First, a question: Given everything we know about the NSA domestic spying program, is it unethical to bait them? I mean, sure, it's probably totally unconstitutional (blah, blah, blah), and sure, there's a good chance they may eventually use the information they've gleaned for matters other than national security. But assuming their intentions are pure (you can do it!), should we really be wasting their time by writing emails saying, "Crusaders for Zion are da bomb!" Because it really is so tempting, but given that this program may actually help national security, I think it's wrong to bait them. But we can see how seriously I take this by, oh, the presence of this blog entry. By the way, I'm convinced that every terrorist emailing in English (why?) has put the word "bomb" back instead of whatever codeword they were using and preceded it with "da" and followed it with several exclamation points. They're totally going to blend in with the 14 year old girls in the minds of the government. God, I hope not...
Second: I was groped on the way to work today. ARGH. I was walking along, admittedly spacing out a little more than is perhaps prudent (but it was 9:15 am, not exactly a crazy hour), and all of a sudden there's a hand on my breast. I flicked it off with my wrist and gave the guy the same "what the fuck?" look I give to cars that cut me off when I have a walk signal. I kind of wish I had, like, stood up for womankind and done more (e.g., broken his arm, told the traffic cop, etc.), but I was mostly just embarrassed that I looked vulnerable and interested in getting to work and reading about science. I was minorly shell-shocked for the rest of the walk.
In any case, it didn't improve my view of men at all. I'm not entirely convinced men don't walk around wishing they could touch anyone they find the remotest bit attractive. Clearly they don't touch them, because they know that's very wrong and inappropriate (and even the ones who do only do it when they believe they're not going to get into trouble). But that doesn't convince me that they don't all have that impulse. I kind of think they do. And it made me realize more than ever that I'm not with the vast majority of people who believe your goodness should be judged based on how adept you are at overcoming your sinful impulses and living ethically. I think your goodness is determined by whether you have those impulses or not. Your ethical character is how you act, but that's not what I look for in people, at least people I want to be close to. I want the people on the streets to be ethical, but I want my friends to be good. I want to like most of their impulses.
This is, I think, why I'm generally repulsed by most men (at least the straight ones). I don't care how they actually treat me as much as what their ultimate goal is...what they're aiming for. And I feel like every guy I've ever met has a big sign on his head saying "Looking to hook up," "Will make small-talk to make out," "Will buy dinner to get laid," or whatever. Ew to it all. I think I make fun of asexual people so much because in some weird way I know I'm one of them. No, I'm not actually asexual, but if I'm not interested in having sex (or anything approaching it) with any real people, I'm not THAT far off.
All right, this entry has far surpassed the TMI level, considering everyone I work with has this url. GREAT. Don't mention it at the office kids. Right-o.
4 comments:
First of all, of course all straight men have that impulse! Just like all straight women have that same impulse for men they find the slightest bit physically attractive. Is it really so surprising that people have the desire, be it a strong, weak, conscious, or unconscious, to touch people they find physically attractive? It almost defines the term.
Next, I think if you're going to require that your friends be "good," it stands to reason that you should desire to be good, yourself.. but what you're saying implies that people have absolutely zero control over their own goodness (because we certainly have no control over impulses, by definition) and can't "try" to be good. What you suggest puts ethics and goodness at odds with one another: As an example, if I impulsively desire vengeance but restrain myself because I feel it is my responsibility to do so, by your argument I am being simultaneously "bad" AND "ethical."
Who knows? You might be completely appalled if you knew every single impulse of the people you already consider to be your friends. ...But would you really judge them based on impulses outside of their control, as opposed to how they DEAL with these impulses?
If ethics is based on how you act, as you say (which makes sense), then judging people upon their "goodness" (which, by your definition, is independent of how one acts) is, in fact, quite unethical in itself. ..Though, granted, the upside of consciously choosing an unethical position is that you no longer have to mind.
er, also, I'm pretty sure that not wanting to have sex with real people qualifies you as asexual (short of some perverse alternatives that impulsively come to mind).
Hey, thanks for commenting, but please leave some identifying information if possible--I have no idea how people find this blog when they do, and leaving an identity is common blog courtesy.
