Sam Heath
General Interest and Speculation

A blog about Personal Journals.
About samheath


Member Since:
March 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
September 05, 2008
Profile Views:
10250
Blog Views:
67189
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
The Weedpatch Gazette
Archives
June 06
July 06
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


samheath - > Sam Heath -> There Ain't Nothin' Like A Dame
There Ain't Nothin' Like A Dame

“There ain’t nothin’ like a dame!” You know, one of those alien creatures from Venus that motivates a man to put on a clean white shirt for.


In a politically correct America that line from South Pacific would call down the wrath of any number of organizations dedicated to obliterating the distinction between men and women. But trading the great musicals of which Wodehouse so well said was when poets worked in America for promiscuous sex and violence against women has done its part in corrupting what was once known as “romance.”


Girls are sugar and spice and everything nice, while boys are sniffles and snails and puppy dog tails. You know, when I was a boy I heartily resented that little jingle, but I was also taught girls were intended by God to be a civilizing influence on boys. I resented this as well since I considered myself to be civilized without any help from girls. That is until I met the right girl, the kind of girl that inspired that line from South Pacific.


I will never undervalue the effects of my wilderness experiences here in the Sequoia National Forest that had so much to do with the forming of my own character, the way I perceive life, the values I maintain, and I have written much on this theme. But it is in living life with others that gives the “voice” to our character. For example, as Thoreau pointed out, if you are not sharing with others the things that delight your own soul there is a missing dimension in your life; the real joy is not there. I very early learned what Henry meant when he said “What is nature to me if I have no one with whom to share it?”


Too many people today fail to find that sharing of mutual delights in their own lives. There has to be someone who gives the color and scent to the flowers, who will make the music meaningful, the moon and stars shine brightly, who makes life a living experience and redeems it from mere existence. The single most important thing to come from such a relationship is the learning to live for the benefit of others rather than selfishly.


The family is supposed to be the ultimate expression of sharing and living unselfishly. Obviously the color and scent of the flowers is there whether you notice them or not. But it is love that causes you to notice them in all their glory that gives real meaning and value to them, and “boy meets girl” resulting in a family should pass this lesson on to children.


Since I communicate with National Review, I found it refreshing a few years ago to read Anthony Lejeune following up my essays on the subject of romance in his article entitled “More Enchanted Evenings.” The excellent article added to my own thoughts on the subject of what I consider, with Lejeune, the greatest American art form of the twentieth century; the musical play.    


Lejeune paid homage to the genius of such great artists as Jerome Kern, Sigmund Romberg, Rudolf Friml, Victor Herbert, Rodgers and Hammerstein and mourned their passing echoing the words of Wodehouse “The musical-comedy lyric, an interesting survival of the days, long since departed, when poets worked.”


However, for the great Broadway musicals like Showboat and Oklahoma with their emphasis on True Love conquering all to survive required a national Ethos, which, with the betrayal of our nation by the evil leadership of an increasingly evil system of government, fell into dark decline. There remains no more “bright, golden haze on the meadow.” To have traded Younger Than Springtime for what we have today borders, to me, on sacrilege and speaks volumes for the conditions our young people face and the tragedy of their betrayal and loss.


But poets and philosophers do not flourish in ideological hatreds, in systems of evil where the value of the individual is sacrificed to the vulgar, common cry for unearned bread, in systems where slavery to such evils punishes all efforts to live responsibly and cheats a man of his manhood, victimizes a woman of her womanhood, and children of their childhood.


It takes a common culture to produce the great works of art, of love and romance, which the great Musicals exemplified. It requires the genius of that culture to produce hope of the ideals of commitment and fidelity being fulfilled, of a family being able to work with the hope that they are building a future for their children.


No one is more opposed to men taking advantage of women than I am. I have made my position abundantly clear in regard to the abuse of girls in our schools and society. But I have not lost sight of the fact society must accept the obvious that as long as our girls and women are encouraged to invite lust by the way they act, talk and dress, unless reasonable approaches to these things are faced and dealt with, such things will continue to provoke violence against them. One of the most devastating things we have to confront as a society is the continued attacks on marriage and family, the diabolical proliferation of pornography in the guise of “art” and “free speech.”


If a society and its leadership is going to force a mode of inviting and inciting the violence and lust of men by promoting pornography and as long as girls and women buy into such a thing and lend themselves to the encouragement of inviting and inciting such attacks upon them by selling themselves cheaply there will only be an escalation of such things no matter how many laws are passed.


