racial division Tolkein does artificially drain much of the wickedness from man and elf, yes. You can see the reintegration in the hobbit modernization project.
Such things have no place in the heroic spirit of the noble races, hence their absence from the book except as an elided attribute of the evil.
The real problem is that our world is terribly over sexed and no book will sell unless there isn’t some kind of sexuality in it so it seems odd to read books from times past that don’t include this type of thing.
Yeah. I think, too (and in response to Corky as well), that maybe I need to clarify: I’m not *asking* for LotR to be a romance novel. I’m just saying that as an adult, my conception of what Boromir, Eomer, etc., were “really like” is a bit different from what it used to be when I was younger.
Such things have no place in the heroic spirit of the noble races, hence their absence from the book except as an elided attribute of the evil.
Yes, I think so, too; I think it’s not only that British audiences wanted their literature as sanitized as possible.
Sorry, I can’t agree that Boromir and Eomer must have gone in for some lusty wenching “behind the scenes.”
Although Boromir has his flaws, they mostly have to do with his pride and narrow loyalty to Gondor. He was first and foremost a man of arms, but it would be a mistake to see him as a Conan the Barbarian in chainmail. His sense of honor and duty would, I think, have prevented him from the kind of self-indulgence you’re imagining.
Same goes for Eomer, although I think his vision was less narrow than Boromir’s.
Consider, are there any scenes where we see him (or Eomer) getting rip-roaring drunk? Alcohol certainly appears in LotR, and many of the characters, like the hobbits, seem to be fond of it. But none of the four characters discussed here are to be found in anything like the wild Viking revelries so often portrayed in the movies.
No, they all have too much self-control for that kind of thing. So I don’t find it difficult to imagine that they were also chaste with regards to sex.
I can’t agree that Boromir and Eomer must have gone in for some lusty wenching “behind the scenes.”
Well, I would like to believe this way once again (which is why I wrote this – I *want* to be convinced!). But it just doesn’t comport with what I’ve seen in real life. I’d like to believe that this is an effect of the sexual revolution, and that men in other eras were different.
Consider, are there any scenes where we see him (or Eomer) getting rip-roaring drunk?
No, but that is actually another perfect example. I don’t find it at all believable that Boromir *didn’t* like to get rip-roaring drunk. Faramir, I could believe.
Perhaps the difficulty you’re having imagining a chaste and sober Boromir reflects the sad fact that there are so few examples of that manly behavior in today’s world?
On the other hand, I’ll bet someone living near the West Point military academy in the 1830′s or 40′s would find it perfectly believable. But then, they had the privilege of knowing men like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson.
We, on the other hand, have Petraeus.
Peter Kreeft once said that Tolkien believed “Jesus to be the word made flesh and pornography is the flesh made word”. This is why he stayed away from realism, even Homeric-style gory depictions of battle. Gandalf makes mention of Saruman cross breeding orcs with men to make them immune to sunlight. Orcs were elves once, and there are numerous mentions of elf-maidens being abducted by orcs. “the Orcs went forth to rape and war, and Balrog captains marched before” They weren’t abducting women to put them to work in the kitchens
Not the kind of sex you were looking for but it is there if you look carefully.
“… it is there if you look carefully.”
And even if you don’t look carefully, it’s hard not to see *that* kind of sex in Grima Wormtongue’s furtive leering at Eowyn.
Treebeard in the Two Towers: “It is a mark of evil things that came in the Great Darkness that they cannot abide the Sun; but Saruman’s Orcs can endure it, even if they hate it. I wonder what he has done? Are they Men he has ruined, or has he blended the races of Orcs and Men? That would be a black evil!”
Arwen’s mother is also abducted by orcs and is so pained by the experience that she leaves for Valinor soon after her rescue.
Tolkien doesn’t NEED to say it, but there’s subtext there.
Being a lover of history, he would be very familiar with the fates of captive women.
Arwen’s mother is also abducted by orcs and is so pained by the experience that she leaves for Valinor soon after her rescue.
I caught that subtext too. There were other offscreen rapes in the Turin Turambar saga – actually a lot of deviance went on there. Definitely not a book for teh kiddies; VERY “grimm” and Scandinavian, that book.
Tolkien was more “chivalrous” in the Arwen and Aragorn subplot.
Peter Jackson strongly hinted that in his version of “Two Towers” that those two did do the deed. A big part of Aragorn’s backstory is where Elrond tried to convince the two that their relationship was just a fling. The tragedy in that part of “Two Towers” was that Arwen, at least, refused to accept this (overtly) and that Aragorn could not accept this (internally). Eventually they give Elrond the finger and live happily ever after.
I think it’s fitting that all the incurably evil beings in Tolkien’s world are birthed by unnatural (magical as a stand-in for technological?) methods.
[...] Samson’s Jawbone: Tolkien, the S-word, Realism, Childish Naivete, and all the rest [...]
(Post) Victorian English writers were often prudes with pedestalization tendencies. You should try French literature of the period instead, now there was plenty of sex. E.g. have you ever read the unabridged version of “The Three Musketeers” ? Not only it has D’Artagnan raping M’lady’s maid (and deceiving M’Lady as to his true identity to get in bed with her, which was akin to rape), but a friend tells him that women were created to ruin men, and that to keep women and servants in place, a man should show them who is in charge. After hearing this advice D’Ártagnan proceeds to beat his manservant who was asking for pay raise, black and blue, leaving one to wonder what he would have done to an uppity woman:)
On the other hand, I’ll bet someone living near the West Point military academy in the 1830′s or 40′s would find it perfectly believable. But then, they had the privilege of knowing men like Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson.
