Time is money
Posted by aogTuesday, 26 August 2003 at 16:59 TrackBack Ping URL

The previous post reminds me of what I consider the stupidest concept in all of Robert Heinlein’s work (which is quite a strong statement). In Glory Road the female accoutrement of the main character expresses amazement that humans on Earth have prostitution. “Why”, she wonders, “would a woman charge for what she has in infinite supply?”. Even when I was young and read that I thought - “Jeebus, Heinlein, you have writing in infinite supply, why should I pay to read it?”.

Of course, the fundamentally fallacy is that no one has anything in infinite supply because we all have a finite life span. So any time spent doing one thing is time spent not doing anything else. That puts value on it. The RAH view here is a mirror image of the traditional view. Instead of sex being precious and special, it doesn’t even rate as high as flipping burgers, being singularly unworthy of remuneration. Given that the consequences of sex are potentially much larger than burger flipping, the traditional view made more sense to me, even as a libertarian.

Sorry, that’s been bottled up for a long time and is part of why I eventually just couldn’t read any more Heinlein. The Number of the Beast was the last straw. It was just such dreck that it cured me of ever picking up a Heinlein book again.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
JJ Wednesday, 27 August 2003 at 14:26

I have to ask. Why would the main character wear female clothing? That talks? Maybe you mean the less used definition of accoutrement as “equipment”. But what kind of female equipment talks?

[Yes. I am a complete moron. Just because comments post on the bottom on my site, I ASSumed they did here and posted this same message in the previous article. Now if I can only walk and chew gum at the same time.]

aog Wednesday, 27 August 2003 at 15:58

Yeah, I’ve tried to use the green horizontal rules to group the comments and posts. I like the author / permalink on top so it’s easier to get at.

I used “accoutrement” because the female character has no purpose except to be attached to the main character.

End of Discussion