Face it; if girls and women talk, dress and act like prostitutes, they are going to be treated as such no matter how they and “liberals” howl against the very abuse they are, in fact, subjecting themselves to. Our young girls are deceived and encouraged into dressing immodestly and “displaying their wares” long before they have the maturity to handle the power of their sex.


Then, when the situation gets out of hand, when the boys take advantage and respond according to their own nature both may become victims and, in too many cases, a baby and society in the form of ruined lives, welfare and disease has to pay the price for the wicked lack of morality and a hypocritical double standard and girls no longer have a civilizing influence on boys.


Rhett accused Scarlett of “throwing away happiness with both hands.” American society and its leadership seem to be intent on destroying any semblance of romance, of aiding Scarlett “throwing away happiness with both hands.”

Posted in these Groups:
Topics:
posted by samheath on Sunday, August 27, 2006 at 08:30 AM
Report a Violation
Viewed 383 times
31 comments from 11 users

1

posted by dgrealish on Aug 27, 2006 at 11:12 AM

Once again Sam, you speak from my heart.  As a member of the Fruitvale School Student Council, 1969-1970, we were given the task of deciding whether or not to change the dress code.  Girls were not allowed to wear pants or shorts to school.  Dresses and skirts or culottes with panels in the front and back disguising them were the accepted attire for girls.  In one of the meetings, a young man of 13 years spoke up and said he thought if the girls started wearing pants to school the boys would be inclined to treat them as equals.  He said that during recess sports which, being such a small school required both sexes to participate, he felt the boys might be rougher with the girls.  I was also 13 at the time, and this made sense to me.  Over the next few years, the dress code was changed, but we voted to keep it as it was.  Girl in dresses and the boys keeping them on a pedestal.  ( I know someone will come back and say "so they could look up their dresses", but that wasn't the case here.)

posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 27, 2006 at 11:15 AM
Or to put it in the words of Hillary Clinton, "it takes a village to raise a child." [G]
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 27, 2006 at 12:09 PM
Seriously, it was a nice piece.  I don't agree with some of the ideals that Sam shared, but to read someone's fond memories of how things used to be is a beautiful thing.

See, I don't consider that piece hateful.  Hate is like pornography; it's hard to define it concretely, but you recognize it when you see it.

And this wasn't hate.  It was just a man expressing his opinion.
posted by samheath on Aug 27, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Debra, we seem to be thrown on the dust hill of history and treated now as anachronisms destined for extinction. But as long as I am able to do so I'll speak and write of that time I knew and lived in an America that had a right to speak of virtue.
posted by TomW on Aug 27, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Well, Sam, you had me until you started talking about women inviting rape and abuse by dressing immodestly.  Are we as men not better than that?  I don't care what a woman wears, she has the right to control her body no matter what.  To blame them is to exonerate those people who refuse to control themselves.
posted by dgrealish on Aug 27, 2006 at 01:10 PM

I don't think Sam was talking about men, I believe he specifically said "when the situation gets out of hand, when the boys respond to their own nature".  Face it, you can walk through the mall, the marketplace, anywhere kids hang out and you don't have to guess which kids are likely to end up "in trouble".  I've seen girls with their mothers, both dressed like hookers and thought, boy the slut doesn't fall far from the tree.  When little girls are allowed to play dress-up at home, it's a great thing, but when they're allowed to take it out in public, it invites trouble.  And with all the hormones in our food these days, little girls are looking less like little girls at younger ages.  Let's try to keep them innocent as long as we can.

posted by samheath on Aug 27, 2006 at 01:21 PM
While I have a Ph. D. in Human Behavior I have learned you don't try to convince men of those things where their minds are obviously committed to the use and abuse of girls and women. Little JonBenet was exploited and is now mute testimony of the result of encouraging monsters in the guise of men. It only acerbates the situation when girls are encouraged to cheapen themselves by immodest dress and coarse language mistaking equal rights for equal value.
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 05:52 PM
Rhett, would probably have the same thing to say to you as he did to Scarlett in describing your senile rantings, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"!

Your PHD, by the way only attest to your talent, you can PILE the sh*t   HIGHER and DEEPER!
posted by tonyh on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:02 PM

SRobley's right,

You are a Cockroach...........

posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:13 PM
tonyh, if you consider Sroobely the Mexifly Ding Bat a good source, you are in trouble. But calling me names, does that mean you don't like me anymore sweetheart?