I hope this is the case, Corky. Thanks for participating. I may yet rehabilitate my cynicism.
LOTR isn’t a story about every single facet of the human experience. He picked what he wanted to focus on and did a very good job with it.
ASDF has the right of it. Tolkein was writing as a sort of historian (with linguist as his second suit and poet as his third). Historians are rarely concerned with such things as flings that don’t produce offspring. Epic romances that found a dynasty of kings on the other hand, they care very much about.
People in the past had lots of sex—you can’t, for instance, claim that a group of people that regularly had 10 children per married couple were a bunch of uptight prudes who hated sex. They just didn’t like to talk about it and kept it MOSTLY inside the confines of marriage.
@asdf and Jehu: I’m not sure you have understood me clearly. As I said to Corky, I’m not *asking* for LotR to include sex or wondering why it doesn’t. You might say this is a post about how *my* worldview has changed with adulthood. It’s about being disappointed, disillusioned by life, at the realization that your heroes are probably not as virtuous as you thought they were.
Some scattered comments:
1. It may be very difficult/ impossible to know what life is like when there is not 24/7 sexual stimulation via the media, surroundings, art, styles of dress, attitudes and lifestyles…and pretty much everything.
2. Whether men have sex depends much more on women than on what men want – in most traditional societies women are continually supervised and chaperoned; and there is no possibility for women (or men) to have sex unless this is socially sanctioned.
3. Numenoreans may not be like us – for example, their fertility seems to have declined considerably – this was a sign of spiritual malaise and decadence, but this may have been manifested in low libido. (There is much on this in the Appendices). Alternatively, they may have invented birth control etc – which would also count as decadence.
4. So the question only really applies to the Riders of Rohan, who are implicitly our ancestors. My guess is that their kind of society was as above – one in which women were supervised at all times (either by her father’s family, or the husband’s) – mostly mutually supervised. Any women who stepped out of line would probably be expelled and exiled as dangerously destabilizing.
It may be very difficult/ impossible to know what life is like when there is not 24/7 sexual stimulation via the media, surroundings, art, styles of dress, attitudes and lifestyles…and pretty much everything.
That’s very true; I was thinking about that very thing after my discussion with Corky, above.
My guess is that their kind of society was as above – one in which women were supervised at all times (either by her father’s family, or the husband’s) – mostly mutually supervised.
Yes, that’s likely true, too, although I’m not sure it helps me – because what I’ve been trying to say is that I’d like to think of Boromir, Eomer, et al., as men who not only didn’t because there was no opportunity, but actually wouldn’t fornicate even given the chance.
I guess that raises a question for Christian philosophy: If we respect a man because he has refrained from sin, can we respect him quite as much if we realize that he has refrained because he has not had the opportunity to be tested? I agree, unfortunately, with the view that we all probably have our breaking point on pretty much every issue – but I still find some men worthy of respect.
You have plenty of examples of this phenomenon in the US today – I mean the devout Mormons: Romney for instance. Also the most fertile members of the middle to upper class, active in the military etc.
The two physically greatest warriors of the Bible both had women trouble. As great as LotR is, I think that’s a better example of the realities.
Anecdotally: every military man I’ve known has either had a fat/ugly wife, or he had women trouble.
Cane,
Thanks for pointing out that a military occupation is considered “prole”,
[He didn't "point this out", at least not here. I'm censoring the rest of your comment, as it represents a ridiculous, dehumanizing caricature of human behaviour and motivation, as if people are computerized algorithms locked in a soulless quest for "status" that prevents them from ever making decisions for any other reason. Save it for Half Sigma's, who gets a lot technically correct but leads a squalid, spiritually dead existence, and on your way there, consider that a man might select a military career because he enjoys it; that not every man views "a beautiful, socially connected woman" as the holy grail of life; and that if you think a man's worth comes from his college attendance, career, or intellectual achievements then you have failed life much more terribly than any of the people you look down on.]
Ha…
I stand by my comment that a military occupation is considered (high) prole.
I suppose that my comments were censured because it denigrated a sacrosanct conservative institution — the US military.
[You are correct that (enlisted) military is a "prole" occupation. The reason I censored (and censured!) the discussion is not because you pointed this out, but because you carried things much further and made (or implied) value judgements that I object to.]
In contrast, if I pointed out that social work, an occupation associated with contemporary liberalism, also had similar low prestige, I would not have elicited such a harsh response.
[Perhaps not... we all have our biases. I will say, however, as someone who actually works with social workers quite often, that I think they do important work and hadn't tended to think of them as particularly "prole".
As for the rest, I am putting a stop to this - it's not the kind of discussion I want to host.]
[Enough.]
even Half Sigma realizes the he is a loser too since he is not working on Wall Street or in BIGLAW because he attended Arizona State Law School.
[Sigma is NOT a "loser" because he's not working on Wall Street! He's a loser because he thinks not working on Wall Street makes him a loser. Do you understand what I am saying?]
