The "Passion", Revisited
While I'm on the subject of passion: some of you will remember that I criticized Will Baude for equating a working knowledge of Hayek with skill in the bedroom. Baude has sensibly backed away from his original contention, mainly through a lot of 'you can't say that's what I said' half-measures, but some others have been willing press the particular point that libertarian women are the new Shullamites [1], in particular Amber Taylor:
On topic, can anyone convincingly argue that the ladies of Heritage have as much fun as the Cato crew? I've met people who work at conservative DC think tanks, and the gals who are "waiting for marriage" alone bring down the passion index before we even consider and overall quantity & quality ranking. Even moderate "for thee but not for me" conservatives hurt them in this contest. I can't speak to the passion of left wing ladies in DC, but find Spencer's argument persuasive if not entirely convincing.
Spenser's argument, to save you the trouble of looking:
Give me an ideology that doesn't try to legislate the bedroom AND isn't dampered by political correctness's wet blanket anyday.
And people ask why I don't go to Libertarian events. Will's contention was that any given individual libertarian is more 'passionate' in the bedroom, and yet we get to a question of essentially which of two think tanks have more sex. [2] This is trying to measure a poem with a protractor, and ought to put paid to the libertarian contention right there. Then there's the idea that wanting to 'legislate in the bedroom' makes anyone less interested or skilled therein. This would have puzzling consequences for the concept of sin, but I won't bother with that here.
I thought of giving this line of argument the thorough shellacking it deserves, but realized that I'd been beaten to the punch by C. S. Lewis and his ever-useful Screwtape, speaking to the Tempter's Training College:
Your dreaded Principal has included in a speech full of points something like an apology for the banquet which he has set before us. Well, gentledevils, no one blames him. But it would be in vain to deny that the human souls on whose anguish we have been feasting tonight were of pretty poor quality. Not all the most skillful cookery of our tormentors could make them better than insipid....Then there was the lukewarm Casserole of Adulterers. Could you find in it any trace of a fully inflamed, defiant, rebellious, insatiable lust? I couldn't. They all tasted to me like undersexed morons who had blundered or trickled into the wrong beds in automatic response to sexy advertisements, or to make themselves feel modern and emancipated, or to reassure themselves about their virility or their "normalcy," or even because they had nothing else to do. Frankly, to me who have tasted Messalina and Cassanova, they were nauseating.
(from Screwtape Proposes a Toast)
Mere experience with the libertine does not correspond to passion, nor does a knowledge or respect for religion and its strictures remove the passion from one's soul. One would have thought that was obvious, especially for anyone who's read the aforementioned Song of Songs. Of course, that's one of the things that drove me away from libertarianism in the first place: it would be out of place for any gentleman to talk of their libertarian partner's skills in the bedroom, but many of my own have displayed a casual disregard for religious sentiment, a disregard that I've rarely found to be based in much actual knowledge of the subject.
UPDATE: A few links fixed/added, and some typos corrected. And, FWIW, deleted some excess trackbacks.
UPDATE II: Originally the second link above read "a working knowledge of Edmund Burke. As many pointed out (see comments, and I got some emails, and Baude mentions it--see Trackbacks), Burke wasn't a Libertarian. For some reason, the brain said 'Hayek' (who at least I consider Libertarian) and the fingers typed 'Burke.' My mistake.
[1]: As I recall, the Shullamite is the female character in the Song of Songs, and I've seen the name used to refer to the purported authoress. One would think she qualifies for a passionate woman. If I've used it incorrectly here, please excuse me, and corrections are welcome in the comments.
[2]: Of course, I'd not make any statements as to who's actually having more sex, as opposed to speaking of it more, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the Liber(tine/tarian) Lobby has data not at my disposal.
Comments
Posted by: Bateleur | July 24, 2004 12:14 PM
Posted by: A. Rickey | July 24, 2004 12:45 PM
Posted by: Spencer | July 24, 2004 1:39 PM
Posted by: A. Rickey | July 24, 2004 10:36 PM
Posted by: Simon | July 25, 2004 9:08 AM
Posted by: A. Rickey | July 25, 2004 10:44 AM
Posted by: Spencer | July 25, 2004 11:26 AM
Posted by: A. Rickey | July 25, 2004 11:35 AM
Posted by: Spencer | July 25, 2004 11:50 AM
Posted by: 2L | July 26, 2004 2:38 AM
Posted by: Amber | July 26, 2004 7:52 AM
Posted by: A. Rickey | July 26, 2004 8:21 AM