The savage jungle into which liberalism delivers young women
Mark Richardson expands on the meaning of the story I posted yesterday about the young British model, Katie Piper, whose face was destroyed by a sulfuric acid attack ordered by a black man, Daniel Lynch, with whom she had started an affair two weeks earlier, not knowing that he had a criminal record and had once thrown boiling water in a man’s face. Richardson breaks down the hierarchy of a woman’s evaluation of a man into three levels, marriage, romantic love, and sex, showing that the first level, and to a lesser extent the second, would lead a woman to inspect a man’s character and background before getting close to him, and also, in the case of marriage, her family would be checking the man out; but that if sex is the only issue, then any concern about the man’s character, not to mention any involvement by the woman’s family in the vetting process, is out the window. All that matters is the woman’s personal, unmediated impulses. As reported in the Mail:
When 33-year-old Daniel Lynch, a martial arts enthusiast, emailed Katie to say he’d been following her career, she admits she was instantly attracted.
Katie Piper and the creature she fancied
Also, I may be misunderstanding the British idiom “to fancy someone,” but it seems to me that the title of Richardson’s blog entry, “She found him handsome?”, understates the purely sexual nature of Katie Piper’s attraction in Daniel Lynch. “Handsomeness” implies not just looks, but qualities of maturity, character, completeness in a man. It touches on the “second” level of the hierarchy, romantic love. But “I fancied him” suggests nothing but a sensual, transient response, like saying, “I saw a delicious looking candy and had a yen to taste it.” It reduces the object of one’s interest to nothing but its turn-on appeal.
Sage McLaughlin writes:
What disturbs me most about this unfortunate (and foolish) woman’s remarks is that it seemed to her that they “had a lot in common.” Really? What thing of the remotest importance did she and an African brute whose principal hobby was the systemization of physical violence have in common? She did some modeling in a martial arts uniform, so … what? It’s pretty hard to imagine two people who speak the same language having less in common than those two.LA replies:
“It’s to render them utterly incurious and ignorant about the Other, and thus susceptible to annihilation by him.”LL, a female reader, writes:
Do you find it disconcerting, yet utterly consistent with the theme of deliberately induced liberal naivete, that this young woman, despite the atrocity infllicted upon her by this urban primitive, still dresses so provocatively?LA replies:
It’s not about her, it’s about mostly everyone today. Most people today are insensibly immersed in the attitudes, assumptions, behaviors, cultural tastes, and styles of dress that reflext the liberal belief in the autonomy of the self, particularly sexual autonomy, as the highest good. The excessively revealing female dress that is so common in today’s society carries the unspoken but unmistakable message: there is no God.Sam H. writes:
Thanks for your blog.LA replies:
While I criticized some of Katie Piper’s comments, I can’t agree with this criticism. The fact that this young woman, having had her face destroyed and rebuilt, is feeling hopeful about life, not destroyed as a human being, is pretty wonderful. To say that going through a terrible experience has made oneself a better person is not a liberal thing to say.October 21
Sam H. replies:
Part of your interpretation is right depending on which way you approach her words. Her optimism & spirit are great and I applaud that. Her words that peeved me the most were: … “I am a better person for it.” Unbelievable. Maybe on a psychological level a person has to tell oneself that if they go through such a tragedy—the pain, the operations, her face destroyed—but it is obviously an untruth.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 20, 2009 01:03 PM | Send