BTW, I am not a vexatious personality in real life since I am quite meek, inquisitive, patient, and sympathetic… obsession with Half Sigma with them as we had some fruitful, insightful, and civil discussions on issues of social class and political philosophy (and theology).
[Well, let's see more of that agreeable attitude, then.]
[Enough.]
Looks like you’ve had the misfortune of coming across the Sperg-Queen, Samson. I really am tired of the cynical, reductionist attitude and you see it throughout the Manosphere, even with the Christians. However, when you go out to the real world, you see that people aren’t all cut-and-dried the way Manospherites want them to be.
Btw, how have you been? I’ve missed seeing you around and I wondered if you still kept up with your blog.
As for the article, I will say that I enjoyed it and as a minor quibble I do think that Elves, Hobbits, and Dwarves are Humans, albeit of a different sort. I do know that elves and humans can produce viable, fertile children but that the offspring must choose at some point between immortal life like an elf or mortal life like us.
And for the chastity aspect. Due to the what I consider to be chaste as per my Church, the Roman Catholic Church(only P-in-V sex that is open to procreation within marriage is chaste. Masturbation, even when you are a virgin makes you unchaste), I do think that most men have much difficulty in being chaste. Of course, masculine men have the most trouble but you know what’s ironic? Self-restraint has been traditionally a masculine value. Consider the example of the Greeks and the Persians. The Greeks believed in moderation to be the highest virtue and considered the decadent, hedonistic Persians to be effeminate. What do you think about that?
Thanks for coming by, Svar; I agree with your comment pretty much 100% and it’s good to see that there are still some like you.
I’m still around! Just busy with Real Life, that’s all.
Thanks, Samson! What do you mean by some like me?
I can’t wait till I can get back to Real Life myself.
[Enough.]
Gee, Svar, I forgot to ask, what are you optimistic about in this material plane of existence. Why not be cynical?
As an off-topic: I know that you’re interested in hunting and the topic of fox-hunting came up over at Chronicles. I was able to get one of my favorite commenters, Robert M. Peters to talk about the fox hunt:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2012/11/13/back-to-the-stone-age-ii-capitalism/
I have a feeling that you’ll enjoy it even though I don’t think Canadians fox-hunt(don’t worry, neither do Texans).
I’ll give it a read… I’d love to know more about fox-hunting. You’re right, we don’t have any fox-hunting tradition up here that I know of, but as a sometime hunter *and* an avid equestrian it sounds interesting to me!
Terrible to read those comments about the demise of the “commons” in the Southern States. I’ve heard such things before, from a friend in Florida. Up here we have more forested, public land (what we call “crown land”) than you could ever want.
Yeah, I know that hunting in Texas is pretty hard to do. Most land here is owned by farmers and ranchers and unless you own land or know someone who owns land, you have the choice of hunting on overcrowded and undergamed public land or paying out your nose to hunt on private land. Wish we had a bunch of public land like you guys.
A bit too harsh, Samson? I’m sorry about that. I’ve had a history with that particular character and that sort of harshness is the only thing she’s able to understand.
Svar,
Do a 5:30, pretend you’re El Guerrouj, and then relax. I bet you can do that. I could do that too if I was a man, but a 6:30 sedates me out of a hyperactive state; it is probably keeping me relatively stable without the need of pharmacological intervention. Thank goodness I am thin, but unfortunately I have no Ethiopian or Kenyan ancestry.
In a few ways, I am like that “bitch from Cerulean” (to make a comparison to a fictional character in popular culture; I could not think of anyone other female character like me) since I am tomboyish, irritable, and quite insecure and self-conscious, but quite sweet and sympathetic. I am still a reserved recluse, but I have a few, invaluable confidants and spiritual companions who will ofter me encouragement and edification. I deem myself a loser in the secular sense (as Half Sigma would too), but I am quite content materially and with my relationships.
I really don’t spend much of my time talking about proles, Marxism-Leninism, HBD, or intelligence anymore since I have not posted on any far-left message boards and sparingly on Half Sigma in the last month. I still like to banter about proles though. I know what website I should give up during Lent
.
Best wishes…
Black Rose, I still don’t get why you think that I care about you or your life. You have some sort of mental disorder and are in dire need of medication or institutionalization. I don’t know why you’re obsessed with me(to the point of actually saving my comments!) but it is extremely creepy and your sheer lack of femininity and your lack of social skills only adds to your creepiness.
Seriously. Go get a life. And don’t ever talk to me again. You do not have any worth to me; you’re just some creepy stalker on the internet and that’s all you’ll ever be.
I found that query by looking up “Augustine” and “Svar” on Google a week ago since I was wondering if you choose him as your confirmation saint since he, like you allegedly, has high V. (Perform the query yourself.) I did not archive the comment on my hard disk drive or flash device.
Regarding your apt and accurate inference that I am “in dire need of medication or institutionalization”, I will reply:
“Ooh, your powers of deduction are exceptional. I can’t allow you to waste them here when there are so many crimes going unsolved at this very moment. Go, go, for the good of the city.”