OK, now to respond to your points:
It's possible all straight men have that impulse, but as a straight woman, I definitely don't have that impulse. At all. I think men on the street are attractive, but I haven't the slightest interest in actually touching them. It's only after I got to know them somewhat and felt comfortable around them that touching would be a bit of an impulse. That's why this is foreign and repulsive to me. It may be the case for pretty much all men, but that doesn't make it any nicer. See my "I have unrealistic standards for men, and therefore don't like any of them" rant in the post.
By requiring that my friends be good, I don't require them to change, I require myself to pick good friends, friends whose impulses I like. Sure, I may not be able to discern all of their impulses and, sure, nobody's going to be perfect, but this is what I look for in people: good impulses. I'm perfectly aware that I'm putting ethics and goodness at odds with each other (not mutually exclusive, but neither mutually supportive). I don't find this at all problematic. In the example you give, by my definition, you would be both bad and ethical (assuming the desire for vengeance is bad). That doesn't bother me...it's just how I'm defining the terms, based on how they resonate with me: one in terms of impulse, another in terms of action.
Yes, I'm happy to judge people based both on their impulses and how they deal with them...but in terms of whom I want to be close to? Just the people with good impulses, thank you. I very, very much admire pedophiles who never look at child porn or go near kids. This doesn't mean I want to be friends with them (I actually wouldn't mind that impulse in a friend, as it doesn't affect how we'd relate). And I don't want to be friends with someone who's always thinking of himself, even if he acts like he's concerned with other people's welfare. Yup, that's my judgment.
If ethics is based on how you act, as you say (which makes sense), then judging people upon their "goodness" (which, by your definition, is independent of how one acts) is, in fact, quite unethical in itself.
I'm not sure I understand that point entirely. Are you implying I do harm to the world by judging people based on impulses? Maybe in a categorical imperative sort of way...but I don't really see it.
And you don't have to stretch very far for perverse alternatives. I'm turned on by porn. I fantasize about people. I think you'd be hard-pressed to call that truly asexual.
Came across your blog randomly - ran a search on blogger.com (because I am lame and do things like run searches on blogger.com) for "wordplay" and "x-word." and then I found your blog and then I read some of your other posts and then I read this one and then I decided that I couldn't possibly *not* respond. So I responded.
Problem is that I read your response to my response and now I'm right back in the same boat. I'm going to try and keep this one short (I just finished and I failed to do this entirely).
1. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm still going to hold that most women have the impulse to touch men they are physically attracted to, even if it's just a fleeting or unconscious one. I certainly don't mean it as an insult, but seeing as how you consider yourself mostly asexual, you might not be the most appropriate representative of your gender as far as this is concerned.
2. I think ethics and goodness must be mutually supportive. Your example of the pedophile who doesn't look at child porn or go near kids - you're assuming this person is "bad" because he is sexually stimulated by children. I say he is terribly unfortunate to have such impulses that he *cannot help* - but he acts appropriately and his intentions are good. And how can a man be bad when his intentions are good? How can one judge a person upon those factors he cannot control, and believe that judgment to be justified? That would be like holding dolphins responsible for their lack of opposable thumbs, or chimpanzees for their lack of a dorsal fin.
Alright, this is not a fully-formed response and I could go on but then you would respond and then I would have to again and it's clearly a very slippery slope. But before I exit your blog (and thank you for the reply, this is much more fun than working), let me leave you with one last quote:
"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."
Do you really want to mess with Batman?
Ha, it's true, I am messing with Batman. Bad idea, I know. I agree that pedophilia was a bad example, but maybe I should clarify that I think being ethical is no less valuable (and perhaps much more valuable) than being 'good' in the way I'm defining it. I probably should have avoided using the word good and said instead 'of an agreeable impulsive nature' or something of the like.
For your first point, maybe I'm not representative. Still, I can be repulsed by a majority of people (hey, I think people are a little ridiculous for believing in God, and that's a pretty vast majority). Whether it's human nature or not, it's not mine. I'm not advocating that other people should have a distaste for this impulse, just saying I do.
2. Again, I don't think being ethical is less important than being good in most aspects of life, and as it can be controlled and has more tangible effects, I think it's probably more important. I'm talking about what I look for in people I'm close with. I couldn't care less about the impulses of strangers. Frankly, I'd hate to have a husband who wanted to sleep with someone else but didn't because he knew it'd be wrong. The desire IS the action, the way I see it. I'm super-female in that I value emotional loyalty much more than physical loyalty.
A'ight, it's been good procrastinating with you!
Post a Comment