interesting blog i found
im still tring to decypher these thoughts...
She was very young, and too pretty for her own good. He discussed with James at some length the problem of beauty in a woman, and whether it was her fault that her strength was not equal to her temptations. "This strength," Chen said, "might actually be greater than that of an ugly woman, but the ugly woman is praised for a self-control which may in fact be very slight indeed."
This is an excerpt from the book I'm reading for the second time. It's Kinfolk by Pearl S. Buck. If an attractive woman is propositioned many times in her life, either she accepts the first proposal of her life, or she becomes accustomed to them, and takes each as an opportunity not to be directly exploited. Or she takes advantage of each proposition in equality.
In the first case, I think the woman is naive. She honestly does not think another proposal is coming to her because of an external or internal flaw. Or her impatience and desire to live with the valued reputation of purity and receive the benefits of a proposition outweighs the subsequent opportunities that may arise later.
In the second case, if a woman becomes used to suitors vying for her, she may decide to pick among her choices, either from a distance or personal relationship. Distance still gives the illusion of purity, but by a biblical standpoint, purity is in thought as well as action. If a woman was to discern between options by thought alone, she already has begun dismantling the human based on her needs and wants, and has not retained spiritual purity, though the body is sound.
In the last case, a woman who exploits every gift and benefit given to her has retained no level of purity, not even has she retained respect for another human. The loss of respect for gifts and adoration in an ostentatious display of ones own plummage is perhaps the greatest belittling of ones own nature, to use oneself as a commodity.
For the ugly woman, the first option is likely, the third option is unlikely, and the second even more so, however even a woman accounted unattractive by the standards of aesthetics has greater chances than woman of the time this book was written. Even an unattractive woman has much to offer, and an attractive woman her own set of flaws. I think today the point of attractive vs. unattractive is based less on visual aspect, and more founded on the comodities each party can bring to the shared household dish. Distemper and instability, wealth and status become magnified as our options for finding the elusive "soul mate" grow, and dissatisfaction can be easily rectified by the endless supply of dating websites who provide an infinite number of suitors.
The two kinds of women in this world have ceased to be enough anymore, and now the mother type must meld with the stimulating type. The woman who rasies her children must also stimulate a man's mind and give him ideas, while cooking his meals, and providing for his pleasure. One or the other is no longer enough, and when a man matures to the point he wants children, he can easily be lured back to his youth temporarily by the woman who reminds him his body chemistry remains the same vital intensity the length of his life, while his wifes vitality grows old and falls into disrepair before his own. What point is there in denying his body of its natural want? Because like women, man want to be viewed with respect and degrees of adoration. As long as the body and mind are satisfied in complete harmony, everything else follows. And does the body need to be satisfied by the same woman who satisfies the mind? Either the two types of women are happy in their respective places, or one woman must find within herself a balence with which to balence her mate.
Self-control is generally ruled by external forces. Even one who guides their life by pure thought and actions cannot be forever unswayed by the world in which they live. Concessions are made with the misinterpretations of a society, and the general will of the immediate surroundings are enough to break down even the internal self. The will of a person to deprive themselves the comradery of less pure examples is determined by the ease with which they live their current values system. When one must work for their values, they are less valuable and a hinderance, and that is our nature.
She was very young, and too pretty for her own good. He discussed with James at some length the problem of beauty in a woman, and whether it was her fault that her strength was not equal to her temptations. "This strength," Chen said, "might actually be greater than that of an ugly woman, but the ugly woman is praised for a self-control which may in fact be very slight indeed."
This is an excerpt from the book I'm reading for the second time. It's Kinfolk by Pearl S. Buck. If an attractive woman is propositioned many times in her life, either she accepts the first proposal of her life, or she becomes accustomed to them, and takes each as an opportunity not to be directly exploited. Or she takes advantage of each proposition in equality.
In the first case, I think the woman is naive. She honestly does not think another proposal is coming to her because of an external or internal flaw. Or her impatience and desire to live with the valued reputation of purity and receive the benefits of a proposition outweighs the subsequent opportunities that may arise later.
In the second case, if a woman becomes used to suitors vying for her, she may decide to pick among her choices, either from a distance or personal relationship. Distance still gives the illusion of purity, but by a biblical standpoint, purity is in thought as well as action. If a woman was to discern between options by thought alone, she already has begun dismantling the human based on her needs and wants, and has not retained spiritual purity, though the body is sound.
In the last case, a woman who exploits every gift and benefit given to her has retained no level of purity, not even has she retained respect for another human. The loss of respect for gifts and adoration in an ostentatious display of ones own plummage is perhaps the greatest belittling of ones own nature, to use oneself as a commodity.
For the ugly woman, the first option is likely, the third option is unlikely, and the second even more so, however even a woman accounted unattractive by the standards of aesthetics has greater chances than woman of the time this book was written. Even an unattractive woman has much to offer, and an attractive woman her own set of flaws. I think today the point of attractive vs. unattractive is based less on visual aspect, and more founded on the comodities each party can bring to the shared household dish. Distemper and instability, wealth and status become magnified as our options for finding the elusive "soul mate" grow, and dissatisfaction can be easily rectified by the endless supply of dating websites who provide an infinite number of suitors.
The two kinds of women in this world have ceased to be enough anymore, and now the mother type must meld with the stimulating type. The woman who rasies her children must also stimulate a man's mind and give him ideas, while cooking his meals, and providing for his pleasure. One or the other is no longer enough, and when a man matures to the point he wants children, he can easily be lured back to his youth temporarily by the woman who reminds him his body chemistry remains the same vital intensity the length of his life, while his wifes vitality grows old and falls into disrepair before his own. What point is there in denying his body of its natural want? Because like women, man want to be viewed with respect and degrees of adoration. As long as the body and mind are satisfied in complete harmony, everything else follows. And does the body need to be satisfied by the same woman who satisfies the mind? Either the two types of women are happy in their respective places, or one woman must find within herself a balence with which to balence her mate.
Self-control is generally ruled by external forces. Even one who guides their life by pure thought and actions cannot be forever unswayed by the world in which they live. Concessions are made with the misinterpretations of a society, and the general will of the immediate surroundings are enough to break down even the internal self. The will of a person to deprive themselves the comradery of less pure examples is determined by the ease with which they live their current values system. When one must work for their values, they are less valuable and a hinderance, and that is our nature.