I am merely quirky (and certainly not creepy) and not at all delusional, psychotic, or incapacitated by major depression or mania. But since I am highly neurotic, I am more prone to anxiety than outright depression/mania though, and vigorous aerobic activity (for a female) provides a nice outlet for that. Yes, I am completely unfeminine in my interests although I am do have the feminine capacity for sympathy, but I use my pulchritude (having a symmetrical visage and petite figure like a distance runner) and my capacity for imitation (in fashion) to maintain a feminine appearance with relative modest apparel. I can succeed in social situations by relying on explicit processing (by using my knowledge of social rules and memory of prior experiences and consciously processing ) than intuitive, effortless implicit processing.
And BTW, you found me here and posted an acrimonious reply. I did not proactively try to find you on the Internet, thus the notion that I was stalking you is simply your delusion. I am more obsessed with Tirunesh Dibaba than you after seeing her finishing kick in the 10000m. She has accomplished more than you ever will.
P.S. Since you insist on insulting me by calling me “creepy” and “in dire need of medication”, I will say that you are probably a coward in real life despite your Roissyiarian asshole facade. I bet you haven’t talked to anyone about your “reactionary” or “traditionalist” positions. How about you candidly state to your friends that you are (presumably) against women’s suffrage since it is a ubiquitous position in the reactionary manosphere. Certainly, you believe it is a tenable intellectual position, and if what you said about yourself is correct, you definitely have the aptitude to defend and explicate your position. Don’t say that anti-feminism is so “politically incorrect” that it would only elicit visceral disgust, because I said to some acquaintances and friends (so these aren’t one off encounters) that I subscribe to some of the tenets of Marxism-Leninism (another ideology that also “politically incorrect” considering that Ozzie Guillen was suspended from being manager of the Marlins for saying that he admires Castro for merely being alive and in power, not for any specific policies.) There was some selection since they appeared to be moderate leftists thus they were not random people, but you could do the same to right-wing friends who would be receptive to your arguments. Such discussions were actually insightful and not chaotic diatribes because I was able to present my position in a disinterested and detached manner without overtly and intrusively proselytizing it. Could you do that, or you are too diffident (or stupid) to defend and articulate what you believe?
Besides, M-Lism seems to be an interesting political philosophy for discussion when the occasion is appropriate. I lost my fervor for it and now consider myself only a nominal M-L. I have learned, mainly from personal experience, that there are more important things in life than mere ideology…
Hah. You wish you were quirky because that would mean that you were actually somewhat attractive. You’re just a creepy stalker with no life. This is a site I visit quite often. Your visit to this site was to post something that was completely off-topic; the fact that you can’t seem to stay on topic shows your lack of intelligence. You do not have any social skills whatsoever and probably hang out with misfits and other undesirables like you in real life. Also, due to your obsession with that chink Henry CK Liu, Maoism, and manga as well as your horrid way of seeing children they way Tiger ladies do, it’s very likely that you’re just another socially awkward Sinobitch. I remember you saying that you hate Americans. Then why don’t you leave, you chinky-dinky rat?
You don’t know anything about me in real life and my friends and family are quite aware of my traditionalist views. You don’t even know what I actually believe, hah!(I remember when you actually thought I was a Republican, lol) They know that I’m an anti-feminist and that I want a traditional Roman Catholic girl to be my wife. They know about my race-realist views and my adherence to traditional morality. The funny thing is that unlike you, I actually have a life outside of this. This is just what I do on the side when I’m bored unlike you who pretty much has nothing else to do with her life besides this.
Keep in mind that I live in Texas and in Texas, no one gives a damn about “political correctness”, least of all, me. Sure, most of my friends think that they’re more liberal than I am, but ultimately they are not that far off from me.
I ultimately deeply care for and love my Faith, my friends, and my family. My love of tradition comes from my love of my Faith and my love of my God. That’s more than you can say. You’re only a Marxist-Leninist only because you think it makes you “out there” and cool, when all it does is make you even more of a social loser. FAIL. Hahahaha! What a tard.
Go to a doctor and get medicated. It will be good for you, you creepy slit-eyed weirdo. Maybe one day you’ll be normal like all the regular people.
I see that you’re now obsessed with long-distanced runners. Funny thing, most people don’t share your stupid obsessions. So, I could care less what some Ethiopian runner does; I, unlike her, actually have enough to eat. Also, I’m on the path to becoming a doctor, so yeah…. doctor, runner… hmm… Nope, I think I’ll accomplish more than her. Sorry, rat. So not only am going to provide a useful service to society(unlike either you or the runner), I’m going to have more prestige than either of you. So, I’m not really tearing into my beer, you know what I mean? Hah!
I could care less what some Spergy creeper on the internet thinks about me. You’re probably at some dead-end job, haha. What a loser.
Let’s not contemn exceptional athletic accomplishment that should be universally celebrated — we’re not talking about obscure sports such as table tennis or race walking here. I guess you consider the entire endeavor of track and field is considered useless. Strange, I thought an anti-feminist would glorify (or at least respect as culturally valuable) basic athletics as manifestation of the essence of masculinity — superior performance in a physiologically demanding, competitive activity. I guess masculinity to you is cravenly denigrating the poor (as indicated when you contemptuously alleged that Dibiba lives in poverty) and the psychologically weak as you consider myself to be. Not only you regard with me great opprobrium, you also have the same mentality towards superior performers in prestigious athletic events.
