Comments on: Don’t heed this maxim

By: theselittleones

theselittleones — Sun, 18 May 2008 08:44:33 +0000

Gotta love the English language.

How any foreigner learns to speak and write English well is beyond me.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Sun, 18 May 2008 03:04:26 +0000

Wiglaf: I said FOR, not WITH. They could show real beauty but they substitute this manufactured facade FOR it.

Your “corrected” version is the one that says what you think my wording says.

I suppose semantically and logically it can be confusing. If you replace “substituting” with “exchanging” or “replacing”, then your statement definitely looks like you didn’t mean what you said.

Well yes, IF I had said “exchanging” or “replacing” you’d have a point. But I didn’t.

When you substitute A for B, you take out B and put A in its place.

When you exchange A for B, you give away A and take B instead.

They are different words with different meanings, and I said what I meant to begin with.

Report comment to moderator

By: Karen O

Karen O — Sun, 18 May 2008 01:35:23 +0000

Wiglaf – If your statement was substituting real beauty with manufactured…, then I’d agree. But your statement is substituting one for the other, so in that case, I agree with Steve’s version.

Report comment to moderator

By: Wiglaf

Wiglaf — Fri, 16 May 2008 17:29:27 +0000

STEVEG says: “The only sin here is substituting manufactured, antiseptic uniformity for real beauty.”

This statement means that you are saying the sin is replacing antiseptic uniformity with real beauty. That’s incorrect from what you meant. You should have said:
The only sin here is substituting real beauty for manufactured, antiseptic uniformity.

Report comment to moderator

By: StuBob

StuBob — Fri, 16 May 2008 15:03:59 +0000

An excellent book on the subject is False Intimacy by Harry W. Schaumburg.

SteveG is right. And not only are they substituting for beauty, they’re subbing for relationship. These women, though not really available, are kind of available and really safe.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:55:29 +0000

Wiglaf: No, I said what I meant. The images of women in Maxim and similar magazines are “manufactured, antiseptic uniformity.”

Those magazines are offering that in place of genuine beauty.

Report comment to moderator

By: Dav

Dav — Fri, 16 May 2008 14:45:33 +0000

“Sin is almost always the result of a weak imagination.”
Care to expound on that a little? I’m not sure I buy into that…

Report comment to moderator

By: Dragonhunter

Dragonhunter — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:46:57 +0000

All these rags like Maxim are is “entry level porn.” It teaches little Johnny to like the idea of a woman without having to know a woman, and he soon learns to satisfy his sexual urges himself with this image. Once a scantily-clad one doesn’t fit the thrill, he’s off to Playboy, or more likely these days, the internet.

Sexuality is so distorted in todays culture, it is really…amazing.

Oh, and a half-naked woman isn’t the only one that can be objectified. Look at the thousands of Muslim women covered head-to-toe, yet also treated purely as objects….again by selfish males,

Report comment to moderator

By: Karen O

Karen O — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:55:44 +0000

Wiglaf – Good point in #3.

My 19-yr. old niece gets on her soapbox about the objectification of women in our society, all the while wearing a very low-cut top, exposing much of her ample cleavage.

“Objectification of women in our society.” Is there any society or culture that doesn’t do this in some form or other?