« Never Say I Didn't Do Anything for the Democratic Left | Main | Song Lyric »

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.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The "Passion", Revisited:

» You know from Letters of Marque
Anthony Rickey and I haven't had a flame war in a long time, but it's hot here, and I figured that a little conflagration wouldn't go amiss. So here goes. It's just one of those things. Someone says something. You... [Read More]

» The Post That Will Not Die from Crescat Sententia
This flip comment by me (about libertarian women), (my further thoughts here), which inspired this dubious 40-comment thread on Amber Taylor's blog, has found new life at Anthony Rickey's blog and Heidi Bond's (see, especially-- or don't--her comments)... [Read More]

» From false dichotomy to friendly disagreement from The Slithery D
Libertarians, sex, but sadly no videotape: [Read More]

» Blawging Around from ambivalent imbroglio
For some time (19 weeks, it seems), Notes from the (Legal) Underground has featured a nice little weekly column its esteemed author, Evan Schaeffer, calls the "Weekly Law School Roundup." The latest edition is chock-full of terrific links, such as a li... [Read More]

» Pseudo-syllogisms and Certified Questions from Crescat Sententia
1: Terry Teachout has never asked a woman out simply because she was cute. 2: Heidi Bond thinks running Linux makes one sexy. Q: Would Heidi Bond ever ask a man out simply because he ran Linux? UPDATE: 1: Anthony... [Read More]

Comments

Is this entire (non-)issue as stupid as it seems at first glance ?
To an extent, yes. To an extent, I'm annoyed at the tendency of certain people to makes slights of others--generally religious people--without expressing an iota of understanding about them. Having seen a lot of it about lately, it's beginning to grate on my nerves.
I understand that grating feeling. Acutely.
Spencer: If the above is meant to imply you've been misquoted or misinterpreted, you're welcome to explain. I'm happy to amend the quotation I've used from you in any manner you please consistent with your original argument.
What the hell does Edmund Burke have to do with anything?
Simon: My error. I meant Hayek--not completely libertarian, but closer to the mark--and said Burke. I'll correct it when I log in tomorrow.
Well, let me say first, Anthony, that I'm not a libertarian. Which makes my perspective on the issue not one of self-congratulation but one of good-natured, & light-hearted, agreement. And also makes me a less-than-valid reason for abandoning the Libertarian party. (I can certainly give you better ones.) If you're arguing that ideology/politics aren't defining with regard to sex, well, of course you're correct. Jack Ryan certainly proves that imagination isn't the sole domain of the left or the libertarian. My issue is that you've picked up on the issue of 'ideologizing the bedroom' without noting the absurdity inherent in the argument -- no one was taking it all that seriously. Will, for instance, is interning in D.C. for the summer -- his enthusiasm isn't unlike that of someone who vacations somewhere & comes back believing that the women there are the finest he's ever been around (the claims are all qualified by 'in my experience'.) I can say the "women of Boulder, Colorado are the finest, sexiest, most interesting women" when I get back from visiting my cousin & no one's going to truly believe that I think that Coloradans are absolutely better than, say, women from Georgia. The whole discussion was tongue-in-cheek. A chance to argue the irrational & unprovable. None of us involved thought we were truly defining anyone. And most were simply taken with the game/exercise of 'politicizing' passion. Perhaps, in the end, the opportunity costs of sleeping with libertarians is simply lower than that of sleeping with members of the Moral Majority. Perhaps (certainly, in fact) all ideologies have the potential to get 'super freaky' in the bedroom... but many of us will never know because we aren't willing to go to the proper lengths to find out. Who knows? But more importantly, why the Speakers' Corner-like indignation over something so insignificant? (And, too, I prefer not to be accused - even by association - of denigrating religion or the religious when there's not a shred of evidence that I ever have.)
Spencer: If you remember, this all started when Amber decided I had been 'too vague' when I merely echoed Baude's use of the term 'passion.' That annoyed me. Now of course, you were all being quite flip. But if you recall, I hate flippancy for exactly this reason: one doesn't have to make an argument, one then weasels because the incomplete argument can be--as it was meant to be--subject to multiple interpretations, and essentially tries to have one's cake and eat it too. And of course, if the levity is at someone else's expense--as Amber's was at mine--oh well, who cares, eh? It's 'humor.' And as for accusing you of denegrating religion: are you content to apply the same standards to me that you do to Will? Because if you are, you have to admit that I've merely made a comment about my own personal experiences, and I think we can both agree that you and I have never had a relationship. (Though that would cause some scandal, surely.) And certainly you're not going to argue that the Libertarian Party doesn't have its lot of rather hard-core agnostics, many of whom are--arguably--quite intolerant of religion. But, for the record, no such accusation intended, and retracted if anyone drew it.
No harm done, certainly. And I'm willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt -- I truly don't know many libertarians & wouldn't be surprised if many showed the same disdain for religion that many liberals do. That being said... there was an undercurrent of nastiness that began to creep into the dialogue. It didn't seem necessary. I am aware that you were responding to a perceived slight. However, the tone of your response -- sharp, acidic, serious -- was likely the reason for any backpeddling. Who wants to strike back when they don't really care about the issue at hand? How do you defend with your life something said in off-handed jest? Any way -- there are arguments & conflicts here that are more the domain of those involved than mine...I'll step back into the shadows. Best...
Wow. Just ... wow.
The title of your post annoyed me. So who started it now? Now that we've established that we annoy each other, let's just agree never to do this again. It hasn't been fun. I am frequently flippant, so I you might wish to avoid my blog. No future posts will address you.
Perhaps it did. Then again, one might think it wise to have mentioned that sooner? Nevertheless, the discussion is now... closed.

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

cover
D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
cover
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Shopping

Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students