Obviously most people (if you simply define “most” by greater than 50%) do not share my interests, but long-distance running is far from an irrelevant, niche interest. Funny that Mo Farah would get millions of dollars simply because he excelled at an interest you deem “stupid”.
Oh Svar, you’d make a horrible doctor since you know nothing about human metabolic requirements, no elite long distance runner could even undertake training without sufficient caloric intake since they run at least 10 miles a day on average, which is roughly 800 kcals, assuming 80 calories per mile for a petite, female body, not to mention the maintenance basal metabolic rate of about 1400 kcal. Anyway, I bet you have too much to eat relative to your lean body mass.
—-
You don’t know anything about my life or how I think. Regarding my lifestyle, I cannot be pigeon-holed as a “prole” or “underclass” since my life resembles Paul Fussell’s “class X”. Still, it is better than the life of a postdoc lab monkey with a minute chance of entering the tenure track. I candidly consider myself to be a “failed” scientist, despite receiving some encouragement in high school that I could a “Barbara McClintock”, I lost my aspiration to be a principal investigator when I assessed the prospects of an academic scientific career. It was less of a failure of intellect and personality than an economic decision, but I do not regret my choice since I enjoyed studying the biological sciences for its own sake. I am not ashamed to say that I do occasionally receive some financial assistance from my parents because the progeny of the economic elite also receive similar subsidies as Half Sigma blogged about it (NY Times column about parents who give children financial support). In a secular sense, I still have my pride since I am not “prole”.
BTW, do you have any evidence from the psychological literature that the inability to stay on topic is associated with a deficit in general intelligence? Many discussions often go off topic; for instance, the Undiscovered Jew on Half Sigma incessantly talks about college reform in threads where it wasn’t even mentioned or even relevant to any of the comments. I personally find it annoying, but I do not think he stupid because of those interjections.
Although there is a contrarian allure to Marxism-Leninism, I did not initially embrace it to be rebellious. I primarily declared myself as Marxist-Leninist because of my disillusionment with liberal democracy, my understanding of history, and the ideology’s commitment to advance the material prosperity of the working classes. I still like the general mindset of M-Lism, since it renders me apolitical and non-partisan due the ideology’s intrinsic contempt for the political processes of liberal democracy.
I never said you were a Republican. Even if you’re correct, and are able to produce evidence that I did, doesn’t that make you a stalker too? BTW, being a “race-realist” in a confederate state most certainly does not require any courage because of the culture of racial hostility engendered in those states. I was able to talk about racial human biodiversity issues with my friends, but I have to approach the subject with finesse. To be truly Promethean, explicitly declare yourself an opponent of woman’s suffrage, not just a general traditionalist.
Like most people, I do not have any friends or connections with anyone who is economically or socially elite, but most of them are not dysfunctional. I indeed have a few friends who can be considered “misfits and other undesirables” such as a friend with bipolar disorder I met at my parish. I actually consider it a complement. Unlike me, she actually has bipolar disorder, not just mild, fugacious moodiness and anxiety (and, without her medication, experiences depressive and manic episodes worse than I ever experienced), so I am somewhat aware of bipolar disorder’s debilitating effects. Normally, I speak often bluntly and frankly, but since she is sensitive and cannot defend herself in the fashion that I can, I have to use my language delicately around her to avoid inadvertently harming her. Still, I believe it is my vocation to love her for who she is and be a sympathetic and supportive human being. Her existence is for God’s glory, and I sincerely remarked to her one time that she was a “superior woman” due to her faith. It has nothing to do with socioeconomic status, political philosophy, or psychometrics, but with love. I cannot be more specific than that, and have to be vague in the interest of her privacy.
Regarding our spiritual lives, I can say that God will judge both of us for our faith and actions. Yeah, I am really impressed that you love your friends and find that a sign of extraordinary virtue*. I can certainly “say more” on my nascent faith and spiritual growth, but I do not see the necessity to superficially demonstrate my sincerity to you due to your pugnacious personality. But take a brief intermission from indulging in self-righteousness and presumption, and reflect on whether your abusive conduct towards me demonstrates your love of God. I am not criticizing the consequences of your actions, but its malicious intentions. You believe without hyperbole that I am severely mentally ill; but I do intend to actually play the victim momentarily and hypothetically in order to evince the nature of your character, even though I was not adversely affected by your remarks. In essence, by your assumptions about the precarious nature of my mental health, by attacking me, you are indirectly assailing my bipolar friend. You are a despicable, sadistic, pusillanimous creature, despite your ostensible faith, because you believe by casting maledictions on the psychologically vulnerable, you can take delectation from the potential for inflicting emotional harm on me as collateral damage. Fortunately, I have the confidence and stamina to withstand it, and ironically, you are only defiling yourself through your caustic language **. Regardless of whether or not I am mentally ill, due to your predatory behavior against my supposedly fragile mind and deliberate intention to exacerbate a putative mental condition, either fork of that disjunction shows that you have a serious problem.
I will reiterate: you are a despicable, sadistic, pusillanimous creature. I expose other my check to further generic, jejune insults such as “tard” and tenuous, Freudian inferences about my personal life as an opportunity to compound your invectives. It will only corroborate what I have said about you.
I forgive you nevertheless; now, it is up to you to be contrite. I do not need any apologies, especially if they are insincere.
