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.

‘He was wearing a martial arts suit in his picture and I’d been doing some promotional work for martial arts in the UK,’ she explains.

‘We seemed to have a lot in common and, to be honest, looking at his picture, I fancied him.’

Katie%20Piper%202.jpg Daniel%20Lynch%202.jpg
Katie Piper and the creature she fancied

“I fancied him.” The way Katie Piper recounts it now, apparently with no criticism of the trivial and trivializing reaction that led her to embark instantly on a sexual relationship with a psychotic thug who destroyed her life, suggests that she has learned nothing from her inconceivably horrible ordeal.

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.

- end of initial entry -

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.

She sounds like an absolute child, someone hardly capable of taking care of herself or making remotely sensible judgments about the world around her. Which is pretty much exactly the sort of woman that liberal society produces, and is intended to. It’s exactly as Allan Bloom said—the effect of liberal propaganda and multiculturalist dogma is NOT to make people more curious and knowledgeable about the Other. It’s to render them utterly incurious and ignorant about the Other, and thus susceptible to annihilation by him.

LA replies:

“It’s to render them utterly incurious and ignorant about the Other, and thus susceptible to annihilation by him.”

I would point out that the first half of that sentence comes from Bloom, the second half from Mr. McLaughlin.

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?

(Lest a reader allege that I’m intimating “she asked for it”—not at all. I just found the juxtaposition of her disfigurement and her cleavage in that first photo a bit jarring.)

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.

This is one of the sicker lines from that story about the woman who had acid thrown in her face:

And what of Lynch? ‘Danny was sick. He may have taken away what was once important to me but, cheesy as it sounds, I am a better person for it. And he couldn’t take away my spirit. I love my life and I know that I have a future now, and it’s a wonderful feeling.

Even after having had her face melted away at the hands of some creep, she still has liberal tendencies.

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

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):