I guess I will have to include you along with Srobely as the survivors on of the nuclear holacaust along with Keith Richirds of the Stones, geez I dont ' know how a left this lovable lady out of the cockroach prediction.

Thanks for the reminder, love you sweetie.
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:15 PM
" That is until I met the right girl, the kind of girl that inspired that line from South Pacific" by that you mean, Belly High, of course, right Sam?
posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:17 PM
"Lejeune paid homage to the genius of such great artists as Jerome Kern, Sigmund Romberg, Rudolf Friml, Victor Herbert", you forgot Adolph Hitler, the inspirationn fot the National Review.
posted by NancyII on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:18 PM
The sad thing is that although certainly, a woman has control over her body.  We all know that.  And rape isn't about sex, it's about power.  The problem as I see it is that people perceive us by the way we look.  Big wide legged pants hanging around the hips with underwear showing brings up a thought of "gangbanger".  A young girl wearing micro mini skirts or pants down around thier lower hips with a crop top and low necklilne brings up the thought "hooker" or 'slut".

Boys (and some men) think of the girls that way and act on it.  It doesn't make it right..it doesn't make it fair..it just makes it the way it is.   Sometimes, just because we have "the right", it  doesn't make it the smartest thing to do.
I have the right to drive on any street in the middle of the night that I choose...but it isn't always the smartest thing to do.

Is there a certain amount of inequality here?  Of course there is.  But ya know..life isn't always fair.  I'd rather my daughters and granddaughters were safe rather than "right."

posted by anonymous on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:19 PM
" Face it; if girls and women talk, dress and act like prostitutes, they are going to be treated as such no matter how they and “liberals” howl against the very abuse they are, in fact, subjecting themselves to" have you been prowling Union Avenue  again Sam?.
posted by knoli on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:20 PM
I was tempted to let this slide, being another case of the ill educated society that I live in. However, upon the admittal of a PhD (in human behaviour at that) I do feel it necessary to challenge.

the quotes from your text:
"...society must accept the obvious that as long as our girls and women are encouraged to invite lust by the way they act, talk and dress, unless reasonable approaches to these things are faced and dealt with, such things will continue to provoke violence against them."
and:
"...Face it; if girls and women talk, dress and act like prostitutes, they are going to be treated as such no matter how they and “liberals” howl against the very abuse they are, in fact, subjecting themselves to."

Do you know the first thing that the
CobyBriant's defense asked the victim was "what was she wearing?'. If you want to get nostalgic, that's about as old school as it gets. Perhaps I am a complete misfit, but I can tell you without doubt, if I were to walk amongst women in string bikinis and prostitutes, this would not cause me to rape. Numero uno, Rape is a Man's Issue, not a woman's. True, they are left with the issue personally to resolve, yet the man initiates this violent act of superiority and violence-not sex or pornography-and will perpetuate them without intervention. And to reason that pornography is another underlying cause of rape is as unqualified of a statement as to say commercials about food cause obesity. It would be interesting to ponder that if we went into the house of a rapist, there might be pornography; however, it could be safe to guess that these people have underlying 'sexual addictions' that is fueling the use of their sex as violently as they do. Think about our previous President Clinton. If ever a man had nothing to gain and everything to lose by his indiscretion, this would be it. Addictions in sex are real, and in my opinion only, I believe a category or two of them might not be able to recover. But we'll save that for another article.

The main point is this: education is the key. Perhaps a few are just weak in moral fiber, but late night Showtime isn't to blame. These ideals are catapulting us back to the 40's or 50's, where if you wanted to know who committed the crime, just look around town at the minority or some other person who doesn't fit the 'mold of society'. 

as you stated :
"Then, when the situation gets out of hand, when the boys take advantage and respond according to their own nature both may become victims..."
this is as abominable of a defense for these vile acts as saying 'if i didn't have a gun, I wouldn't have used it on them'.

I would like to end this in something other than an what I would consider to be insulting to you, so I'll try. The cause and effect scenarios you are citing just don't have the real thought behind them and I challenge you to look deeper. It is my interest that people not create publications on why hate or violence is perpetrated justly, and to some extent I believe it is necessary not to just slap hands but ask, "why would you think that?".
posted by tonyh on Aug 27, 2006 at 06:20 PM

I don't consider SRobley anything other than just another bloger. I don't know the guy. You've earned my disrespect all by yourself, with all of the stupid, childish jabs that you take at anyone that you don't agree with. Now, I understand SRobley's comment about you not being a threat to anyone.