* Matt 5:46-47
** James 3:1-12; Matt 15:11
Samson, I am sorry for the comment about proles as I was tangentially responding to a comment, not the post. I thought Svar would be more conciliatory after you censored his replies (which I did not read) and attempted to approach him in a congenial manner (as evidenced through my self-deprecating remark about being like Misty). I felt like I said what I needed to say: I wish this altercation was about ideological disagreements, as I thrive in such discussion if it is explored at a high level, but he had to act like a petulant child, disproportionately reacting to a comment that was at most a mild nuisance.
I’ve said what I needed to say.
Best wishes…
Too long, didn’t read. I’m done with you, creeper. You can have the last word if you like. I don’t really mind because unlike you, I have a life to live. Catch ya later, you crazy bitch!
Love (agape to be more precise). Love trumps ideology or (cognitive traits that the current meritocracy values).
http://lovethepossibility.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/dont-try-to-convert-me/
Forgive me Samson.
Thanks for your initial attempt to quell this situation.
I said what needed to be said. Svar needs to say no more; I don’t need anymore evidence to support my belief that he is a vile soul despite his profession of faith. I implore you to keep this up, just so it can be obvious to anyone who can read to know what he is truly like although my conduct is also embarrassing. Svar can take responsibility for his decision to disparage me and, based on his last comment, it is evident that he does not regret his actions.
Neither I or Svar “won” this futile scuffle; I prefer to let his words speak for itself — I did not malign him; he maligned himself. He would have been the better man if he just swaggered away holding me in disdain. It would have been best if he did that initially to conceal what type of individual he truly is.
You are correct that “if [I] think a man’s worth comes from his college attendance, career, or intellectual achievements then you have failed life much more terribly than any of the people you look down on”. This is not a concession because I knew this in some respect before I posted my initial comment, but I am mildly pathologically enamored with Half Sigma’s ideas and readily acknowledge this as one of my foibles. His ideas are indeed compelling and avant-garde in the secular sense, but they are spiritual bilge, not the Bread of Life. I really, in my heart of hearts, do not regard him as “Venerable”; I was just being jocular when I say that. Like you, I will still enjoy reading his blog though.
I was acting childish because I was peeved that my comment was erased and I did not save it. Nevertheless, you did the right thing by admonishing me.
God bless you…
LOL, my soul is vile because I called a creepy creep a creep. Yeah, that makes sense to anyone who is actually normal i.e. not you. I’m amazed that you have the ability to judge souls and read hearts…. funny….. I thought only God had that ability. It’s funny that a hateful, nasty Marxist-Leninist has the ability to judge the degree of someone’s faith. I thought that only God had that ability too…. Your ability to use faith as a weapon against me is quite amazing. They say that the devil knows Scripture….
I may or may not have a vile soul, but atleast I have a soul, you’re nothing but a soulless robot. Christ can redeem me, because I have soul to redeem. Unfortunately that is not the case for you.
I know that you don’t realize this because of your mental condition, but this whole exchange just makes you look bad. That’s how it looks to any normal, non-crazy person. Most people know how you’ve been hounding me from the very beginning over at TC. Most people know that you’ve attacked me because I hold to traditional beliefs due to my love of God, faith, and family. How you’ve attacked and slandered my Church. How you’ve bitched because I would ignore you and your immature attempts to get my attention. And last but not least, most people still remember how you BEGGED for my approval. You are pathetic and a nasty little bitch. You are a horrible person and I hope you never have children because no child deserves to have such a horrid woman for a mother.
Seriously, get off of the computer and go institutionalize yourself. You do not deserve to be out in general society. You do not deserve to mix with normal people because you are nothing more than a drain on their souls like you are on mine.
Looks like it’s time to go back to ignoring you.
Thanks for your reply…
Looks like I “won” in the sense that I elicited a response and you reneged on your desire to to let me “have the last word”. Ironically, you are the one besot with me that my remarks impelled you to reply. I did not provoke this exchange. I made a faux-pas about talking about proles here and you had to interject with caviling about my usage of language. Contrary to your delusions, I did not “stalk” you here, since Samson posted the link to this site from his comments on Half Sigma.
I believe that I conducted myself here with dignity for the most part; I wonder if the same could be said about you.
You are correct about my past actions and I was pathetic then, but I’ve moved on. I don’t need or want your acceptance anymore — I know that I am loved by God and am confident in my social and cognitive abilities, especially my command of the English language, a synergistic combination of both my verbal ability AND autistically-enhanced memory. I even acknowledge my neurotic personality when I compared myself to Misty and her constant insecurity when she compared herself to her sisters.
“Most people know that you’ve attacked me because I hold to traditional beliefs due to my love of God, faith, and family.”
No, it’s because you are an asshole, even by your own admission.
Indeed, I used my “tard” intellect to slander the faithful and the Church before, but since I am an oligophrenic “tard”, I am merely innocuous and unable undertake the cognitively demanding task of using scripture as a weapon. If I am merely an innocuous “tard”, why did you trouble yourself with your last reply if I pose no legitimate threat to the true faith or yourself? Would “[my] ability to use faith as a weapon against [you] be “quite amazing” if I really was a merely a paper tiger “tard”? But your ability to use scripture against me is either non-existent or pathetic. You didn’t use your intellect and the knowledge of Scripture and what you learned from the “orthosphere” to strike this “tard” down!
Regarding my decision to judge your faith. Jesus himself admonished some Asia Minor Churches in the beginning of Revelation. Since you said this about Tirunesh Dibaba and the Ethiopians “unlike her, actually have enough to eat. ” Revelation 3:17, the verse that follows my two favorite verses, would be quite appropriate:
“Because you say, “I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing,” and you do not know that you are wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked”
I learned to love; agape supersedes ideology, whether it is traditionalism, Trotskyism, or Marxism-Leninism.
Now ask yourself if you have really moved on and changed from being “an anarcho-capitalist of a [presumably social] Darwinist bent” or a “Roissyian asshole”. Only you, in your heart of hearts, and God know the answer to that, but one can draw inferences based on your comments here.
I see no need to post vainglorious braggadocio about “my love of tradition” and “love of God, faith, and family”, especially when such remarks are juxtaposed with your churlish conduct and contempt for . As for myself, I don’t see myself as meritorious; I am not worthy to be in God’s presence and it would be merciful of him if I have to experience a long stint in purgatory because everything I do is motivated by pride to some degree, even my rebukes to you.
“Looks like it’s time to go back to ignoring you.”
Those are mutually agreeable terms for an armistice – an armistice based on mutual capitulation and not amity. Too bad you have to “go back” and did just ignore me initially while trusting in Samson’s ability to maintain the blog from being polluted by errant comments about “proles”. You started this because you were willing to interrupt your vaunted productive and fruitful “life” because you saw an irresistible opportunity to cast aspersions on me for your own amusement and believed you were an advantageous, asymmetrical position to inflict harm. The fact that you didn’t just “swaggered away holding me in disdain” while letting me pathetically ruminate over the dejection for not being admitted to Brown, Cornell, or Columbia is a testimony to your sadism and malevolence. You are right I am pathetic, but it most certainly did not need to you to expose that. I didn’t expose you; you exposed yourself.
Samson is right: “you think a man’s worth comes from his college attendance, career, or intellectual achievements then you have failed life much more terribly than any of the people you look down on”. Thank you. Thank you.
Svar, this conversation actually made me stronger and more mature. I don’t need your scornfully solicitous and condescending “care” for my mental health. I don’t want to thank you, but I should give glory to God for this trial!
Regarding my verbosity:
Augustine said: “I think I have now, by God’s help, discharged my obligation in writing this large work. Let those who think I have said too little, or those who think I have said too much, forgive me; and let those who think I have said just enough join me in giving thanks to God. Amen.”
I was suffering witch before, but I vented out my sorrow and learned to love myself (and others). Svar, you are indeed a wretched foe.
And no I am not crying!
For context see this, starting at 18:30
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xlyx7q_yu-gi-oh-5d-s-episode-24-eng-sub_shortfilms
* I did not initially name myself after her. I wanted to choose an emo and feminine handle; my handle is just a coincidence. I stumbled upon the Japanese series on YouTube in mid 2010 and I liked what I saw, especially when compared to the English version that I glimpsed on the CW from a few Saturday mornings, leading me to watch most new subbed episodes on YouTube. Still, that is one of my favorite scenes of the series because of the strong pathos of the music and dialogue.
I was acting childish because I was peeved that my comment was erased and I did not save it. Nevertheless, you did the right thing by admonishing me.
It seems to me as though you are an unusual person, perhaps with some social difficulties, who is still “working through life” as it were, trying to figure out where exactly you stand and what exactly you believe in. I think you have potential for positive growth, but please try and be civil at least while on this site.
Thanks…
I met my bipolar friend at Mass today and strongly embraced her she we saw each other. I was so elated to see her today since she has been such a blessing to me. I vividly remember the first time I met her at my parish when I was a socially inept and Marxist-Leninist woman who was obviously alienated from the parishioners both ideologically and socially. I was a stranger and she welcomed me; I was hungry and she gave me the Bread of Life. I initially decided to attend Mass there, not as an attempt to “find” God or to be “spiritual”, but merely to experience the exotic and nostalgic sentiments of attending a Catholic religious service as a disinterested spectator. I wanted to have limited contact with the parishioners, due to general social anxiety and my prejudiced views of religious people, so I inconspicuously sat in the back pew, but she offered to sit by me during Mass and we had a brief conversation about ourselves before Mass commenced. Her enthusiastic participation, such as beautifully singing the hymns and attentively listening the homilies and responding, made an impression on me. She did this effortless out of a humble, sincere love for God without any pretension, not merely to conform out of social obligation to the rituals of the Mass, appear pious, or display proper etiquette. After attending a few Mass with her, I then pondered whether should I start imitating her simple, childlike faith and abandon my arrogant intellectual belligerence towards religious belief and ruminated whether meeting her was God’s providence (since it did not necessarily had to happen). I did not immediately profess a belief in God after encountering her nor did she dispel my skepticism; her example bewildered me and contradicted my expectations about religious people being hypocritical and obtuse. Since I did not want to yield to an “irrational impulse” of embracing faith because of a “mere coincidence” and felt I need a stronger epistemic foundation for belief, I humbly and patiently enjoined God in prayer (for many weeks) before I entered slumber for additional guidance and to send his Spirit to bestow me with the gift of faith.
To say in a matter of fact tone, not to belittle her, she did not have the philosophical, historical, or scientific knowledge or analytic style of thinking to engage me, but the visible example of her genuine faith was more powerful than any abstract intellectual argument. That’s why I said she was a “superior woman” and she’s not a merely a “misfit” or “undesirable” person.
Today, we sat together, and she behaved exactly the same way during Mass. Although I could not receive the Eucharist since I am not confirmed yet, after receiving a blessing from the priest, I went back to the pews and knelt, staring at the crucifix, in profound joy that I was able to witness her example both today and during the critical period when I was visiting the parish as a secular guest.
——
Some of what Svar said about me was correct, especially that I did slander the Church and God’s faithful servants before. I did write a “polemic” against a priest (it was about a homily two Sundays before I met that woman) on a far-left message board (although it cannot be considered technically libel since I wrote it primarily for my own amusement, not to slander his reputation, and I did not mention his name or the parish in my screed). It is was largely an expression of pride and I must contritely repent of the particular sin (although I do not regret any of the consequences of my actions) and the underlying meta-sin that motivated me to write that — pride.
I do not recant my remark that he is (hopefully “was” may be a more appropriate copula now) a “vile soul”, although some additional clarification may be needed. I must specify that I never intended any of my comments to be rendered as a judgment of the final fate of his immortal soul, which such judgment would be an egregious sin of pride since it is a hubristic proclamation of knowledge that denies or limits the mercy of God. The characterization of “vile” seemed to be an accurate inference based on his conduct towards me here; it was not supposed to describe an immutable and incorrigible personality trait. I am probably “vile” in some respects too.
I really forgive him. “Forgive of us of our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” is not just a perfunctory utterance I say most days; it has to mean something, right?
I felt like I defeated some personal demons and insecurity in that exchange (Svar seemed to be a mere proxy for them), thus the exchange was primarily salutary for me. I hope it was an opportunity for repentance and his spiritual growth too.
Sex isn’t a big deal in a medieval world. Good wives are a big deal. Getting laid, getting drunk, ect are of minor importance in a world where you have to fight, defend, and conquer to live. I’m sure frodo’s farts would have smelt terrible but it’s not a big enough deal to put into a book. Sex is a big deal in this society because men are starved for it and women use it to advance themselves. If the natural order prevailed sex would be less on mens mind than advancing themselves and their children.
If the natural order prevailed sex would be less on mens mind than advancing themselves and their children.
It does seem like that has been true in many historical societies.
What a great piece. My comment won’t really add anything, except to say that I largely agree with Red. Further, post 60s, the orgasm is the Golden Calf. By all means, we’re told, whatever we seek to attain, we MUST attain orgasm. Yet I suspect that the modern worship of phallus is, well, modern. A life of celibacy is almost unfathomable to people today, but I think the temptation to sexual gratification may actually be much further down than, say, the temptation to greed or self-adulation. We might find our real life heroes giving way to such things just as easily, if not more so, than to the orgasm.
Re: Sailer’s blog and “S” “J”…
The lack of interest in esoteric subjects amongst sensates is a tendency, not an absolute. Obviously not 100% of Sailer’s readers are “N” brain types so it is quite possible that you could find this sort of thing interesting. Of all of the “S” types, ISTJs are probably the most intellectual, by rule.
The difference would occur in how you process the information. An INTJ for instance would look upon Sailer’s writings simply as a mental exercise in which to debate with others and to show off their intellect. An ISTJ on the other hand would probably want to find some sort of closure and solution, even knowing that there truly will never be one. Read the posts on the Sandy Hook shooting and you will probably be able to discern a difference in your thought pattern from most of the other posters; Difference number one may be that you actually had some sort of emotional feeling caused by the shootings, as opposed to the stark, gun control….non gun-control….blacks…not blacks…clinical debate that these sort of things inspire amongst INTJs.
An INTJ for instance would look upon Sailer’s writings simply as a mental exercise in which to debate with others and to show off their intellect. An ISTJ on the other hand would probably want to find some sort of closure and solution, even knowing that there truly will never be one.
Ha – that is EXACTLY right! I AM much more of the latter than the former (even knowing that there will probably never be one…)!
Difference number one may be that you actually had some sort of emotional feeling caused by the shootings, as opposed to the stark… clinical debate
Well, yes, sheesh, I mean, I have children and I love children – I don’t understand how anyone could be emotion-free about the incident.
Thanks for stopping by, Truth!
There are numerous references to Elven sexual behavior in Tolkien’s notes and letters. You have to remember that the Elves are an immortal race and being as fertile as mortal men would be disastrous for them. Tolkien suggested that sexual desire in Elves diminished after the begetting of children.
“Good” men in Tolkien’s Legendarium are Elf-friends. They speak the Elven languages, or like the Rohirrim, are allied to those who do. It would not be beyond the pale of understanding for men in such societies who have frequent contact with Elves, who admire them, and even kind of envy them, to emulate their chastity as well, without being thought less manly.
So yes, a chaste, honorable Boromir who is nevertheless capable of great violence makes a lot of sense. And I cannot even imagine Beren, who had lain in the arms of Luthien, consorting with a tavern wench.
If you want that kind of fantasy, George R. R. Martin has plenty of it for you.