Man, you're a looser..........

posted by dgrealish on Aug 27, 2006 at 08:33 PM
Recently, at a family gathering, a 19 year old nephew brought a young lady of the same age whose dress was, to say the least, provocative.  There were young boys from 8 to 13 in attendance.  While the 8 year old hardly noticed, the 13 year old, much to his parents and grandparents (I'd be one) embarrassment, touched one of the young ladies breasts.  He was taken aside and given a serious talking to.  It wasn't as if he didn't know this was wrong.  But on the other hand, I believe this is what Sam talks about when he speaks of "when boys respond to their own nature".  It's so easy for us to blame the boy, in this case 13, and apologize to the girl, 19 who did nothing less than entice his behavior.  I've thought about this most of the day.  Earlier I said we should keep our girls innocent as long as possible.   It's just as important the boys are kept innocent as well.  I've talked to my daughter about this.  We can't insist on a dress code for the rest of the world, but we can for our part of it. 
posted by steveeswenson on Aug 28, 2006 at 01:49 PM
The problem here is of degree and the difference between sex and violence.

A woman dressed provocatively generally inspires the thought, "I'm going to get lucky tonight." But if she says no, that's the end of it.  It becomes a misunderstanding.

But it does not invite rape or violence. That's all in the man's head and his need to express his power and domination. Sexiness doesn't motivate that. 

And in the general scheme of things, it is not how a woman is dressed, but how vulnerable she is to attack.  Lots of women outside the starlet ranks have been victims of rape.

But to give Sam his due, what he is really saying is that women who dress provocatively tend to lessen the morals of society. More immoral thoughts to begin with.

Having said that, how a woman dresses is never an invitation for abuse. And in that context, how they dress is their decision on  comfortable they feel with how they look.

Men, on the other hand, need to be taught to respect women. Mutual pleasure is exquisite. Anything else is a crime.
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 02:22 PM
tonyh, you have earned my disrespect as well sweetheart as you can tell. But I will not call you a loser, I will leave that up to your friends and family, they know you better, than I ever will.
Hey and if you had asked I would have told you, I never threaten anyone, I just point out their real feelings and that makes them feel threatened.

In fact whan asked   I say I'm Swiss, that way I offend no one, sweetie. What can I say, you are not a loser, you are a weiner!!
posted by MyLefteFoot on Aug 28, 2006 at 02:38 PM

As long as Sam continues to argue that it's male horomones that make men commit rape rather than their poorly defined self image and rage,  women and children will continue to be the victims of predators.
Tribal women wear nothing at all but the incidence of rape in primitive people is almost nil.  

Rapist allow themselves to commit the act and then blame it on the woman/child.   Let's get over this ignorant view of abuse.

Knoli and Steve - Good posts!

posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 02:53 PM
You guys are not Rush fans, this is Rush's argument with as he call them the femmenazis.
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:00 PM
dgrealish, you in seductive clothing are still not attractive and would probably drive a masher to suicide, so how can you judge?
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:04 PM
You don't come close to hand work, and that is a fact!
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:12 PM
Yawn...

yawn
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:21 PM
Yeah, momma that could be it, but is isn't. You know Muslims have suicide bombers because when they reach martyrdom the get 72 virgins, but Christians will never have suicide bombers because they too could have 72 virgin, the drawback, they would all look like you dgrealish, geez their has to be better way to go. Bummer.
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:25 PM
I forgot size does count with you sweetheart, sorry I never promised to make you cry, who am I Tom Jones?.
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:28 PM
Forgive me sweetheart, I promised not to tell.
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:34 PM
dgrealish, don't be coy, you know what step we are on, we do it together oops I promised not to tell. Any way to me you are beautiful, but sometimes my judgement is not that good, I also love dogs.
posted by Hardliner4freedom on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:43 PM
With this silly pissing contest rolling right along, all the meaningful posts are being scrolled off the bottom of the "new Comments" list.
posted by anonymous on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Yea I agree this will have to end the conversion with the miss universe contestant from Uranus, before I offend PETA,  I also aplogize to all dogs, they deserve better, sorry.
posted by TomW on Aug 28, 2006 at 03:52 PM

Yeah, and my comments are scrolling off with them.

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, please enter the text from the image on the left.
   

Our readers recommend: